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
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for conditional use approval from Respondent for the package sale of beer, wine and liquor (4-COP) at 2779 Gulf-To-Bay Boulevard, Clearwater, Florida, on or after September 4, 1987. The subject property is zoned general commercial (CG), and conditional use approval is required for package sales on property zoned CG. Conditional use approval was previously granted for this property on June 30, 1987, to allow on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages, but this prior approval is not under review in this proceeding. On October 13, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to deny Petitioner's application for the package sale of beer, wine and liquor. Petitioner has timely sought review of the Planning and Zoning Board decision. It is undisputed that the subject property is less than 500 feet from an adult congregate living facility (ACLF) which constitutes the residence of approximately 300 persons. Frank Pascoe, the President and representative of the ACLF, testified about the residents' concerns about security, and the adverse impact of this application on the general welfare of their neighborhood. Paula Harvey, Planning Director, testified about the adverse impacts of this application on neighborhood noise, traffic and parking. Ordinance 4470-87 applies to this application since said Ordinance, by its terms, governs applications filed subsequent to September 3, 1987. Petitioner offered no evidence in support of its application. Specifically, there is no evidence in the record favorable to the applicant concerning noise, parking and the compatibility of this application with the neighborhood.
Findings Of Fact Applicant proposes to construct a project identified as the Belcher Road Project CC52-6944, located in Pinellas county, Florida, along the Belcher Road corridor from Sunset Point Road (SR-588) north to Willow Tree Trail. The project includes construction of a six land divided highway facility along an unimproved dirt road within the right-of-way of Belcher Road. In order to undertake the project, Applicant is required to obtain a complex air source permit as required by Rule 17-2.05(8), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioners are residents and property owners living in Woodgate subdivision which is located near the northern-most terminus of the project where it intersects Willow Tree Trail. If constructed, the proposed project will increase the volume of traffic in the neighborhood of Woodgate subdivision, and will have some impact on the qualify of the ambient air in the vicinity of property which Petitioners own or reside upon. Applicant filed an application for a complex air source permit with DER on July 6, 1978. Although the original application did not include a certification by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida, this certification as provided by letter dated September 28, 1978. Applicant supported its application with data including estimates of pollutants that would be emitted from automobiles utilizing the completed highway, and concentrations of carbon monoxide along the highway corridor using computer modeling techniques. Among the computer models utilized was Mobile I, which is used to predict emissions of automobile-related pollutants based upon various categories of traffic data. Included in the Mobile I computer program were various factors including highway speed, traffic volumes, vehicle mix, "cold" versus "hot" starts, ambient air temperature, and pavement height. Emission factors generated form this computer model result in predicted pollutant loadings in grams per vehicle mile. Figures concerning average vehicle speed and average daily traffic for the proposed facility were obtained from Pinellas County Planning Department. This information, submitted in conjuction with the application, established ambient air temperature, and pavement height. Emission factors generated from this computer model result in predicted pollutant loadings in grams per vehicle mile. Figures concerning average vehicle speed and average daily traffic for the proposed facility were obtained from* he Pinellas County Planning Department. This information, submitted in conjunction with the application, established average speeds for one, eight, and twenty-four hour conditions for the years 1979-1988. Average speeds for one hour conditions along the proposed highway are 30 mph for 1979 and 27 mph for 1988. Average speeds for eight hour conditions is estimated to be 31 mph for 1979 and 29 mph for 1988. Average speeds for twenty-four hour conditions is estimated to be 31 mph for 1979 and 29 mph for 1988. Average speeds for twenty-four hour conditions will be 32 mph for 1979 and 31 mph for 1988. These average speeds, when combined with other data indicated above, are placed into the Mobile I computer program to obtain total emission factors. The result of this program is then run through a computer program known as Caline II. The Caline II program is a basic diffusion model designed to estimate concentrations of carbon monoxide at various points along and distances from a roadway. This computer model is a mathematical equation that simulates or predicts the concentration of pollutants at various points after they are released from their source and allowed an opportunity to mix with the atmosphere. The results of the Caline II computer model indicate that in this case, under "worst case conditions" the highest one hour concentration of carbon monoxide will occur at the intersection of Belcher Road an descent Point Road. The ambient concentration at that point is expected to be 15.2 ppm, which represents 43% of the DER ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxide. The highest eight hour average occurred at this same intersection, and indicated an expectation of 4.5 ppm, which represent 50% of the DER ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxide. No computer model was used to project expected concentrations of hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, photochemical oxidants or other pollutants expected to be associated with the project, because no such computer model is presently available which is acceptably accurate to project concentrations of those polluntant. However, extrapolating from the above date for carbon monoxide reasonable predictions for these related pollutants can be made since carbon monoxide serves as a controlling pollutant indicating expected concentration levels for other pollutants. Under circumstances present in this case, it is reasonable to base a projection for hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxide, and phochemical oxidants upon the data projecting carbon monoxide ambient air concentration. Utilizing this analysis, studies submitted in support of the application by the applicant affirmatively established that ambient air qualify standards for hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and photochemical oxidants will not be violated as a result of the construction of the project.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, determining that the requested complex air source permit for the project be issued, dismissing the petitions of Petitioners Nancy Morgan, Virginia Elkins, Gregory M. Elkins, Geneva Acker, Robert Acker, Rosemary Latchford, and Margaret W. Barrick, and denying the relief requested by Petitioners David Morgan, Maureen Benussi, John D. Aguiar, Mary L. Aguiar, Florence Presti, Robert H. Heintz, Elsa C. Heintz, Albert F. Latchford and Henry T. Barrick. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of March, 1979, Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 2230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 1979.
The Issue This proceeding was conducted pursuant to Section 120.57, F.S., to determine whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) should grant a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) air construction permit for Florida Power & Light Company's (FPL's) Manatee Orimulsion Conversion Project (Project), and if such a permit is granted, what conditions should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact General Project Description FPL proposes to convert its existing 1600 megawatt (MW) power plant in Manatee County, Florida (the Plant), to the use of Orimulsion. The existing Plant currently operates only on relatively expensive low-sulfur fuel oil. The conversion of the Plant to the use of Orimulsion will realize significant savings in fuel costs to FPL's customers because Orimulsion will be supplied at prices much lower than the current costs for the fuel oil burned at the Plant. As a result, the Project will allow FPL to increase the average annual capacity factor of the Plant from its historical level of 30 percent up to 87 percent. Orimulsion is a mixture of bitumen, a heavy hydrocarbon, and water. Orimulsion is produced in Venezuela and will be supplied to FPL under a 20-year contract with Bitor America Corporation (Bitor). The new fuel will be shipped by Bitor America to Tampa Bay, unloaded by FPL at an existing FPL fuel terminal at Port Manatee, and sent to the Plant via an existing pipeline. The Project will involve installation of new pollution control equipment, new combustion controls, and efficiency enhancements to the existing boilers. The air pollution control equipment will be designed and constructed by Pure Air, a partnership of Air Products and Chemicals Inc. and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America Inc. Pure Air of Manatee, a subsidiary of Air Products and Chemicals, will operate the pollution control equipment. Other than this equipment and ancillary facilities, few changes to the existing plant itself will be required. Project Site and Vicinity The site of the Project is within the existing 9,500-acre Plant site. This site is located in the unincorporated, north-central area of Manatee County, Florida. The site is approximately 15 miles northeast of Bradenton and 25 miles southeast of Tampa. The site is located north of State Road 62 and approximately 5 miles east of both the community of Parrish and U.S. 301. Saffold Road marks the eastern boundary of the 9,500-acre site while an FPL- owned railroad line is along the western boundary of the site. The Little Manatee River flows through the northern boundary of the Plant site. Existing Plant and Facilities The Plant currently consists of two oil-fired generating units of 800 MW each, for a total generating capacity of 1600 MW. The first unit went into service in October 1976, and the second unit in December, 1977. Electricity is generated in the existing units by combusting fuel in the boilers. The heat of combustion converts water in the boiler tubes to high pressure steam. This steam drives a large steam turbine which is connected to an electrical generator. Electricity then flows out to the existing switchyard and out of the site over the existing transmission lines. The Plant currently burns low-sulfur No. 6 fuel oil with a sulfur content no greater than 1 percent. No. 6 fuel oil is principally the residue of operations in which light and medium crude oils are fractionally distilled and processed to produce gasoline, diesel fuel, and other products. As the "bottom of the barrel," No. 6 fuel oil is a heavy viscous material from which higher value products can no longer be economically recovered. The Plant is also currently permitted to burn No. 2 fuel oil, natural gas, and on-specification used oil from FPL operations. Existing controls for air emissions include several combustion techniques within the boiler to minimize formation of nitrogen oxides (NOx). Particulate matter (PM) from fuel combustion is controlled using mechanical dust collectors that use centrifugal force to remove PM from the flue gas. Emissions of sulfur compounds, such as sulfur dioxide (SO2), are controlled only by limiting the sulfur content of the fuel oil. Orimulsion Conversion Project Modified and New Facilities Conversion to Orimulsion will involve changes to several of the existing facilities and the installation of new equipment, principally for the control of air emissions. Enhancements to heat transfer surfaces within the existing boilers will allow them to operate more effectively and efficiently with the firing of Orimulsion. Orimulsion is an emulsion composed of approximately 70 percent bitumen and 30 percent water, with less than 0.65 percent additives, including a nonylphenol polyethoxylate surfactant. The surfactant in Orimulsion comprises approximately .17 percent (+/- .02 percent) by weight of Orimulsion, and may be increased in the future to as much as .2 percent (+/- .02 percent), for a maximum of .22 percent. Orimulsion is currently used as a boiler fuel in 6 power plants in England, Denmark, Japan and Canada. After conversion, FPL may use high-sulfur fuel oil (HSFO) with maximum sulfur content of 3.0 percent, as an alternative fuel at the Plant if Orimulsion is not available. Low-sulfur fuel oil will also be an alternative fuel. No. 2 fuel oil, natural gas and/or propane may be fired during unit startup. On- specification used oil from FPL operations may also be fired. Within the boilers, the existing fuel burners will be replaced with new low-NOx burners that will control the formation of NOx during combustion. Reburn technology also will be installed in both boilers to stage the combustion process and further minimize the formation of NOx. The new low-NOx burners and reburn fuel injectors will replace the existing NOx controls for the Plant. Two electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) will be installed for each generating unit to control particulate matter (PM) resulting from fuel combustion. The ESPs remove PM by passing it through an electrical field. A negative charge is placed on the PM, causing it to migrate toward positively charged plates in the ESP. The PM collects on the surface of the plates and is periodically removed by rapping the plates, causing the layer of collected dust to shake loose and fall to compartments at the bottom of the ESP as flyash. Approximately 90 percent of the PM entering the ESP will be removed. The ESPs also will remove toxic substances from the flue gas. Following the ESPs, a flue gas desulfurization (FGD) unit, or scrubber, will remove SO2 and other sulfur compounds from the flue gas. Flue gas enters the scrubber where it meets a limestone/water slurry mixture and the limestone reacts with the SO2, forming calcium sulfate or gypsum. The water and gypsum fall into a tank at the bottom of the scrubber. The clean flue gas then passes through a mist eliminator, which recovers some of the water vapor in the flue gas. The clean flue gas then exits the Plant via the existing chimneys or stacks. The scrubber will remove 95 percent of the SO2 formed during combustion. ESPs and scrubbers are well-proven technologies that have been in use for more than 30 years. Limestone used in the scrubber will be delivered by truck to the site. It will be transferred to a receiving hopper and then into on-site limestone storage silos, which will provide three days of storage. A backup limestone storage pile, providing 30 days of supply, will also be established to insure limestone availability if deliveries are interrupted. The limestone will be processed in a ball mill, combining it with water and grinding it to a fine consistency to create the limestone slurry used in the scrubber system. Measures will be taken during delivery and transfer of limestone to control emissions of PM and fugitive dust that might be generated. These measures include covered trucks, paving of on-site roadways and use of covered transfer conveyors. The limestone will be moist when received and therefore will not be dusty. However, water sprays will be used on the open storage pile if it gets dusty from prolonged dry periods. Project Construction and Schedule Construction of the Project will require approximately two years. Following permit approval, construction would commence with the relocation of existing equipment and the installation of foundations for the new pollution control equipment. During initial construction, the Plant would still be operated. For the last 90 days of construction the Plant would cease operation and FPL would undertake the boiler enhancements. This would involve installation of the new low-NOx burners and tie-in of the pollution control equipment. Pure Air will design and install the new pollution control equipment while FPL will be responsible for construction of the boiler modifications and alterations to the fuel delivery system. Construction impacts to natural areas are expected to be minor since much of the construction will be undertaken within the existing developed area of the Plant and only localized excavation, grading and levelling will be necessary. Temporary dewatering of groundwater may be necessary during construction of foundations for the pollution control equipment. Fugitive dust generated from construction traffic and excavation will be minimized by water sprinkling. Other open areas will be either paved or vegetated to reduce fugitive dust and wind erosion. Under the arrangement between FPL and Pure Air, of the total capital cost of approximately $263.54 million, approximately $83.5 million will be paid for by FPL, and $180 million, including pollution control facilities, will be paid for by Pure Air. Air Emissions, Controls, and Impacts Existing and Proposed Emissions FPL received air construction permits for the Plant units from the Florida Department of Air and Water Pollution Control (DWPC) in 1972 and air operation permits from the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) in 1977 and 1978. FPL currently utilizes fuel quality and combustion controls to achieve existing permitted emission limits for SO2, NOx, PM, and visible emissions. The existing emission limits for SO2 and NOx are more stringent than emission limits for most power plants in Florida. Although the Plant units currently are permitted to operate at a 100 percent capacity factor (i.e., utilization rate), the units historically have operated at an average annual capacity factor of approximately 30 percent, due in large part to fuel oil costs. As a result of the conversion to Orimulsion, the Plant units are expected to operate at an annual average capacity factor of 87 percent. Despite the increase in Plant utilization, total short-term (hourly) and total annual (tons per year or "tpy") air emissions are expected to decrease in comparison to both permitted and historical levels. With installation of FGD, actual emissions of SO2 will decrease by approximately 13,000 tpy or 45 percent from historical levels. Similarly, with installation of ESPs, annual emissions of PM and toxic substances also will decrease, and visible emissions will be limited to 20 percent opacity instead of the 40 percent level authorized under existing permits. Although low-NOx burners and reburn technology will be installed on both units to achieve a reduction from the existing short-term NOx emission rate, annual emissions will increase by approximately 6,000 tpy due to increased Plant operation. Likewise, short-term emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) will decrease; but annual emissions will increase by approximately 3,500 tpy. Because the converted Plant is expected to displace other plants in FPL's generating system, it is expected that the Project also will affect air emissions on a system-wide basis. Based on an analysis of projected fuel usage and emission rates for the various units in FPL's system through the year 1999, the Project will result in system-wide reductions in air emissions of all pollutants except CO. In the first year of Project operation, for example, system-wide emissions of CO are predicted to increase by 2,607 tons; but there will be significant reductions in all other pollutants, including PM (-2,252 tons), SO2 (-48,626 tons), NOx (-10,425 tons), volatile organic compounds or "VOCs" (-109 tons), and toxics (-181 tons). The analysis made appropriate assumptions concerning other FPL permits, power purchase contracts and changes in power demand from population growth and other factors. Best Available Control Technology for NOx DEP has determined that conversion of the Plant units to fire Orimulsion constitutes a "modification" subject to review under DEP's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations in Chapter 62-212, F.A.C. For modifications of existing sources, these regulations require a determination of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for all air pollutants which will experience emission increases in excess of applicable significant emission rates. Rule 62-212.400(1)(f), F.A.C. Because NOx and CO emission increases exceed applicable significant emission rates as a result of the conversion to Orimulsion, BACT is required for those pollutants. DEP rules define "Best Available Control Technology" or "BACT" as: An emissions limitation, including a visible emission standard, based on the maximum degree of reduction of each pollutant emitted which the Department, on a case by case basis, taking into account energy, environmental, and economic impacts, and other costs, determines is achievable through application of production processes and available methods, systems and techniques (including fuel cleaning or treatment or innovative fuel combustion techniques) for control of each such pollutant. Rule 62-212.200(16), F.A.C. In determining BACT, DEP must give consideration to prior BACT determinations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and any other state, all available scientific and technical material and information, and the social and economic impacts of application of such technology. Rule 62-212.410(1), F.A.C. DEP has no rule on making BACT determinations. In making BACT determinations, DEP attempts to follow EPA guidelines. Unfortunately, EPA also has not promulgated the guidelines as rules; they consist of a 1990 draft entitled EPA New Source Review Manual. To make matters worse, one reason why the EPA draft guidelines have not been adopted as rules may be that they are so complicated and confusing. It was noted by one expert practitioner in the field that it is with good reason that the design of the cover of the EPA draft guidelines is a jigsaw puzzle and, notwithstanding their official title, practitioners commonly refer to the guidelines as "the puzzle book." In accordance with EPA requirements, DEP currently uses a "top down" approach in determining BACT. Under the "top down" approach, alternative control technologies are ranked in terms of stringency. An emission limit reflecting the most stringent control alternative generally is selected as BACT unless rejected as technically or economically infeasible. Under the "top down" BACT approach, the most stringent NOx emission limit for sources similar to the Plant units is 0.17 lbs/mmBtu (pounds per million British thermal units) of heat input, using selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and combustion controls. SCR involves the injection of ammonia into the flue gas in the presence of a catalyst. The ammonia reacts with NOx on the surface of the catalyst, thereby transforming NOx into nitrogen and water. The SCR is not entirely selective; it also results in undesired reactions, including the conversion of SO2 to SO3 and the creation of ammonium sulfate and bisulfate. SCR systems require a flue gas temperature in the range of 600 to 750 degrees (F) which for some applications can be achieved between the boiler and the air preheater upstream of the ESP and FGD system. This configuration is referred to as a "front-end" SCR system. With fuels such as Orimulsion and high sulfur fuel oil which contain relatively high amounts of sulfur and vanadium, however, a front-end SCR can lead to significant problems because the vanadium in the fuel deposits on the SCR catalyst and results in an ever-increasing SO2 to SO3 conversion rate. Despite an extensive research program conducted jointly by European and American corporations involved in SCR manufacture, design, and operation, there are no available means of avoiding the ever-increasing SO2 to SO3 conversion rate when a front-end SCR is used with high-sulfur and high- vanadium fuels on utility units operated at base-load (i.e., operated continuously). Excessive SO3 created by a front-end SCR can plug the air preheater, which is a large piece of equipment approximately 45 feet in diameter. In addition, the SO3 condenses into sulfuric acid which corrodes the air preheater and ESP. There are no available means of protecting the air preheater from the excessive SO3 created by a front-end SCR system. Additional ammonia can be injected after the air preheater to neutralize the increased SO3 and thereby protect the ESP. However, additional ammonia injection causes more operational problems including ammonia slip, which can contaminate the water in the FGD and partially leave the stack as an emission, as well as an additional ash stream which would result in either higher particulate emissions or the need for a larger ESP. For these reasons, a front-end SCR system is technically infeasible for the converted Plant units, which are expected to operate base-loaded while firing Orimulsion. There was some testimony that a front-end SCR has been used on a unit which apparently has fired Orimulsion in Japan for approximately one year. However, that was a small peaking unit that could be shut down for maintenance when needed. In contrast, FPL's plans for the converted Manatee Plant units is to operate them as base-loaded units. Unlike peaking units which operate sporadically, base-loaded units operate continuously and are not out of service enough to allow for the performance of the additional maintenance required for a front-end SCR system. For that reason, a front-end SCR is not technically feasible for base-loaded units firing Orimulsion. Under a "back-end" design in which the SCR system is located downstream of the air preheater, ESP and FGD, the operational problems associated with the front-end system are avoided because the ESP removes vanadium, and the FGD removes sulfur from the flue gas. However, there are significant energy, environmental, and economic disadvantages to a back-end system. A back-end system would require installation of additional fans to overcome significant pressure loss and either duct burners or steam heat exchangers to reheat the flue gas to achieve the temperature necessary for the catalytic reaction. Approximately 6.72 percent of the energy generated by the boilers would have to be used to power this additional equipment--the approximate equivalent of the electrical use of 30,000 homes. In addition to higher energy consumption, a back-end system would result in secondary emissions from the burning of additional fuel and increased capital and operating costs. The EPA guidelines seem to say that both average and incremental cost effectiveness should be used to evaluate particular control options. Average cost compares the total amount of pollutant reduction from a combination of technologies to the cost of those technologies. Incremental cost effectiveness assesses the cost of adding a technology to emissions already controlled to some extent by other technologies. Of the two analyses, DEP believes that incremental cost effectiveness is the better accepted engineering practice, and there is a larger incremental cost database that can be used for making project- to-project comparisons. For these reasons, DEP relies more on the incremental cost effectiveness analysis. In prior BACT determinations for NOx emissions, DEP has viewed incremental costs in the range of $4,000 per ton of NOx removed as economically viable. By comparison, DEP has considered incremental costs in the range of $5,000 per ton of NOx removed to be unacceptable in determining BACT for NOx. The total capital costs of a back-end SCR system are on the order of $80 million to $100 million per unit. When capital costs are considered with operational costs and annualized over time, the total per-unit cost of a back- end SCR system ranges from $27 to 29 million per year. Unlike SCR, which reduces NOx that has already formed in the boiler, low-NOx burners minimize the formation of NOx by reducing the temperature and amount of time that nitrogen and oxygen have to react in the boiler. For the converted Plant units, low-NOx burners are capable of achieving a NOx emission rate of 0.27 lbs/mmBtu or lower at a total capital cost of approximately $5 million per unit. Operating costs are low, and the incremental cost effectiveness of low NOx burners used to achieve a .27 lbs/mmBtu emissions rate is only about $670 per ton removed. When compared to use of low-NOx burners at a 0.27 lbs/mmBtu NOx emissions rate, the incremental cost of adding a back-end SCR to achieve a 0.17 lbs/mmBtu rate is in the range of $8,000 to $9,000 per ton of NOx removed, which is well in excess of costs previously found to be too high in prior BACT determinations. Shortly before the start of the final hearing, FPL agreed to add reburn, another combustion control technology, on one unit as a test to ascertain if it could further reduce NOx emissions during the generating process; if so, FPL agreed to add the technology to the other unit as well. However, FPL still maintained that the BACT emissions limit should be set at .27 lbs/mmBtu. By the end of the hearing, a stipulation was entered into among FPL, DEP, EPC and Pinellas County that reburn technology also will be installed on both units to achieve a NOx emissions limit of no greater than 0.23 lbs/mmBtu (30-day rolling average) while firing Orimulsion. In addition, it was stipulated by those parties that DEP may modify the NOx emissions limit if it is determined that a rate lower than 0.23 lbs/mmBtu can be practicably and consistently achieved based upon the results of a six-month test program to be developed by a NOx Emissions Reduction Team consisting of representatives from FPL, the low-NOx burner supplier, FPL's reburn technology consultant, DEP, Pinellas County, Manatee County and EPC. The evidence was somewhat confusing as to the capital and operating costs of the reburn technology. It appears that the capital cost would be approximately an additional $8 million per unit, making the total capital cost of the combination of low NOx burners and the reburn technology approximately $13 million per unit. The evidence did not specify the operating costs. However, the evidence was that incremental evaluation of the addition of back- end SCR using the lower .23 lbs/mmBtu emissions limit would result in SCR being even less cost-effective--more on the order of $15,000 per ton of NOx removed. There is some indication that, while BACT emission limits for SCR systems have been set at .17 lbs/mmBtu, the technology actually might be capable of achieving emission reductions on the order of .10 lbs/mmBtu. If the lower emissions rate is assumed, SCR would look more cost effective. However, no calculations were made based on the lower emissions rate, and there was no competent evidence on which a finding could be made that, for purposes of determining BACT, the cost-effectiveness of back-end SCR should be assessed based on the lower emissions limit. The evidence was that the .10 lbs/mmBtu was a design emissions rate for certain SCR equipment; the evidence called into question the ability of SCR to achieve a continuous emission rate of .10 lbs/mmBtu. Although DEP has declined to give much weight to consideration of the average cost of NOx removal, some evidence was introduced at hearing on the average cost of reducing NOx emissions at the converted Manatee Plant using a combination of low NOx burners and back-end SCR. Under an average cost effectiveness analysis, the emissions limit determined to be achievable by a combination of control technologies is compared to what EPA calls the "realistic upper bound" uncontrolled emissions rate. Using an "upper bound" emissions rate of .58 lbs/mmBtu, and an emissions limit of .17 lbs/mmBtu, one witness found the average cost of reducing NOx emissions at the converted Manatee Plant using a combination of low NOx burners and back-end SCR to be on the order of just $2,000 per ton removed. But the use of .58 lbs/mmBtu as the "upper bound" number was based on incomplete and to some extent inaccurate information. FPL and DEP presented evidence that the actual average cost per ton of NOx removed is more on the order of $4,300. These analyses used .395 (or .4) lbs/mmBtu as the "upper bound" starting point. This starting point was based on more complete and more accurate information, but there seems to be room for argument as to the most suitable starting point. There also was evidence of an earlier FPL calculation that average cost per ton of NOx removed is approximately $2,900. However, the evidence was not clear as to the assumptions used in this calculation. Although DEP has declined to give much weight to consideration of the average cost of NOx removal, there was some indication that other states do. Pennsylvania was said to use average cost of $4,000 per ton of NOx removed as a benchmark for determining the economic feasibility of BACT emissions limits, and Wisconsin was said to use $6,000. However, the evidence was not clear as to how those states make BACT determinations for NOx emissions. In light of the excessive incremental costs of SCR for the converted Plant units, imposition of SCR is not warranted. Although concerns have been raised about the potential effect of NOx emissions on ozone levels and nitrogen deposition in the Tampa Bay area, as discussed infra, NOx emissions from the converted Plant units are not expected to have a significant impact on either ozone levels or water quality. Moreover, the evidence was not clear that such environmental impacts would be significantly different whether or not SCR is installed on the converted Plant units. Based upon a case-by-case consideration of the energy, environmental, economic, and other factors discussed above, a NOx emission rate of 0.23 lbs/mmBtu based upon use of low-NOx burners and reburn technology constitutes BACT for the converted Plant units when firing Orimulsion. For CO emissions from the converted Plant units, BACT is an emissions limit of 0.325 lbs/mmBtu based upon use of combustion controls. Other than combustion controls, there are no feasible means of controlling CO emissions from fossil fuel- fired steam electric generating units. Air Quality Impact Analysis Ambient air quality impact analyses demonstrate that emissions resulting from maximum operation of the converted Plant will comply with applicable ambient air quality standards and PSD increments for CO and NO2. Because the NO2 analyses were based upon a NOx emissions rate of 0.3 lbs/mmBtu, actual impacts on ambient NO2 concentrations are expected to be lower in light of the subsequently agreed-upon NOx emissions rate of 0.23 lbs/mmBtu. Although ambient impact analyses are not required for SO2 and PM because emissions will be below significant emission rates, FPL also performed air dispersion modeling demonstrating compliance with ambient air quality standards for those pollutants. Additional impact analyses demonstrate that projected emissions of SO2, NOx, and CO will have no adverse impact on soils, vegetation, wildlife, or visibility in the vicinity of the Plant. Likewise, the results of air dispersion modeling demonstrate that projected emissions will not adversely impact air quality related values (AQRVs), such as vegetation, soils, wildlife, and visibility, in the Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area which is the PSD Class I area closest to the Plant. Effect of Proposed NOx Emissions on Ozone Levels Ambient air quality analyses for ozone typically are not required for sources, such as the Plant, which are located in areas that are in attainment of the ozone standard. However, because the Plant is located within a mile of the Hillsborough County/Manatee County line, and not far from Pinellas County, and because Hillsborough County and Pinellas County are in the process of being redesignated from nonattainment to attainment for ozone, concerns have been raised regarding the potential effect of proposed NOx emissions on ozone levels. Ozone formation is a complex process involving precursor pollutants such as NOx and VOCs (volatile organic compounds). There is no direct relationship between increased NOx or VOC emissions and increased ozone levels. Depending upon conditions in the particular area in question, NOx reductions may or may not benefit ambient ozone levels. The impact of a NOx emissions point source, such as the Manatee Plant, on ozone levels is difficult to predict. There are no EPA-recommended models to analyze the effect of NOx emissions from a particular source on ozone concentrations, but other models and tools that are available can be used to try to assess whether a particular source may have a significant impact on ozone formation in a particular urban area. FPL used the models suggested by DEP. To assess the impact of projected NOx emissions on ozone formation, FPL first utilized the Empirical Kinetics Modeling Approach (EKMA), which DEP used in support of the ozone redesignation request submitted to EPA for the Tampa Bay area. The EKMA model is not a dispersion model designed for use in predicting ozone impact of a NOx emissions point source, such as the Manatee Plant. It essentially evenly distributes NOx and VOC's within a certain volume of air, such as the air over the Hillsborough/Pinellas nonattainment zone, and models the totality of what occurs within the airshed. It also does not account for either other additions from outside the zone being modeled or components of the air mass leaving the zone being modeled. FPL essentially adjusted the model by adding the NOx emissions from the converted Manatee Plant. It is a relatively crude model used primarily for screening purposes. Because of the difficulty in predicting the impact of the converted Manatee Plant, and the limitations of the EKMA model, DEP requested that FPL also use the Reactive Plume Model (RPM) to further assess the effect of the projected emissions on ozone concentrations in Hillsborough and Pinellas counties. The RPM model also has its limitations and is not approved by the EPA for predicting ozone concentrations resulting from a point source. The RPM models ozone precursor reactions resulting from the point source being studied that occur within the plume. It is clear that, as a result of the complex nature of the ozone precursor reactions, significant ozone formation also will occur "off-plume." RPM attempts to account for this ozone formation as well. In any event, it is not clear how "off-plume" reactions would be affected by the point source being evaluated. Like the EKMA model, the RPM model used by FPL also did not account for either additions from outside the zone being modeled or components of the air mass leaving the zone being modeled. FPL did not attempt to predict future additional sources of ozone precursors and run either the EKMA model or the RPM model assuming impacts from those additional sources. The evidence was that this exercise would have been difficult if not impossible to undertake. It is not clear whether, with new air pollution regulations, NOx levels will increase or decrease, and it is difficult to predict where new source will originate. (The same probably could be said for VOC's.) For these reasons, such an exercise, if undertaken, would have been of questionable predictive value. Despite its limitations, the RPM model does provide additional useful information in attempting to assess the impact of the converted Manatee Plant on ozone formation, and it is the only other reasonably available tool. Better models or "observation-based approaches" that might be effective for purposes of point source permitting have not been developed yet. An Urban Air Shed Model (UASM) would provide useful additional information, but UASM's are extremely complex and typically are conducted by a consortium of governments and universities for entire metropolitan areas. UASM's take years to complete and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is not reasonable to require FPL to finance and conduct such a study in this case. Although there are limitations to the EKMA and RPM models, FPL has done more to analyze potential impacts of NOx emissions, using the reasonably available tools, than any other applicant in the history of Florida's air permitting program. The EKMA and RPM modeling indicate that NOx emissions from the converted Plant will not have a significant impact on ozone levels in the Tampa Bay area. Based on these modeling analyses, FPL has provided reasonable assurances that the Project will not cause or contribute to a violation of the ozone standard. By notice published in the Federal Register on December 7, 1995, EPA proposed to redesignate the Hillsborough/Pinellas county area as attainment for ozone. Under the proposal, EPA would approve the redesignation request and maintenance plan jointly submitted by DEP, Pinellas County, and Hillsborough County. The Orimulsion Conversion Project itself will not trigger any specific action under the maintenance plan because the Manatee Plant is located outside of Hillsborough and Pinellas counties. There are two "triggers" for a response under the maintenance plan. The first would be a violation of the ozone ambient air quality standards in the two-county area, i.e., the fourth maximum daily value greater than .12 parts per million (ppm). The only recorded exceedances since 1990 occurred on June 10, 1995. The second "trigger" has two conditions: the first is an increase in the inventory of NOx or VOC emissions in the inventory update years 1994, 1997 or 2000 exceeding 5 percent over the levels recorded in 1990, a year in which there were no ozone violations; the second would be the a design value for the update year of greater than .114 ppm (compared to the ambient air standard of .12 ppm). While the 1994 inventory of NOx emissions was between 7 and 8 percent over the 1990 inventory, no maximum concentrations over the "design value" have been recorded. (The 1995 inventory was not available at the time of the hearing.) Recognizing the limitations of the EKMA and RPM modeling, it nonetheless is not expected that emissions from the Project will trigger any action under the maintenance plan. If an ozone violation or other specific contingencies occur in the future, however, the maintenance plan would require the state to undertake rulemaking to implement corrective action. Such corrective action could include imposition of Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for existing sources of NOx in the region and expansion of NOx and/or VOC control strategies to adjacent counties. FPL also has agreed to further minimize NOx emissions during the "ozone season," which generally lasts from May 15 through September 15. Under the stipulation between FPL, DEP, EPC and Pinellas County, daily NOx emissions from the Plant shall not exceed 42.23 tons during the ozone season when Orimulsion is fired. This daily cap is more restrictive than a 30-day rolling average. As incentive to further reduce NOx emissions, FPL will pay annually, to a trust fund jointly administered by Manatee, Pinellas, and Hillsborough Counties to benefit air quality in the region, $200 per ton of NOx emitted from both Plant units, on a daily basis, in excess of 38.6 tons per day during the ozone season. Effect of Proposed NOx Emissions on Water Quality The Plant is located within the watershed of Tampa Bay, a large estuary comprised of four major segments including Old Tampa Bay, Hillsborough Bay, Middle Tampa Bay, and Lower Tampa Bay, and other embayments including Cockroach Bay and Little Cockroach Bay in the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve, which is designated as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). The Little Manatee River, another OFW, also is part of the Tampa Bay watershed. Because Tampa Bay is located in a phosphate-rich area, phosphorus levels in the bay are extremely high. Due to high phosphorus levels, nitrogen is considered the limiting nutrient in Tampa Bay. Major sources of nitrogen to Tampa Bay include nonpoint runoff (i.e., materials that run off the land surface and are carried through riverine systems into the bay), atmospheric deposition both on the surface of the bay and within the watershed, point sources (e.g., discharges from wastewater treatment systems and industrial facilities), and internal sources within the bay itself. Although there are ongoing studies, including the Tampa Bay Atmospheric Deposition Study, to better quantify actual deposition in the Tampa Bay area, available analyses indicate that atmospheric deposition is an important source of nitrogen loading to Tampa Bay. The water quality of Tampa Bay varies from "good" in Lower Tampa Bay to "fair" in portions of Hillsborough Bay which historically have had water quality problems such as high levels of chlorophyll a. The water quality of Cockroach Bay reflects the water quality in adjacent Middle Tampa Bay, which has been characterized as "poor" during certain times of the year due to relatively high chlorophyll a levels. Due to nutrient inputs and other factors such as dredge and fill activities, prop-scarring from motor boats, and other physical activities, portions of Tampa Bay, including Cockroach Bay, have experienced significant losses in historical seagrass coverage. In recent years, however, seagrass coverage has increased in Tampa Bay overall. Lake Manatee is another water body of potential concern located near the Plant within the Tampa Bay watershed. Lake Manatee is a man-made lake which supplies drinking water to Manatee County, Sarasota County, and various municipalities. Based upon its trophic state index of 50 to 60 for the past few years, Lake Manatee has water quality in the upper end of the "good" range. However, Manatee County treats Lake Manatee with copper sulfate to prevent blooms of blue-green algae which can create taste and odor problems in the water. Studies have determined that nitrogen is the limiting nutrient of Lake Manatee and that nitrogen levels have increased. Due to high color levels and other factors, however, Lake Manatee appears to be a dystrophic system in which primary nutrients, such as phosphorus and nitrogen, are not responsible for most of the plant growth. In fact, the most recent study of Lake Manatee water quality indicates that algal growth there has a stronger correlation to temperature and specific conductance than to total nitrogen. In addition, the blue-green algae associated with taste and odor problems in lake water have the ability to "fix" nitrogen from the atmosphere and, therefore, have a competitive advantage over other algae in the absence of external nitrogen inputs. To assess potential impacts of the Project on water quality in the Tampa Bay area, the effect of proposed NOx emissions on nitrogen deposition in the Tampa Bay watershed was calculated using the best tools reasonably available. Assuming a NOx emissions rate of 0.23 lbs/mmBtu following the conversion to Orimulsion as proposed with the stipulated conditions of certification, the Plant's contribution will be 1.25 percent of the total nitrogen deposition in the watershed. Based upon consideration of background deposition in more pristine locations in Florida and local deposition within the Tampa Bay area, as well as a comparison of current and projected emissions from the Plant with regional NOx emissions, NOx emissions from the converted Plant will result in a less than 0.8 percent increase in nitrogen deposition throughout the Tampa Bay watershed. Additionally, the estimated increase in nitrogen deposition was apportioned among the various segments of the watershed based upon the results of dispersion modeling. Atmospheric nitrogen can reach Tampa Bay and other water bodies through direct deposition on the water surface as well as "indirect deposition" and subsequent runoff from land surfaces within the various segments of the watershed. Due to soil absorption and plant uptake, however, not all atmospheric nitrogen deposited within the watershed ultimately reaches Tampa Bay. Using the Project's calculated impact on nitrogen deposition and conservative runoff coefficients for the "indirect deposition" component, nitrogen loading budgets were calculated for Tampa Bay and its various segments, as well as Lake Manatee. Existing nitrogen loadings are on the order of 3,000 metric tpy for Tampa Bay and 300 metric tpy for Lake Manatee. In comparison, the increase in nitrogen loadings attributable to the Project is on the order of 21 metric tpy (or 0.69 percent) for Tampa Bay and 1.2 metric tpy (or 0.39 percent) for Lake Manatee. In light of the existing loading to these systems, the predicted increases attributable to the Project are insignificant. Because these loading analyses are based upon a NOx emissions rate of 0.27 lbs/mmBtu, actual impacts on nitrogen loading are expected to be less in light of the lower 0.23 lbs/mmBtu emissions rate subsequently agreed upon in the stipulation between FPL, DEP, Pinellas County and EPC. Although nitrogen within the water column will deposit in the sediments, increased nitrogen loadings will not have an extended cumulative effect over time because the amount of nitrogen available to the system ultimately reaches equilibrium as a result of a continual burial process. Additionally, other processes, such as denitrification, decrease the amount of nitrogen in the sediments. Accordingly, marginal increases in atmospheric deposition of nitrogen have only marginal effects on sedimentary nitrogen concentrations and internal loadings. To assess the Project's impact on biological activity in surface waters in the vicinity of the Plant, laboratory tests were performed on water samples collected within the Lower Tampa Bay, Lake Manatee, Cockroach Bay, the Little Manatee River, the Manatee River, and Lake Manatee utilizing the algal assay procedure (AAP). AAP is a procedure developed and recommended by EPA to determine the effect of increased nitrogen loadings on algal growth within receiving marine or freshwater systems. Under the AAP, water samples taken from the field are spiked with varying levels of nitrogen as well as algae with a given growth potential. After the spiked samples are set aside for five to seven days, algal growth is measured and comparisons between the spiked and control samples are made to determine the effect of the nitrogen additions. In each of the AAPs performed, no statistically significant increase in algal growth was noted with nitrogen additions up to 10 times the amount anticipated from the Project. FPL provided reasonable assurances that nitrogen loadings attributable to the converted Plant will not have a significant adverse impact on water quality or biological activity in any marine, estuarine, or aquatic systems in the Tampa Bay area. The evidence indicates that the impact is likely to be so small that it will be difficult to measure and distinguish from natural fluctuation in nitrogen levels. For the same reason, FPL has provided reasonable assurances that, when considered in conjunction with nitrogen loadings of the same order from other NOx emission sources which have been permitted but have not begun operation in the Tampa Bay area, the Project will not cause or contribute to an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna or a dominance of nuisance species in Tampa Bay, including Cockroach Bay. Likewise, because nitrogen loadings from the Plant are not expected to have a significant adverse impact on algal growth, such loadings are not expected to impact other flora, other trophic levels, such as seagrasses or fisheries production, or transparency levels in Tampa Bay. In their case, Manasota-88 and MCSOBA presented two expert witnesses who generally opined that 20 tons of additional nitrogen would be detrimental to Tampa Bay, would cause an imbalance of aquatic flora and fauna in violation of DEP's nutrient rule, as well as violations of DEP's transparency and nuisance rules, and that nitrogen loading to Tampa Bay has the potential to be a cumulative problem. The expert witnesses presented by Manasota-88 and MCSOBA did not perform or make reference to any studies or other analyses that contradict the analyses performed by FPL's expert witnesses related to nitrogen deposition impacts. Theirs was more of a qualitative evaluation. Clearly, seagrass coverage in Tampa Bay and Cockroach Bay has declined due in large part to shading from algal growth resulting from nitrogen. It follows logically, in their opinion, that adding 21 tons of nitrogen a year to current and future levels cannot help, but can only hurt, even if the impact is too small to measure. They urge that DEP should prohibit any increases in nitrogen loading to Tampa Bay, in accordance with the recommendations resulting from the federally-funded National Estuaries Program (NEP) study of Tampa Bay, including any increases from atmospheric deposition. Regulatory links between air emissions and water quality criteria are developing through the policy of management. But DEP historically has not regulated atmospheric deposition of nitrogen to surface waters, and ecosystem management has not yet matured to the point where DEP is ready to begin regulating atmospheric deposition of nitrogen as a surface water discharge subject to surface water quality permit review. If it does, it is possible that some recommendations of the NEP Tampa Bay study on nitrogen loading to Tampa Bay could be achieved through new surface water quality permit review of nitrogen loading through atmospheric deposition. Such regulation may result higher power generating costs from stricter NOx emissions limits, but it may be determined that those costs would be lower than the costs of trying to rehabilitate water bodies after nitrogen has been deposited and loaded into them. In the absence of such regulation, however, FPL nonetheless has provided reasonable assurances that nitrogen deposition resulting from NOx emissions from the converted Plant will not have any meaningful or measurable impact on water quality, biological activity, or transparency in any marine, estuarine, or aquatic system in the Tampa Bay area. Human Health Risks Associated with Proposed Air Emissions Despite increased plant utilization, there will be no increase in either short term or annual emissions of any hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) or other "air toxics" as a result of the conversion to Orimulsion. To assess potential health-related impacts of Project emissions, air dispersion modeling was conducted to predict ambient concentrations of HAPs and other air toxics. The predicted ambient concentrations for all HAPs and air toxics except vanadium are below ambient reference concentrations (ARCs), which are conservative screening values established for various air toxics in DEP guidelines. Predicted concentrations of vanadium exceed the ARC for the 24-hour averaging period at the maximum point of impact within the plant site, but the exceedance is very small (i.e., at the third decimal place), and the ARC is between 100 and 1000 times lower than any exposure level shown to cause effects in humans. Moreover, vanadium is not bioaccumulative and does not have any interactive effect with other substances. Accordingly, the proposed level of vanadium emissions does not pose a significant threat to human health. Although there is no regulatory requirement for a formal risk assessment, a multi-pathway risk assessment was performed to evaluate potential human health impacts of air emissions from the converted Plant. Whereas the ARCs established by DEP address only the inhalation pathway of exposure, the multi-pathway risk assessment considered the cumulative effect of oral and dermal exposure in addition to inhalation exposure to all pollutants emitted from the converted Plant. Utilizing conservative assumptions, the multi- pathway risk assessment analyzed potential exposures to residential and occupational populations, including potentially sensitive populations such as children and persons who live and work near the Plant. Based upon the results of the multi-pathway risk assessment and other analyses, the health risks from operation of the Plant while firing either oil or Orimulsion are negligible. Compared to historical operation with No. 6 fuel oil, future operations following conversion to Orimulsion would provide a benefit from a toxicological and risk assessment standpoint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order granting FPL's application for a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit for the Manatee Orimulsion Conversion Project with the conditions included in the December 5, 1995, Draft Permit that was filed on January 17, 1996. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of February, 1996. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON, 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 28th day of February, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), F.S. (1995), as construed by the decision in Harbor Island Beach Club, Ltd., v. Dept. of Natural Resources, 476 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: FPL/DEP Proposed Findings of Fact. All of the proposed findings of fact proposed by these parties have been reviewed. This review reveals that most of the proposed findings of these parties were proven by a preponderance of the evidence and, except as follows, they have been accepted. 3. Last sentence clarified to reflect that, while there will be few other changes to the plant itself, there will be severally significant changes to the project area as a result of conversion to Orimulsion. 23. Last sentence rejected as irrelevant; otherwise, accepted. 25.-26. In part, conclusions of law; otherwise, accepted. 27. Fourth sentence, rejected as contrary to the evidence in that both analyses should be conducted; otherwise, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the evidence to the extent that it implies that the Preserve is an embayment; otherwise, accepted. Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the evidence to the extent that it implies that the recent increase is uniform throughout the bay, as opposed to in parts of the bay and overall; otherwise, accepted. 47. Rejected as not proven that there will be no cumulative effect over time; otherwise, accepted and accepted in its entirety if it means only that an equilibrium will be reached at some point in time. 49. "Will not," in first two sentences, rejected as not proven; otherwise, accepted and accepted that reasonable assurances were provided. 51. "Demonstrated," in second sentence, rejected as not proven; otherwise, accepted and accepted that reasonable assurances were provided. Manasota-88/MCSOBA Proposed Findings of Fact. Much of what is proposed by Manasota-88 and MCSOBA as findings of fact actually are conclusions of law. Proposed findings of fact numbered 4 through 203 actually are labeled "Findings Concerning Applicable Laws; most of these propose conclusions of law (although a few proposed findings of fact, mostly related to agency policy, are included.) Many of the other proposed findings of fact numbered 204 through 435 also actually propose conclusions of law. Even as construed by the decision in Harbor Island Beach Club, supra, Section 120.59(2), does not require rulings on proposed conclusions of law. In addition, it should be noted that much of was has been proposed in the single joint PRO Manasota-88 and MCSOBA filed for both the certification case and the PSD permit cases is relevant only to the certification case, and not to the PSD cases. For example, 3.a., 4-20, 26-159, 204-375, and 432-435 do not seem to be relevant to the PSD cases. Nonetheless, to preclude any argument that Manasota-88 and MCSOBA will be prejudiced by their decision to file a single joint PRO, and because of their expansive secondary and cumulative impacts theories, rulings on all of their proposed findings are repeated here. 1.-2. Accepted. Subordinate and unnecessary. (94-5675EPP covers all permits, etc., from all agencies, except for the PSD and NPDES permits.) Conclusion of law. 5.-6. Accepted. Subordinate and unnecessary. 7.-18. Conclusions of law. Irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as not supported by any evidence. Also, irrelevant and unnecessary. 21.-24. Conclusions of law. 25. Accepted that DEP attempts to follow the guidelines, but they are not clear and are susceptible to different interpretations. 26.-48. Conclusions of law. 49. Accepted but irrelevant or argument. 50.-58. Conclusions of law. 59.-60. In part, conclusion of law; otherwise, accepted but conclusion of law, and either irrelevant or argument. 61. Conclusion of law. 62.-63. Accepted. Accepted but irrelevant because it is not regulated as a discharge. In part, conclusion of law; to the extent that it seeks to establish agency policy, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence; otherwise, accepted. 66.-68. Conclusion of law; to the extent that it seeks to establish agency policy, rejected as contrary to the evidence. 69.-70. Conclusion of law. 71.-72. In part, conclusion of law; otherwise, accepted. 73.-77. Conclusions of law. 78.-79. Conclusion of law; to the extent that it seeks to establish agency policy, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Conclusion of law. In part, conclusion of law; otherwise, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. 82.-86. Conclusions of law. 87. Accepted (but DEP does not issue such permits per se. 88.-90. Conclusions of law. 91. In part, conclusion of law; to the extent that it refers to agency policy, accepted. 92.-96. Conclusions of law. 97.-98. Accepted. 99.-114. Conclusions of law. 115. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 116.-120. Conclusions of law. 121.-123. Accepted. 124.-126. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 127. In part, conclusion of law; otherwise, ejected as contrary to the evidence. 128.-131. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the evidence (as to "any other form of record evidence"). Conclusion of law. Last sentence, accepted; otherwise, conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence (that DEP uses "two different non-rule policy interpretations.) First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence; second, conclusion of law. 137.-142. Conclusions of law. 143. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. 144.-145. Subparagraphs, accepted; rest, conclusions of law. Conclusion of law. Accepted. 148.-150. Conclusions of law. 151.-153. Accepted (but as to 153, only sodium is a primary standard.) 154. Rejected as not clear from the evidence what is "common regulatory practice." 155.-157. Conclusions of law. 158.-159. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (that DEP was "deviating from the common regulatory practice.") 160.-168. Conclusions of law. 169. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 170.-172. Conclusions of law. 173. In part, conclusion of law; otherwise, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (that salt water intrusion results). 174.-179. Conclusions of law. 180.-181. Accepted. 182.-190. Conclusions of law. 191. Accepted. 192.-193. Conclusions of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. 196.-203. Conclusions of law. 204. "Very sensitive" rejected as argument not supported by evidence; otherwise, accepted. 205.-211. Accepted. 212.-213. Rejected as contrary to the evidence that excessive nitrogen is the only cause; otherwise, accepted. 214.-216. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence as to all of Tampa Bay; accepted as to parts of the bay. "At least 10 percent," rejected as contrary to the evidence; also, the TBNEP proposal is not clear from the evidence in the record. (Cf. Garrity, T. 2110-2111.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The estimate was calculated using a .27 lbs/mmBtu emission rate.) 220.-221. Accepted. (Variation primarily is driven by rainfall.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The witness's estimate, which was very rough, was referring to atmospheric deposition, not nitrogen loading; the two are different, and the percentage increase of the former actually is higher than the actual percentage increase in the former resulting from the Orimulsion conversion project.) First clause (the premise), accepted; second (the conclusion), rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (Ozone may affect "dry deposition"; but much more atmospheric deposition is "wet deposition," which can vary by an order of magnitude depending on rainfall.) 224.-225. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The witness was referring to atmospheric deposition, not total nitrogen loading. See 222., above.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. (However, while there might be some longer term impacts from sedimentation, those affects will be marginal, first because the impacts themselves are marginal, and second because nitrogen entering the sediments also will be subject to denitrification through biological and chemical processes and to burial over time.) 228.-229. Conclusions of law; also, subpara. c., rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted in the general sense that it is 21 tons in the wrong direction. However, the "detrimental effect" was not measurable. Accepted. (It is not clear what "water quality levels" are meant. F.A.C. Rule 62-302.530(48)(b) speaks for itself. Presumably, "water quality levels" refers to nitrogen loadings.) To the extent not conclusion of law, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Conclusion of law whether the rule applies. In any event, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that "no evidence" was presented. Rejected. First, conclusion of law whether air emissions are a "proposed discharge," and whether the "clearly in the public" test applies. Second, assuming that the test applies, and that it raises a mixed question of law and fact (not a pure question of law), neither of the witnesses cited were in a position to give competent testimony on the issue. Accepted. (There was no evidence as to where in the bay the violations occur.) Conclusion of law; also, subparagraphs a. and d., rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Conclusion of law; also, subpara. c., rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. (It is not clear what "ambient water quality levels" are meant. F.A.C. Rule 62-302.530(48)(b) speaks for itself. Presumably, "ambient water quality levels" refers to nitrogen loadings.) To the extent not conclusion of law, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 240.-241. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (There was no indication of what the witness meant by "nuisance condition." Compare testimony to F.A.C. Rules 62-302.500(1)(c) and 62-302.530(47). Accepted (assuming reference is being made to atmospheric deposition. See 222., above.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (TBNEP projection was hearsay.) 244.-245. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 246.-249. Accepted. 250. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. ("Trophic," not "tropic," state index.) 251.-253. Accepted. 254.-255. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. (It is not clear what "water quality levels" are meant, or what "nuisance standard" is meant. In any event, both F.A.C. Rules 62- 302.500(1)(c) and 62-302.530(47) speak for themselves. Presumably, "water quality levels" refers to nitrogen loadings.) To the extent not conclusion of law, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The rule was judged not to apply.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (Other parameters were "reviewed" in the sense that they were considered along with salinity, but only salinity was studied in detail.) 260.-262 Accepted (but, as to 261., the extent of "further degradation" of water quality required to degrade biological productivity is not specified, so fact is not useful.) Accepted, but a conclusion of law whether it is "foreseeable" for purposes of "cumulative effects." Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The evidence was 5 percent of the months.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The option was considered and rejected.) Otherwise, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The evidence was it was 6, but it is changing.) Accepted but so general and speculative as not to be useful. 269.-270. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (While absolute certainty does not appear to be possible at this time, DEP seems to have made this determination based on the best information available.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as to RPM; accepted as to EKMA. 275.-278. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (While absolute certainty does not appear to be possible at this time, it is believed based on the best information available that the Tampa Bay airshed is VOC- limited.) Conclusion of law. 283.-284. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 288.-289. To the extent not conclusion of law, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. The evidence is not clear that the expansion is "foreseeable." 293.-296. Accepted. 297. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (42.23 is an absolute maximum per day; there also is a maximum 30-day rolling average.) 298.-299. Rejected as inaccurate calculation. 300.-301. Accepted. 302. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (Emissions from the Manatee Plant were not part of the Hillsborough/Pinellas inventory of stationary sources.) 303.-304. Accepted. 305. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. See 298.-299. and 302., above. 306.-307. Accepted. 308.-309. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. See 302., above. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (There was circumstantial evidence, but a "correlation" was not determined.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Not clear from the evidence, especially without a corresponding VOC reduction. Also, so general as to be of little usefulness. 314.-315. Accepted. 316. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The evidence was that, at the time of the hearing, the SWUCA was a proposed rule and that the proposed withdrawals are in the Eastern Tampa Bay WUCA.) 317.-318. See 316., above; otherwise, accepted. The Floridan was not specified; otherwise, accepted. Accepted, assuming "sources" and "uses" mean the same thing. See 316., above. Accepted. Accepted (although specific reference only was to the former FPL wells.) Rejected as not supported by evidence on which a finding of fact could be made. 325.-326. Rejected. (These appear to be conclusions of law, although the intended legal significance of "straight transfer" is not made clear.) 327. Conclusion of law. 328.-329. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 330. See 316., above. 331.-332. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. See 316., above. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The explanation was that the SWFWMD regulations allow it.) 335.-337. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 338. Accepted. (That is why the ZOD was expanded vertically.) 339.-341. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 342. Cumulative. 343.-344. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Unintelligible. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. See 346., above. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as not supported by any evidence. Rejected. Not a legal requirement. 352.-353. Cumulative. 354. Rejected as not supported by any evidence. 354.(Number 2) Not clear what is meant by "water communities." An oil spill will affect the surface and shore more; Orimulsion would affect the water column and bottom more, especially in deeper water. 355.-356. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as not clear from the evidence what the impact on property values will be. Also, not subject to determination in this case. Rejected. F.A.C. Rule 60Q-2.031(3). Not subject to determination in this case. Rejected. Subpara. a., rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Subpara. c., unclear what is being referenced. Also, effect on government jurisdictions other than Manatee County not subject to determination in this case. Rejected as not supported by any evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (As to c., no evidence as to what is meant or how it would help.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (However, as proposed, Bitor is the responsible party.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that these methods are "reasonable." (As to d., the rule does not apply.) Rejected as not supported by any evidence that this alternative is "reasonable." 367.-368. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Unintelligible. Conclusion of law. Accepted. 372.-377. Conclusions of law. 378.-379. Accepted. 380.-383. Conclusions of law. 384. Accepted. 385.-386. Conclusions of law. 387. Accepted. 388.-389. Conclusion of law. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by any evidence. 392.-395. Conclusions of law. 396. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 397.-398. To the extent not conclusion of law, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence as to "foreseeable cumulative" impacts; also no evidence that foreseeable cumulative impacts "justify higher than normal BACT." Conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (DEP tries to follow it, but it is complicated and difficult to apply.) Rejected as not supported by the evidence. (The only evidence was that EPA suggested that DEP give proper consideration to the claims of some SCR manufacturers that their technology achieves .10 lbs/mmBtu.) Accepted. 403.-404. Accepted (assuming reference is made to average costs.) Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (There also were other factors.) Accepted. (However, the initial application has been modified in many respects during the course of these proceedings.) Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is BACT or that it was the only calculation making those emissions rate assumptions. Accepted. (Incremental cost calculations also are recommended.) 412.-414. Conclusions of law. 415. Accepted. 416.-418. Rejected as not supported by facts on which findings of fact can be made. 419. Accepted. (However, that was just one of several calculations and not FPL's final calculation.) 420. Rejected as not clear from the evidence that both calculations used .395 lbs/mmBtu. 421.-422. Accepted. 423.-426. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (As to 425., it is not technically feasible for this application, so it cannot be economically feasible; where technically feasible, it has been shown to be economically feasible as well.) 427. Accepted (although it varies from year to year.) 428. Rejected as not supported by any evidence. 429. Accepted (but vanadium content is not high enough to create problems of technical feasibility.) 430.-435. Cumulative. Conclusions of law. To the extent that accepted proposed findings are not contained in the Findings of Fact, they were considered to be subordinate, irrelevant or otherwise unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Douglas Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kenneth Plante, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Douglas Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Peter C. Cunningham, Esquire Carolyn S. Raepple, Esquire Kathleen L. Blizzard, Esquire Douglas S. Roberts, Esquire Gary V. Perko, Esquire Hopping Green Sams and Smith, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Charles T. "Chip" Collette, Esquire Twin Towers Office Building Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 2951 61st Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 A. Alexander Rhodes, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Pinellas County 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616 Vernon R. Wagner, Esquire Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County 1900 Ninth Avenue Tampa, Florida 33605
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER, or the Department) should grant the request of Medico Environmental Services, Inc. (Medico) for a one-year extension of the expiration date for air construction permit AC52-184546 for a biological waste incinerator located at 13200-58th Street North, Clearwater, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Prior and Related Proceedings.-- Medico holds an air construction permit issued by the DER on March 8, 1991, for the construction of a biological waste incinerator in Pinellas County, Florida. The permit contains general and special conditions, including prohibitions against the incineration of non-exempt amounts of radioactive and hazardous wastes, a requirement that all operators be trained in a DER-approved training program, and a requirement that the facility undergo compliance testing after it is constructed to assure that its operation complies with emission standards established by DER rule. Several weeks after the grant of the air construction permit, on March 29, 1991, the DER changed the equipment model number on the permit, but the change in model number represented no change in the actual equipment described in the application. Local government building and construction permit procedures, and negotiations with potential investors, delayed construction of the facility. By letter dated November 14, 1991, Medico requested an extension of the expiration date of the permit from January 7, 1992, to January 7, 1993. No other change in the permit was sought. On or about December 6, 1991, the Department issued a second air construction permit for a biological waste incinerator in Pinellas County to Bayfront Medical Center (Bayfront). Bayfront has since requested two extensionns on the expiration date of its permit. The second request is currently pending challenge in Division of Administrative Hearings Case Nos. 92- 6879 and 92-6880. The Applicant and Principals.-- Medico is a corporation consisting of two fifty percent shareholders: Gerald Hubbell; and Robert Sheehan. Hubbel operates a funeral home and Bay Area Crematory, Inc., in Pinellas County; he has less than 50 percent ownership of those businesses. Previously, Sheehan co-founded a medical waste incineration facility in New York known as Medi-Waste, Limited, of which he was one-third owner. In 1986, he sold the company, and it merged with Medi-Gen, Medical Generation Associates, a wholly owned subsidiary of a company known as Legeis Resources (Legeis). Sheehan held two percent of the shares of Legeis and served as an officer of Medi-Gen until he resigned in 1989. Sheehan does not own more than 50 percent of Medico, and he has not had any interest in any other air construction or air operation permit in the State of Florida. Since March, 1991, he has not held an interest in any other entity involved in medical waste incineration. Air Quality. Medico will be capable of incinerating 2,350 pounds of medical waste per hour, which is about ten percent of Flrodia's medical waste. Pinellas County generates about 75,000 pounds of such waste per day but currently has the capacity to burn only 480 pounds per hour. A computer-generated air dispersion model was run on the theoretical maximum impact of Medico, of Bayfront, and of both facilities, on the ambient air in the affected parts of Pinellas County. The model used was the EPA's Industrial Source Complex, Short Term, Version 2, March, 1992. This model is recommended by the DER and preferred by the EPA. It follows the DER's Guideline on Air Quality Models. Average background ambient air was calculated using monitoring data collected by Pinellas County for the EPA criteria pollutants (sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, lead, and particulate matter) and for hydrochloric acid in accordance with the requirements of title 40, part 58, of the Code of Federal Regulations, as reported in the DER's 1991 ALLSUM. (According to EPA publications, hydrochloric acid is the only toxic pollutant on the DER's air toxics list for which medical waste incinerators like Medico's are considered to be a source.) The theoretical maximum impacts of Medico and Bayfront were based on the AP42 emission standards for those kinds of facilities. Meteorological data was taken from the nearest national weather service station (at the Tampa International Airport). The air model shows that none of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for any of the criteria pollutants would be exceeded by adding either the impact of the Medico facility, or the impact of the Bayfront facility, or both combined, to the average ambient air in the affected parts of Pinellas County. (Both Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) and the newer PM10 category of particulates less than ten microns in size cases, which is more relevant to public health concerns, were considered for particulate matter levels.) Testimony indicates that the National Ambient Air Quality Standards would not be exceeded for any of the criteria pollutants by adding either the impact of the Medico facility, or the impact of the Bayfront facility, or both combined, to the maximum ambient air in the affected parts of Pinellas County. Also, even assuming a "worst case" weather scenario, no problematic toxic pollutants are expected, based on a Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Air Quality Division, screening computer model. Lead and hydrochloric acid would be under the EPA's "no threat level" (NTL). (As for the original application, these determinations are based on the scrubber manufacturer's hydrochloric acid efficiency claim of 99.9% and, in the case of lead, on its particulate efficiency claim.) As previously stated, according to EPA publications, there are no other toxic pollutants on the DER's air toxics list for which medical waste incinerators like Medico's are considered to be a source. The theoretical emissions for the Medico facility are below 100 tons per year, and the facility does not have the potential to emit more than ten tons per year of any hazardous air pollutant, as defined by the EPA. Past Conduct and Reliablily of the Principals.-- On or about March 5, 1991, the temperature in the secondary chamber of the biohazardous waste incinerator then operated by Hubbell dropped below 1800o at the end of a burn, and there was still a small amount of waste in the primary chamber and some small amount of flame still visible in the primary chamber. This violation, however, did not result in visible emissions, which would be an indication that there was a combustion or related problem in the incinerator. On or about March 4, 1991, one of the crematory units operated by Hubbell had visible emissions of 44% opacity. Identical warning letters regarding the March 4 and March 5 violations were sent on March 20 and March 27, 1991. Hubbell respondent by telephone on April 1, and in writing on April 5, 1991. There have been no other violation of Florida Statutes or DER rules since the original construction permit issued. Taking these violations into consideration, the compliance history of Hubbell's facilities does not undermine Medico's ability to give the necessary reasonable assurances. Between October, 1981, and October, 1991, Hubbell's facilities have been guilty of only the following violations: On or about March 25, 1987, Hubbell began to incinerate biohazardous medical waste before he was aware that a special permit for incinerating medical waste, in addition to his permit to operate the crematory, was required by law. On or about August 19, 1988, Hubbell's facility was notified that the Pinellas County Division of Air Quality had received a written complaint about smoke, and that a county permit would be required for the infectious waste incinerator along with retrofitting some controls. On or about October 4, 1989, Hubbell's facility apparently had a visible emissions violation. Three annual operating reports for Hubbell's facilities--for 1981, 1985, and 1989--would be considered late under current policy. There was no evidence whether they were late under the policy in effect at the time the reports were filed. Over the course of those ten years, there is no suggestion in the evidence that any of the other annual operating reports may have been late, and there are no other violations recorded in the Pinellas County compliance contact logs. To the contrary, the records indicate that no violations were found on 15 inspections. Hubbell voluntarily has shut down the old, smaller and less sophisticated medical waste incinerator where some of the recorded violations occurred, pending the construction of the Medico facility. Sheehan has not had an interest in any biohazardous waste incinerators in the State of Florida, other than the Medico application, and has not had a controlling interest in, or operational role in, any entity operating a medical or biohazardous waste facility in any state since June, 1989. Although, under the prehearing rulings, it would not even be relevant to this proceeding, the only evidence of any violations by any entity in which Sheehan had a controlling interest in, or operational role in, that operated a medical or biohazardous waste facility in any state, at any time, was evidence of two New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ash container violations and one failure to close up the back of the building housing an incinerator in October, 1988.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order extending the expiration date for air construction permit AC52-184546 for one year from the entry of the final order, subject to a DER determination that construction did not begin by March 20, 1992, and that the Chapter 92-31 moratorium applies. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 6th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-0851 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1991), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact. I.1.-3. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, accepted and incorporated. Second sentence, argument and subordinate. Accepted and incorporated. First four sentences, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Fifth sentence, rejected as not supported by the evidence and as contrary to facts found. Fifth sentence, accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found. First four sentences, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Fifth sentence, accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found. (He raised questions but had no answers; other witnesses satisfactorily answered the question.) Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and to the facts found. First sentence, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Second sentence, irrelevant to the extension the expiration date of an air construction permit, and unnecessary. Also, state law and regulations govern some aspects of the handling of these wastes. First two sentences, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Third and fourth sentences, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and to facts found. (Reasonable assumptions can be made, in accordance with EPA publications, based on the nature of the facility.) Also, irrelevant to the extension the expiration date of an air construction permit, and unnecessary. Finally, res judicata. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and to facts found. Also, irrelevant to the extension the expiration date of an air construction permit, and unnecessary. Finally, res judicata. First sentence, accepted but accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found, and unnecessary. Second sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and to facts found. Also, irrelevant to the extension the expiration date of an air construction permit, and unnecessary. Finally, res judicata. First two sentences, accepted and incorporated in part (another reason was that the application passed a screening model both initially and on the extension request and that most of the toxics would not be expected to be generated from this source), but res judicata, and unnecessary. Third sentence, accepted and incorporated. Fourth and fifth sentences, accepted but res judicata, subordinate to facts contrary to those found, and unnecessary. II.9.-10. Rejected as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. III.1.-2. Rejected as being conclusions of law. Medico's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-3. Accepted and incorporated. 4. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 5.-7. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Irrelevant and unnecessary. 11.-23. Generally accepted but largely subordinate. Incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Generally accepted, but largely res judicata, irrelevant, subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. 30.-31 Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Generally, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rest, accepted but subodinate and unnecessary. 34.-35. Generally, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 38.-43. Accepted and incorporated. 44.-45. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but largely subordinate and unnecessary. Some, irrelevant. 48.-49. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 50. Accepted but irrelevant, subordinate and unnecessary. DER's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-9. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 10. The law was signed on March 20, 1992. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 11.-15. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Adrien W. Helm, Esquire 925 Fourteenth Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33705 Sandra P. Stockwell, Esquire Douglas L. Stowell, Esquire Post Office Box 11059 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Dept. of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.300(6) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because the rule is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, or vests unbridled discretion in the agency.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state agency authorized under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, to regulate discharges of industrial wastewater to waters of the state. Under a delegation from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Department administers the National Pollution Discharge Elimination (NPDES) permitting program in Florida. The Department promulgated the rules in Florida Administrative Code Title 62 that are applicable to the permitting of wastewater discharges. FOPB is a non-profit Alabama corporation established in 1988 whose members are interested in protecting the water quality and natural resources of Perdido Bay. FOPB has approximately 450 members. About 90 percent of the members own property adjacent to Perdido Bay. James Lane is the president of FOPB. Jacqueline Lane and James Lane live on property adjacent to Perdido Bay. IP owns and operates a paper mill in Cantonment, Escambia County, Florida. IP is the applicant for the Department authorizations that are the subject of DOAH Case Nos. 08-3922 and 08-3923. Background When this rule challenge was filed, DOAH Cases Nos. 08-3922 and 08-3923 (the permit cases) involved challenges by these same Petitioners to four Department authorizations for IP: an NPDES permit, a Consent Order, an approved exemption for the experimental use of wetlands pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-660.300, and a waiver related to the experimental use of wetlands. IP later withdrew its request for the experimental use of wetlands exemption and the related waiver. Petitioners were ordered to show cause why their claim regarding the invalidity of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 660.300 was not rendered moot by IP’s withdrawal of its request for the exemption. Subsequently, the challenge to the validity of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-660.300 was dismissed as moot. At the commencement of the final hearing on June 22, 2009, FOPB and James Lane announced that they were withdrawing their rule challenges except with respect to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.300(6), and that the only legal ground being asserted for the invalidity of the rule is that it is vague and vests unbridled authority in the Department. Petitioners’Standing Jacqueline Lane, James Lane and a substantial number of the members of FOPB swim, boat, and make other uses of Perdido Bay. Perdido Bay would be affected by IP's wastewater effluent. The challenged rule was applied by the Department to determine that IP's proposed industrial wastewater discharge was in the public interest. The Challenged Rule Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.300, is entitled "Findings, Intent, and Antidegradation Policy for Surface Water Quality." Subsection (6) of the rule states: Public interest shall not be construed to mean only those activities conducted solely to provide facilities or benefits to the general public. Private activities conducted for private purposes may also be in the public interest. Most of the permits that are issued by the Department are issued to private entities whose primary purposes are personal uses or the production of private incomes and profits, rather than solely to provide facilities or benefits to the general public.
Findings Of Fact Solite is a light weight aggregate mining and manufacturing facility located in Clay County, Florida. The mining operation extracts clay from quarries on site. That clay is then stored on site for use in the manufacturing. The Solite facility began its operations in Clay County in 1959. To convert the clay into a product, it is introduced into a rotary light weight aggregate kiln. There it is heated to a temperature of 1,900 to 2,100 degrees Fahrenheit. Once the raw feed has been subjected to the heat in the rotary kiln, it becomes light weight aggregate, a product that is used in the construction industry. Before being introduced into the kiln the raw feed clay is stored in a covered shed. When the kiln is operating clay is taken from the shed by front end loader and transported to a pug mill. The clay exits the pug mill onto a conveyor which has a weigh scale. From there, the raw feed clay is introduced into the kiln, at what is referred to as the cold end of the kiln. When a kiln is in operation the clay rolls from the cold end of the kiln through the other end during which transport the raw clay is heated. The clay is discharged from the kiln into a product cooler. From the product cooler it is transferred by a front end loader to a crushing, screening and storage area. Solite has three (3) kilns at the facility. They are kilns 1, 1A and 5. The kilns at the Solite facility are eight to nine feet in diameter and 130 to 160 feet long. When the kilns are in operation, they rotate at a speed of one to two revolutions per minute in producing the product. The fuel sources for heating the kilns on site are constituted of coal, number (2) fuel oil, propane or liquid burnable material (LBM). The LBM fuel source contains a variety of combustible waste materials. Among those waste materials are certain hazardous wastes. In 1973 Solite began to burn material which is now classified as hazardous waste. The combustion process that occurs in manufacturing the light weight aggregate creates gases that run countercurrent to the raw clay feed. The combustion gases are discharged at the same end of the kiln in which the raw clay had been introduced. In managing the hazardous waste used at the facility, Solite has installed two systems to treat the combustion gases before those gases are released into the atmosphere. Kiln No. 5 employs baghouse technology for air pollution control, a treatment system consisting of two compartments with approximately 960 bags. By contrast, the air pollution control devises for kilns 1 and 1A are individual wet scrubber systems for each kiln. As stated, the proposed permit would allow Solite to add an additional baghouse. Under this arrangement two of the existing kilns could be used simultaneously, with the existing baghouse No. 5 and the proposed baghouse No. 1 serving as air pollution control devices. The existing baghouse associated with kiln 5 has a lime injection system as part of the air pollution control system. The proposed permit contemplates a lime injection system as part of the air pollution control to be employed with the additional baghouse. The wet scrubbers associated with kilns 1 and 1A are designed to control particulate matter in emissions. The scrubbers are not designed to respond to other pollutants. To that end the wet scrubber with kiln 1A could meet applicable standards for particulate matter. The wet scrubber for kiln 1 could possibly meet the applicable standard for particulate matter if more spray nozzles were added to the scrubber. The present inability for kiln 1 to meet the applicable standard for particulate matter control is not significant because Solite may only operate kiln 1 or 1A separately. The water that is employed in the wet scrubbers becomes hazardous waste once it has been utilized in the attempt to respond to the pollutants in the air emissions generated by the respective kiln. In the past that water containing hazardous waste was introduced into a settling pond. Solite may no longer discharge that water into the settling pond in accordance with a regulatory decision that is not the subject for consideration in this case. Solite has made no other arrangements for disposing of the waste water. The proposed permit in this case would allow Solite to use the existing scrubbers to control emissions from kilns 1 and 1A in the instance where fuels were used in the manufacturing that were other than LBM with hazardous waste. At present kilns 1 and 1A have necessary permits for their use with the wet scrubber air pollution control devices, subject to the limitations that have been described. Under the terms set forth in the proposed permit the future use of LBM with hazardous waste in the manufacturing in kilns 1 and 1A would be only allowed when baghouse technology was employed as an air pollution control device. The baghouse air pollution control technology does not use water. Therefore it does not create a circumstance in which the treatment water contains hazardous waste. In that respect, kiln 1A ceased burning LBM with hazardous waste on December 1, 1990. That practice was concluded at kiln 1 on June 6, 1991. Kiln 5 ceased burning LBM with hazardous waste on August 19, 1991, but resumed burning LBM with hazardous waste on December 14, 1993 after the baghouse for that kiln was installed with its lime injection system. The baghouse proposed to be installed under the terms of the permit application is almost identical to the baghouse and associated equipment that were recently installed to operate with kiln 5. The baghouse and associated equipment with kiln 5 has achieved full compliance with all applicable state and federal air regulations as evidenced through compliance tests. As noted, with the baghouse at kiln 5 and the proposed baghouse for kilns 1 and 1A, the combustion gases are subject to treatment by lime. In that process the lime is introduced into the air emissions by pneumatic transfer. An alternative means for lime injection is established. That alternative would allow the lime to be introduced at the point where the fuel is fired at the kiln. Lime injection is used to control acid gases, either sulfur dioxide or hydrogen chloride. The combustion gases are also cooled by passing them through a heat exchanger that brings the temperature down from the exit temperature from the kiln temperature of 900 degrees Fahrenheit to approximately 400 degrees Fahrenheit. The cooled gases then enter the baghouse which is designed to control the particulate matter in the emissions. From there the remaining gases are discharged into the atmosphere. It takes four to five seconds for the combustion gases to go from the kiln through the heat exchanger proposed by this project. The particulate matter is in the form of dust that is collected in the baghouse. That dust is removed through a screw conveyor and pneumatically transferred to a kiln storage bin. The air involved in that pneumatic transfer is discharged through a small baghouse. The clay fines in the kilns bin are reintroduced into the pug mill, conveyed and mixed with raw clay before the clay fines are reintroduced into the manufacturing process in the kiln. The clay fines may also be transported from the kiln storage bin to the crusher and introduced into the finishing process for the product. On November 30, 1992, Solite made application for the permit at issue. Solite sought permission to modify the existing facility by constructing duct work that would connect kilns 1 and 1A to the kiln 5 baghouse, to construct and temporarily operate the additional baghouse and to connect kilns 1 and 1A to the existing pug mill filter receiver and clinker hopper filter (the filter receiver associated with the crusher). The connection of kilns 1 and 1A to the existing pug mill filter receiver and clinker hopper filter is to control the particulate matter that is captured in the baghouses. The existing pug mill filter receiver and clinker hopper filter presently serve kiln 5. If allowed the opportunity to construct a second baghouse, Solite contemplates using the second baghouse with kiln 1 or 1A. The arrangement contemplated by the proposed permit would allow kiln 1 or 1A to operate simultaneously with kiln 5. The bags in the proposed baghouse would be about six inches in diameter and twelve feet long. As the particulate matter in the air emissions enters the top of the baghouse it passes through these bags. That particulate or dust is collected on the surface of the bags, while the air that has gone through the filtration process exits through the stack to the baghouse and into the atmosphere. The dust that collects on the bags forms a "filter cake." Once a certain atmospheric pressure is achieved in the baghouse a predetermined jet of air is blasted down the bags blowing the filter cakes away from the bags. This allows the cakes to fall down into the bottom of the baghouse where a screw-auger moves that material to one end of the baghouse hopper. From there it is removed through an air lock and pneumatically transferred to the clay fines bin. The proposed baghouse would utilize a continuous monitor that is installed with the baghouse to measure the particulate matter concentration in the clean air section of the baghouse. Should a hole appear in one of the bags, that would cause a increase in the particulate concentration. Then a signal is generated by a broken bag detector which alerts the operator that a problem exists and the bag needs to be replaced. There are access doors into the baghouse that allow the operator to enter the baghouse to inspect the bags and replace them as needed. When the Department reviewed the permit application, it issued a notice of intent to grant a permit and a proposed permit. Petitioner's timely protested the intent to grant. Before hearing the Department issued two amendments to the proposed permit. It is the second amendment which forms the basis for proposed agency action. Solite does not oppose the terms set forth in the second amendment. Petitioners do oppose the grant of the second amended permit. By the actions which the parties have taken in this case, it would appear that they have conceded the standing for Petitioners to bring the challenge to the grant of a permit. The proposed project would not increase the capacity for the manufacture of light weight aggregate products. The amount of fuel used in that manufacturing and the hours of operation when compared to opportunities presently permitted would not be increased. The maximum rate of feed of authorized LBM that could be incinerated in kilns 1 and 1A does not increase when comparing the application to the existing permits for kilns 1 and 1A with wet scrubbers. The removal efficiencies with the proposed baghouse exceed or are equal to those with the wet scrubber systems when examining control of emissions of air pollutants that must be addressed. Clay County is an attainment area for all air pollutants. In considering the application, the Department determined this to be a construction request with a right to temporarily operate the equipment to check its performance. The Department considered the permit request to be one related to a stationary installation which will reasonably be expected to be a source of air pollution. See Section 403.087(1), Florida Statutes. In the proposed permit for baghouse No. 1 the Department intends to impose certain restrictions on emissions that were specified in the permit issued for the baghouse No. 5. The Department in its proposed permit employs a process similar to that set forth in the January 23, 1993 settlement agreement related to kiln No. 5. In determining the acceptability of the proposal the Department looked to Rule 62-730.181, Florida Administrative Code which speaks to standards for the management of specific hazardous wastes and specific types of hazardous waste management facilities. In particular the Department utilized that rule in its terms wherein the rule incorporates by reference 40 C.F.R. Part 266, Subpart H, as it is designed to regulate hazardous waste burned in a boiler or industrial furnace. The regulations in 40 C.F.R. 266, Subpart H, are referred to as the Boiler and Industrial Furnaces regulations (BIF). The Solite kilns are industrial furnaces within the meaning as defined in 40 C.F.R. 266, Subpart H. The Department in its proposed permit would impose the terms set forth in 40 C.F.R. 266, Subpart H, related to the maximum concentrations of certain constituents in the LBM with hazardous wastes and the air emissions produced by their destruction. By imposing those requirements the Department is operating independently. It is not through this permit review administering the BIF regulations as set forth in 40 C.F.R. 266, Subpart H under authority from the United Stated Environmental Protection Agency and for the benefit of that federal regulatory agency. The Department has required that Solite address the combined emissions from metals and other air pollutants for all sources at the facility. By this requirement the Department intends to assure that those emissions do not result in ambient air concentrations that would harm or injure human health or welfare, animal, plant, or aquatic life or property. To demonstrate those assurances Solite was expected to conduct modeling of the emissions of metals and chlorine which could be emitted from the facility. That modeling was properly done. The requirement for modeling was in accordance with Section 403.161, Florida Statutes. In association with this requirement the Department referred to the BIF regulations at 40 C.F.R. 261. The proposed permit is considered in accordance with Rule 62-296.320, Florida Administrative Code, related to the control of air pollutants which cause or contribute to an objectionable odor. The requirements within the proposed permit include the necessity for Solite to establish reasonable precautions to minimize unconfined emissions of particulate matter as described in Rule 62-196.310(3), Florida Administrative Code. As stated in the proposed permit, if kiln 1 or 1A were in operation using the wet scrubbers they must conform to existing permits associated with kilns 1 and 1A, but those opportunities would only pertain to the instance in which the fuel sources are other than LBM with hazardous waste. For Solite to use wet scrubbers as pollution control devices for kilns 1 and 1A in an instance in which LBM with hazardous waste was used for fuel, the treatment efficiency for kiln 1 would have to be improved in the manner described and the treatment water that contained hazardous waste must be disposed of other than by placement in the settling pond. The existing wet scrubber systems for kilns 1 and 1A are not closed systems which continue to re-circulate the scrub water (a closed scrub water containment system). There is no proposal to install a scrubber water re-circulation system. If such a system were installed an arrangement would be necessary for periodically taking the scrubber water and disposing of that water off-site. Without a system for containing and re-circulating the scrubber water which contained hazardous waste, and periodic disposal of that scrubber water, Solite may not use kilns 1 and 1A with a scrubber when burning LBM with hazardous waste. This is true even though the Solite air emissions control device for kiln 1A using the wet scrubber does meet applicable air emissions standards and the scrubber system permitted with kiln 1 has the possibility to meet air emissions standards. Therefore, if kilns 1 or 1A were used with a baghouse this would create a net increase in air emissions when using LBM with hazardous waste as a fuel source. Such an arrangement would not exceed the theoretical air emissions associated with the wet scrubbers for kilns 1 or 1A when using LBM with hazardous waste that are presently set forth in the existing permits for those kilns. But the proposed permit recognizes the problem with the scrubber systems by limiting the use of the scrubber systems to those occasions in which LBM with hazardous waste is not used as a fuel. The proposed permit specifically prohibits the use of kiln 1 and 1A simultaneously. A baghouse or scrubber may only control the emissions from one kiln at a time in accordance with the proposed permit. The Oldover Corporation or another facility permitted to manage hazardous wastes under various provisions at 40 C.F.R. shall be the supplier of LBM with hazardous wastes. Under the terms of the proposed permit Solite is responsible for the LBM with hazardous wastes meeting all the requirements in any applicable state, federal and local regulations. The proposed permit limits the constituents in the LBM with hazardous waste. It does not allow any hazardous waste that is listed for dioxin or derived from the dioxin-listed waste. As set forth in the proposed permit, organic cyanides, sulfide, mercaptans, insecticides, pesticides, herbicides, electroplating waste or radioactive material regulated by the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services are not allowed to be part of the LBM. Other limitations are placed on the LBM with hazardous fuel concerning its constituents. They are set forth in proposed condition number 22 to the proposed permit. In accordance with the proposed permit, prior to submitting an application for an operating permit, which would allow LBM with hazardous waste to be burned, Solite is required to conduct testing at the facility for chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin and dibenzofuran, pursuant to a test plan approved by the Department. The proposed permit addresses test requirements and reports under various provisions set forth in Rule 62-297, Florida Administrative Code. The proposed permit reminds Solite that: Nothing in this permit shall exempt the permit to you from the requirements of 40 C.F.R. 761, polychlorinated bolychlorinated biophenyls, 40 C.F.R. 266, Subpart H, hazardous waste burned in boilers and industrial furnaces, and Chapter 62-730, Florida Administrative Code, hazardous waste, or any other requirements outside the purview of the Department's air regulation (Chapters 62-296 and 297, Florida Administrative Code). The permittee shall obtain such state and federal permits, when applicable, pursuant to any hazardous waste regulation (Rule 62-4.160, Florida Administrative Code). The proposed permit allows for an extension of the construction permit upon request of the Bureau of Air Regulation within the Department. The proposed permit makes it incumbent upon Solite to submit an application for an operation permit to the northeast district of the Department at least ninety (90) days prior to the expiration date of the construction permit. The proposed permit would allow kilns Nos. 1 and 1A to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, but no more than 760 hours during any calendar year, but not simultaneously. Concerning hazardous wastes in the LBM, procedures for testing those fuels to be used at the Solite facility are set forth in the waste analysis plan in the hazardous waste facility permit for the Oldover Corporation and the waste analysis plan for Solite. Oldover supplies those fuels to Solite. Under the waste analysis plan the generator of the waste material must complete a waste profile indicating the type of waste and its constituents which the generator proposes to supply to the facility. Initially Solite evaluates the waste profile to determine if the waste material meets all the necessary requirements for acceptance as a hazardous waste fuel for Solite. If the profile is acceptable, a representative sample is obtained from the waste generator. This sample is analyzed for a comprehensive set of parameters including physical characteristics, metals and organic compounds. If the representative sample indicates that the waste stream is acceptable it is approved and shipments are made to the Oldover facility adjacent to Solite. Once the waste stream has been approved by Solite and shipments are made, Oldover reviews the manifest associated with each shipment to determine the existence of any prohibitive constituents in the fuel before the fuel is accepted. Oldover tests the wastes for a limited number of parameters to determine whether or not the shipment conforms with the pre-established waste profile. If discrepancies are discovered between the waste profile and testing results the shipment may be rejected if the problems with the shipment cannot be reconciled with the anticipated waste profile. Comprehensive waste analysis are performed on an annual basis as well as at the initial point at which Solite begins to do business with a waste generator or upon the occasion when there is a significant change to the generator's waste stream. As it appears, the LBM with hazardous waste obtained from outside generators is generated off-site. Through this processes Solite has provided reasonable assurance that the use of LBM's with hazardous waste envisioned by the proposed permit will not allow the burning of hazardous waste that is listed for dioxin or derived from the dioxin-listed wastes: FO20, FO21, FO23, FO26 or FO27 as specified in 40 C.F.R. 261, Subpart H, or organic cyanides sulfites, mercaptans, insecticides, pesticides, herbicides, electroplating waste or radioactive material regulated by the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Solite has provided reasonable assurance that the LBM with hazardous waste will be properly analyzed to quantify the concentration of any constituent that may reasonably be expected to be in the waste. Those constituents will be identified and quantified, if present. This process of identification and quantification will be at levels detectable by analytical procedures prescribed in EPA method SW-846. That method is the prescribed method for analyzing hazardous LBM under the BIF rules. As a means to promote reasonable assurances that the proposed project will comply with applicable state and federal emissions standards, emissions from kiln 5 using its baghouse have been tested and the emissions at kiln 5 using the baghouse meet all applicable state and federal emission standards. Given that the proposed baghouse for kilns 1 and 1A will be very similar to the baghouse associated with kiln 5, it is to be expected that the emissions from kilns 1 and 1A using the proposed baghouse would be comparable to the experience with kiln 5 and its baghouse. Using a baghouse results in significant reductions in the emissions of particulate matter when compared to the experience with wet scrubbers. The emissions from the proposed project will not exceed emission standards for particulate matter. The use of the lime injection system with the proposed baghouse will decrease emissions of sulfur dioxide. The emissions from the proposed project will not exceed standards for sulfur dioxide. Neither the existing wet scrubber system nor the baghouse system are expected to have any significant impact on nitrogen oxide emissions. Consequently, there will be no significant change in nitrogen oxide emissions associated with the installation of the proposed baghouse. The emissions from the proposed project will not exceed emission standards for nitrogen oxides. The proposed baghouse will result in a reduction in the emissions of metals due to the increased efficiency in the removal of particulate matter. The emissions from the proposed project will not exceed emission standards for metals. The proposed baghouse will result in a reduction in mercury emissions due to increased efficiencies in the removal of mercury in particulate form. The proposed baghouse will not cause a change in the emissions of hydrogen chloride when compared to the experience with the wet scrubbers. The levels of hydrogen chloride when using the baghouse as a control device will not exceed any standards. Nor will there be emissions in excess of standards for chlorine gas. The proposed baghouse when contrasted with the experience in the use of wet scrubbers will not change the amount of emissions of organic materials. The proposed baghouse when contrasted with the wet scrubber system will result in a reduction of the emissions of dioxins and furans. The proposed project will comply with standards applicable to dioxins and furans by exclusion from the LBM and limiting the inlet temperature to the baghouse. The proposed permit prohibits the facility from accepting any dioxins bearing waste. The fuel is screened to insure that it does not contain dioxin. PCB's in excess of five parts per million are not allowed. This is a means to limit the formation of dioxins and furans from the PCB's. The maximum temperature of gases entering the baghouse is established at 450 degrees Fahrenheit and an automatic shut-off device is required if this temperature is exceeded in order to control the secondary generation of dioxins and furans. The inlet temperature to the baghouse is set at 425 degrees. The modeling that was done to examine emissions of metals and chlorine provided reasonable assurances that the ambient concentrations caused by the impact of these pollutants from this facility will be less than the Department's annual air reference concentrations, as a means to ensure that harm or injury to human health or welfare, animal, plant or aquatic life or property does not occur. Solite is required by the terms of the proposed permit to have continuous emission monitors for carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. When the emission standard for carbon monoxide or alternatively hydrocarbons nears the exceedance level, then the automatic waste feed shut-off is activated to assure that the carbon monoxide or, alternatively, hydrocarbon emission standards are not exceeded. Kiln 5 with its associated baghouse has demonstrated a destruction and removal efficiency for regulated organic pollutants in excess of 99.99 percent. Having similar technology, the proposed permit for a baghouse can be expected to meet the 99.99 percent destruction and removal efficiency for organic pollutants. The addition of the proposed baghouse with its associated features provides reasonable assurance that the particulate matter standard of 0.08 grains per dry standard cubic foot corrected to seven percent O2 will be met. As a protection against exceeding emission standards for various pollutants the proposed permit requires that Solite continuously monitor for carbon monoxide, oxygen, baghouse inlet temperature and sulfur dioxide at levels established in the proposed permit. Furthermore, the proposed permit requires that an automatic shut-off device be installed to maintain established emissions limits for temperature, oxygen or hydrocarbons. Such devices have been installed on the existing kiln 5 with its baghouse. Efficient combustion can be expected in kilns 1 and 1A based upon residence time for burning, turbulence, temperature and oxygen availability. The residence time for the fuels is approximately four seconds. The rotation of the kilns and movement of the clay material ensures adequate turbulence. The temperature of the kiln must be maintained at or above 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and the fuel feed of LBM with hazardous waste is automatically shut-off if the temperature falls below 1,850 degrees. Oxygen levels are to be continuously monitored. The gas flow rates for fuel introduced into the kiln may not vary significantly. These arrangements are contained in the proposed permit. The re-introduction of clay fines or dust into the kiln to be incorporated into the product has been taken into account in establishing estimates of emissions for kilns 1 and 1A. That phenomenon has been measured in emissions for kiln 5. In using the dust Solite will not create conditions which violate standards for emissions. To support these findings all experts who testified at the hearing agreed that the proposed project will meet all applicable rules and emission standards. Solite has established reasonable assurances concerning those standards. The Solite application was sealed by a professional engineer, Dr. John Koogler, who was among those experts mentioned. The Solite facility uses an industrial furnace which is similar in design to furnaces regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency in its hazardous waste regulatory program. Nothing about the facility is extraordinary, thus requiring a more rigorous regulatory response to this facility which uses LBM with hazardous waste in kiln No. 5 and proposes to do so through the project under consideration. It was not shown that the Department must impose its "Air toxics" permitting strategy for controlling toxic emissions from stationary sources at levels which will not endanger public health in order to adequately consider the proposed project. The "Air toxics" permitting strategy is a non-rule policy. Although not specifically required by rule or standard Solite performed additional modeling concerning the emissions of organics from the facility with the advent of the use of the proposed baghouse. The modeling indicated that there would not be an exceedance of the no threat levels established in the state air toxics strategy. Similarly, although not required, Solite conducted additional modeling of dioxins emissions which indicated that there would be no significant risk posed as a result of the proposed project. Solite has qualified for interim status under the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations to burn hazardous waste at its facility. Solite has filed EPA required precompliance certification for all three kilns and certification of compliance for kiln 5. Solite has obtained an extension from EPA for filing their certification of compliance for kilns 1 and 1A. In addition Solite has submitted an application for hazardous facility permit to EPA and this application is currently under review by EPA. In reviewing the permit application past violations of statutes and rules were considered by the Department. This was done to determine whether Solite had provided reasonable assurances that the Department standards in application to the proposed project would be met. The Department correctly decided that Solite's past violations did not justify denial of the permit. Those violations were not severe and Solite corrected the problems. Furthermore, the proposed project would improve air pollution control to the extent that it reduces or eliminates problems that led to the previous violations.
Recommendation Based upon a consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which grants the construction permit for the air pollution source subject to the provisions set forth in the second amended proposed permit. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of August, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 30th day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following discussion is given concerning the proposed findings of facts by the parties: Petitioner's facts Paragraphs 1 through 6 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 7 through 12 are not requirements that must be considered in deciding to grant or deny the permit. Paragraphs 13 through 16 are contrary to facts found. Paragraph 17 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 18 is rejected in its suggestion that Solite has not given the necessary reasonable assurances. Paragraph 19 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 20 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 21 and 22 are rejected in the suggestion that the activities at Solite caused these problems. Paragraphs 23 through 28 are rejected in the suggestion that the emissions tests associated with the permit request are inadequate or that Solite has routinely exceeded air emissions requirements or used unacceptable LBM with hazardous waste in the past. Paragraph 29 is rejected in the suggestion that the Department has inappropriately considered the permit request. Paragraph 30 is rejected in the suggestion that the Department would allow unacceptable fuels to be burned in the kilns. Paragraphs 31 and 32 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 33 is rejected as not establishing a requirement for granting or denying this permit. Paragraph 34 is rejected to the extent that it suggests that the Department has failed to take into account appropriate circumstances when determining to grant or deny the permit. Paragraph 35 is rejected in the suggestion that the Solite facility has caused problems for local gardeners. Paragraphs 36 and 37 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 38 is rejected in the suggestion that Solite has not complied with applicable standards for lead. Paragraphs 39 through 43 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 44 is not relevant. Paragraphs 45 through 47 are rejected in the suggestion that the Department has not adequately considered those circumstances necessary to determine whether to grant or deny the permit. Paragraphs 48 through 49 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 50 and 51 are rejected in the suggestion that these matters must be considered by the Department in deciding whether to grant or deny the permit. Paragraph 52 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 53 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 54 through 57 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 58 is not relevant. Paragraph 59 is a conclusion of law. Paragraph 60 is rejected in the suggestion that inappropriate modeling was conducted by Solite in support of its application. Paragraph 61 is a conclusion of law. Paragraph 62 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 63 is rejected in the suggestion that the air toxics strategy should have been employed in this case. Paragraph 64 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 65 through 67 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 68 is not relevant. Paragraphs 69 through 73 are rejected in the suggestion that reasonable assurances have not been given concerning compliance with applicable standards for emissions levels. Paragraph 74 is subordinate to facts found. The first sentence to Paragraph 75 is contrary to facts found. The second sentence is not a requirement for resolving the proposed permit request. Paragraphs 76 through 80 are not relevant. Paragraph 81 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 82 is contrary to facts found. Solite's facts: Paragraphs 1 through 5 are subordinate to facts found. The first sentence to Paragraph 6 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. The second sentence is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 7 through 16 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 17 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 18 through 42 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 43 is contrary to facts found in its suggestion that LBM with hazardous waste may be used with the existing wet scrubbers and the lack of increase in the capacity to burn LBM with hazardous waste if the proposed permit is granted. Paragraphs 44 and 45 are subordinate to facts found. Department's Facts: Paragraphs 1 through 9 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 10 is rejected in the suggestion that kilns 1 and 1A may use LBM with hazardous waste when operating with the wet scrubber notwithstanding what the permits may say. Paragraphs 11 through 28 are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas K. Maurer, Esquire Foley & Lardner Post Office Box 2193 Orlando, FL 32801 Julie Hellmuth 1205 Orange Circle North Orange Park, FL 32073 Priscilla Norwood Harris Post Office Box 702 Green Cove Springs, FL 32043 Jefferson M. Braswell, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 Kenneth Plante, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact The Cutler plant of Respondent, Florida Power & Light Company (FPL), is located in Dade County, Florida, at 14925 Southwest 67th Avenue, approximately 15 miles south of Central Miami on an 80-acre site adjacent to Biscayne Bay. The plant has provided electrical service since 1949. At one time there were six generating units at the plant, but units 1, 2, 3 and 4 have been retired and are no longer in service. Cutler Units 5 and 6 were placed in service in 1954 and 1955, respectively. Both units were placed on extended cold standby in 1976, and were returned to service in 1982. These units are normally used only when other FPL generating units are out of operation or if extremely hot or cold weather creates an unusual electrical demand by FPL's customers. Cutler Unit 5 is a 75 megawatt steam generating unit. Cutler Unit 6 is a 161.5 megawatt steam generating unit. Each unit operates with a combustion engineering design boiler which is capable of burning No. 6 residual fuel, No. 2 distillate fuel, and natural gas. These fuels may be burned independently or in combination with each other. Combustion products from the boilers are exhausted through two separate stacks, each 150 feet in height. When in operation these units emit the following regulated air pollutants: particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide. Cutler Units 5 and 6 are "existing fossil fuel steam generators" subject to the emission limiting standards specified in Rule 17-2.600(5)(b), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), the ambient air quality standards specified in Rule 17-2.300(3), F.A.C., and the ambient air quality standards soecified in Section 24-17(1) and (2)(b), Dade County Code. Rule 17-2.600(5)(b), F.A.C., limits: (1) visible emissions to 20 percent opacity, (2) emission of particulate matter to 0.1 pounds per million Btu heat input, maximum 2-hour average, and (3) sulfur dioxide emissions to 1.1 pounds per million Btu heat input. Rule 17-2.300(3), F.A.C., establishes the maximum permitted levels of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide, as follows: sulfur Dioxide. Maximum three hour concentration not to be exceeded more than once per year-- 1300 micrograms per cubic meter (0.5 ppm). Maximum 24-hour concentration not to be exceeded more than once per year--260 micrograms per cubic meter (0.1 ppm) Annual arithmetic mean--60 micro- grams per cubic meter (0.02 ppm). Particulate Matter. Maximum 24-hour concentration not to he exceeded more than once per year-- 150 micrograms per cubic meter. Annual geometric mean--60 micrograms per cubic meter. Carbon Monoxide. Maximum one hour concentration not to be exceeded more than once per year--40 milligrams her cubic meter (35 ppm). Maximum eight hour concentration not to be exceeded more than once per year--10 milligrams per cubic meter (9 ppm). * * * Nitrogen Dioxide. Annual arithmetic mean--100 micrograms per cubic meter (0.05 ppm). Section 24-17(1) and (2)(b), Dade County Code, establishes the following ambient air quality standards and emission standards for maximum sulfur dioxide concentrations: Ambient air quality standards. . . . Annual arithmetic mean-8.6 micro- grams per cubic meter (0.003 parts per million); Twenty-four-hour concentration-- 28.6 micrograms per cubic meter (0.010 parts per million); Four-hour concentration-57.2 micro- grams per cubic meter (0.020 parts per million); One-hour concentration-286 micrograms per cubic meter (0.100 parts per million). Emission standards... Existing sources on the effective date of this section [Ordinance Nos. 76-52]: 1.1 pounds per million Btu heat input, maximum two-hour average, when liquid fuel is burned; On June 23, 1983, FPL submitted its application for renewal of the operating permits for Cutler Units 5 and 6 to DER. FPL's initial application contemplated burning No. 6 fuel oil containing up to one percent sulfur content to provide up to 25 percent of the heat input to each unit, with natural gas constituting the remaining 75 percent. During 1982 and 1984 several tests were performed at Units 5 and 6 to determine the level of particulate matter and visible emissions. Particulate and visual emissions testing was conducted at Unit 5 on June 30, 1982, and at Unit 6 on July 9, 1982, with the units burning a mixture of 75 percent natural gas and 25 percent fuel oil containing one percent sulfur. The results of these tests indicate the average particulate emission rate from each unit to be 0.04 pounds per million Btu head input, as compared to the applicable emission limit of 0.1 pound per million Btu input established by Rule 17-2.600(5)(b), F.A.C. Visual emissions were established as 6 percent for Unit 5 and one percent for Unit 6, as compared to the capacity limit of 20 percent established by Rule 17- 2.600(5)(b), F.A.C. Additional visual emission tests were conducted at Units 5 and 6 on August 10, 1983. The results of these tests indicted visible emissions to be less than 5 percent. While FPL's permit application was pending, residents of the neighborhood in the vicinity of the plant expressed concern to DER regarding "plume down wash." "Down wash" is a term used to describe an aerodynamic effect that, at higher wind speeds, causes reduction in pressure on the leeward side of the building or structure resulting in turbulent air flow around and within the cavity. If the exhaust plume from the stack of an air pollution source is near enough to the low pressure cavity, it is drawn into the turbulence and follows the air flow down to the leeward side of the building, thereby increasing the impact of emissions at ground level in the surrounding area. Air quality dispersion modeling is a method of predicting the impact of emissions from an air pollution source upon ground level air quality in the surrounding area. Inputs to the model include local meteorological data (wind speed, direction and mixing depth, and atmospheric stability and pressure) and source-specific information regarding stack height and diameter, exhaust gas temperature and velocity, and pollutant emission rate. The model provides a prediction of the ground level concentration of an air pollutant that will result from an emission source at any geographic point. The maximum point of impact from a particular source, under the "worst case" meteorological conditions, can therefore be identified and the resulting pollutant concentration predicted. Air quality di spersion modeling is a well-accepted technique in the field of air quality control, and specific models have been developed and approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. A screening analysis performed by DER meteorologist, Thomas Rogers, indicated that the configuration of the Cutler Units 5 and 6 and their exhaust stacks could create plume down wash. In order to address the potential effects of down wash from Units 5 and 6, FPL retained Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. (ESE) to perform an air quality dispersion study. The initial ESE study, submitted to DER on February 14, 1984, evaluated the effects of emissions of sulfur dioxide from Units 5 and 6 on ground level air quality in the surrounding area, under both down wash and non- down wash conditions. As was contemplated in FPL's permit applications, this modeling study assumed that up to 25 percent of the heat input to each unit would be provided by No. 6 residental fuel oil containing one percent sulfur, with 100 percent fuel oil being burned during start-up until the unit achieved 25 percent load. The ESE study concluded that, under the worst-case emission and down wash conditions, the sulfur dioxide concentration at the point of maximum impact in the area surrounding the Cutler site would be a: (1) maximum three-hour concentration of 410 micrograms per cubic meter, (2) maximum 24-hour concentration of 114 micrograms per cubic meter, and (3) annual arithmetic mean of 9 micrograms per cubic meter. ESE performed an additional study to evaluate the maximum inpact of emissions of three other pollutants (nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and total suspended particulate) from Units 5 and 6, based on the same fuel assumptions. The predicted ambient air concentrations of these pollutants at the point of maximum impact, and under worst-case down wash and emission conditions, were: Nitrogen dioxide - annual arithmetic mean of 8.7 micrograms per cubic meter. Carbon monoxide - Maximum one-hour concentration of annual 23.3 micrograms per cubic meter. Maximum eight-hour concentration of annual 13.9 micrograms per cubic meter. Total suspended particulate - Maximum 24-hour concentration of annual 10.9 micrograms per cubic meter. Annual geometric mean - 0.8 micrograms per cubic meter. ESE subsequently performed a third analysis to determine the sulfur dioxide emission rate from Cutler Units 5 and 6 that would demonstrate compliance with the ambient air quality standards for sulfur dioxide established in the Metropolitan Dade County Pollution Control Ordinance. ESE's analysis concluded that under worst-case building down wash conditions, the maximum 1- and 4-hour sulfur dioxide concentrations from Units 5 and 6 were predicted to be 662 and 248 micrograms per cubic meter. These maximum concentrations were higher than the 1- and 4-hour standards established by the Dade County Code. Based on these results, ESE concluded that compliance with the Dade County ambient air quality standards would require that the maximum sulfur content of fuel oil burned during start-up would have to be limited to 0.23 percent. Additional particulate and visible emissions tests were conducted at Unit 5 on March 1, 1984, and at Unit 6 on February 29, 1984, with the units burning 100 percent natural gas. Unit 5 demonstrated an average particulate emission of 0.02 pounds per million Btu and Unit 6, of 0.01 pounds per million Btu, with neither unit exhibiting any visual emissions. During all compliance testings at Units 5 and 6, the units were operating at a capacity of at least 90 percent maximum load, in accordance with the testing requirements and policy of DER. Based on the results of ESE's third modeling study, FPL amended its permit applications to include a restriction requiring Units 5 and 6 to burn 100 percent natural gas except during start-up, and to limit the sulfur content of the oil burned during start-up to a maximum 0.2 percent. The air quality dispersion modeling performed by ESE utilized the only model currently approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and DER that is capable of taking aerodynamic down wash into consideration. DER's expert in air dispersion modeling found no fault with the conclusions reached in the ESE modeling studies. Possible differences between the actual Cutler plant building dimensions and configurations and those assumed in the modeling studies would not significantly change any of the conclusions reached. The draft permits for Units 5 and 6 would require the burning of 100 percent natural gas, except during periods of unit start-up when fuel oil may contribute up to 170 million Btu per hour of heat input to Unit 5 and 290 million Btu per hour heat input to Unit 6 (approximately 22 percent of each unit's maximum heat input). In addition, the draft permits limit total sulfur dioxide emissions from Units 5 and 6 to 41.3 pounds per hour and 70.1 pounds per hour, respectively. These sulfur dioxide emission limitations will insure compliance with the Dade County ambient air quality standards for sulfur dioxide, based upon the results of the ESE modeling studies. In order to meet the sulfur dioxide emission limits in the draft permits, the maximum sulfur content of fuel oil burned for Units 5 and 6 would be restricted to 0.23 percent. Operation of Cutler Units 5 and 6 in compliance with the conditions of the draft permits will provide reasonable assurance that the units will not cause any violation of the Dade County ambient air quality standards for sulfur dioxide, or the Florida ambient air quality standards. Use of 100 percent natural gas, except during start-up when residual fuel oil with maximum sulfur content of 0.23 percent is burned, will insure compliance with the emission limiting standards for particulate matter, opacity and sulfur dioxide established for existing fossil fuel steam generators by Rule 17-2.600(5)(b), F.A.C. The use of high quality, "clean", fuel as required by the draft permits, constitutes the most effective air pollution control strategy for Units 5 and 6. The primary concerns expressed by the Petitioners regarding Cutler Units 5 and 6 relate to noise, odors, down wash, and fumes they attribute to operation of the Cutler plant. Although the testimony and evidence on these points related to past experience of Petitioners, they were unable to specify what operating conditions and fuels resulted in the incidences of concern. On at least three of the occasions Jean Guthrie recorded objectionable odors or other effects felt to be attributable to the Cutler plant, neither Unit 5 nor Unit 6 was in operation. The record of complaints registered with the Dade County Consumer Advocate, from the time Cutler Units 5 and 6 were reactivated until two weeks before the final hearing, shows that there have been no complaints regarding the plant since June 3, 1983. No evidence was presented demonstrating that any past problems that may have been caused by operation of the Cutler plant will continue under the stringent restrictions on emissions, fuel type, and fuel quality imposed by the draft permit conditions. No violations of ambient air quality standards or emission limitations have been discovered and documented by DER with respect to Cutler Units 5 and 6. Neither Petitioners nor the members of the public that testified produced any evidence that Cutler Units 5 and 6 will be unable to comply with the conditions of the draft permits issued by DER. Nor was any evidence produced demonstrating that operation of Cutler Units 5 and 6 in compliance with the draft permits will result in emissions in excess of the emission limits prescribed under DER's rules, or will cause or contribute to any violations of the Florida or Dade County ambient air quality or emissions standards. Petitioner, Walter Guthrie, presently resides in Phoenix, Arizona, where he is employed in a permanent position with American West Airlines, a carrier servicing the southwestern and midwestern United States. He has been employed by American West Airlines, and has resided in Phoenix, for approximately 15 months, is registered to vote in the State of Arizona, and has an Arizona driver's license. Walter Guthrie holds no ownership interest in the home located at 6960 Southwest 144 Street, Miami, Florida, which home is owned by his parents, William L. and Jean Guthrie. Walter Guthrie has only visited his parents' home approximately three weeks in the year immediately preceding the final hearing in this case, and while some of his personal property is kept at that location, there is no certainty that Walter Guthrie will at any time in the future take up residence at his parents' home.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the permit to construct a Cyclonaire Docksider pneumatic unloading system, permit no. AC 56-157174, which was requested by Florida Sun Cement Company, Inc., should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Florida Sun is a Florida corporation whose address is 4550 Glades Cutoff Road, Fort Pierce, St. Lucie County, Florida 34949. Tuxedo is a Florida corporation whose address is 1110 North Second Street, Fort Pierce, Florida 34950. The City is an incorporated municipality with a boundary located approximately one and one-half miles north of the Tuxedo packing house. On November 15, 1984, the Department issued permit number AC-56-86471 to Roger Charles, President of Manatee Cement Co., Inc. This permit authorized the construction of a cement bulk terminal/ship unloading facility which would include two 10,000 metric ton silos for the storage of Portland cement which would be vented by one common baghouse. The location for the facility was to be at Port Avenue and Harbor Street in Fort Pierce, Florida. This location is directly across the street from the Tuxedo packing house. On November 15, 1984, the Department issued permit number AC-56-873l0 to Roger Charles, President of Manatee Cement Co., Inc. This permit authorized the construction of a cement Co., Inc. This permit authorized the construction of a cement bulk terminal/truck loading and packhouse which would include one 240 ton storage bin vented to one baghouse, two truck loading spouts vented to two baghouses, and one packing facility which would also be vented. On November 25, 1985, the Department extended the expiration dates for the permits identified in paragraphs 4 and 5 until November 15, 1989. Later, on August 11, 1987, the Department transferred the permits to Roger Charles, president of Florida Sun. On November 14, 1988, Florida Sun filed an application for a barge- mounted pneumatic Portland Cement unloader. This unloader, a Cyclonaire Docksider, was proposed to be used in connection with the facilities previously permitted. Florida Sun sought to utilize the pneumatic unloader to extract cement from the holds of ships moored at the Fort Pierce port which is adjacent to the mainside silo facility. From the dock area the cement would then be conveyed through a sealed pipeline to the storage silos. From the silos, the cement would be loaded into trucks and transported away from the site. Under the 1984 permits' proposal, Florida Sun intended to unload the cement via self-unloading ships which did not require a permit. The 1988 request for the barge-mounted unloader would allow more types of ships to unload at the facility. On February 7, 1989, the Department issued an Intent to Issue which announced its intent to issue the permit. On February 12, 1989, the notice of the Intent to Issue was published in the News Tribune, a newspaper published at Fort Pierce, St. Lucie County, Florida. Tuxedo and the City timely filed petitions challenging the proposed permit. Neither petitioner had timely challenged the permits which had been issued in 1984. The pneumatic unloader which is the subject of the permit request is to be manufactured by Cyclonaire Bulk Cargo Systems, Inc. (Cyclonaire). The Cyclonaire Docksider unit will be attached to a free-floating barge which will be secured to the dock. The barge will be capable of movement in an east-west direction to allow access to each opening of the ship's hold. The Cyclonaire Docksider operates by extending an arm into the hold of the ship. The arm is equipped with a pneumatic device which extracts the cement from the ship and conveys it through a pipeline. The Cyclonaire utilizes two diesel engines which operate the extraction and conveying portions of the device. The Cyclonaire is vented through filter cartridges manufactured by W.L. Gore and Associates. Cyclonaire has executed a warranty for the Docksider pneumatic unloading system which provides, in pertinent part: Not more than .02 grains of particulate matter shall be contained in each dry standard cubic foot of air discharged into the atmosphere from the vacuum pump exhaust ports during normal operation of ice system, as measured using the applicable test methods specified by the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. The opacity of emissions measured across the vacuum pump exhaust ports during normal operation shall not exceed 5o/o when measured using the applicable test method specified by the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. The opacity of emissions measured across the top of the hold of the vessel being discharged by the DOCKSIDER system shall not exceed 5o/o during normal operation of the system, when measured using the applicable test method specified by the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. There shall be no leaks or fugitive emissions from the unloader suction line(s), from the filter vessel, from the cement receivers, from the cement discharge line(s), from the supply line(s) to the vacuum pump, or from the vacuum pump itself. Cyclonaire has also executed a warranty for the conveying lines to the silos which provides, in pertinent part: Not more than .02 grains of particulate matter shall be contained in each dry standard cubic foot of air discharged into the atmosphere from the vacuum pump exhaust ports of the system during normal operation of the system, as measured using the applicable test methods specified by the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. The opacity of emissions measured across the vacuum pump exhaust ports during normal operation shall not exceed 5o/o when measured using the applicable test method specified by the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. The opacity of emissions measured across the top of the hold of the vessel being discharged by the Docksider system shall net exceed 5o/o during normal operation of the system, when measured using the applicable test method specified by the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. Not more than 0.02 grains of particulate matter shall be contained in each actual cubic foot of air discharged by the baghouse at the silos per performance warranties of the Fuller Company as measured using applicable test methods specified by the State of Florida DER. The opacity of emissions measured across the baghouse exhaust shall not exceed 5o/o when measured using the applicable test method specified by the State of Florida DER. There shall be no leaks or fugitive emissions from the unloader suction line(s), from the filter vessel, from the cement receivers, from the cement discharge line(s), from the supply line(s) to the vacuum pump, or from the vacuum pump itself. This warranty does not apply to situations which result due to factors beyond the reasonable control of Seller, e.g., equipment malfunctions, improper maintenance, improper operations or wind gusts in excess of 35 miles per hour. A system similar to the proposed Florida Sun Cyclonaire Docksider is located in Tampa, Florida. When tested, the Tampa unloading system resulted in an average particulate concentration of .0043 gr/dscf and the average particulate emission rate was .21 lb/hr at an average cement unloading rate of 236 tons per hour. The visible emissions were found to be less than 5 percent opacity. Florida Sun proposes to vent emission sources by use of baghouses. These filtering systems vent dust-laden air by extracting the particles which fall, by gravity, while the air is released through a filter to the outside. The filters are cleaned by a jet of air which is pulsed on the outside of the filter unit. The Florida Sun facility will have baghouses to vent the silos and the truck loadout spouts. The Fuller Company manufactures retractable loading spouts which will convey the cement from the storage silos to the transporting trucks. The truck loading process will take place within an enclosed silo. The truck will be positioned under the spout and a cone will be extended down into an opening on the top of the vehicle. Proper operation requires the spout to connect to the truck so that particles are not released into the air. The spout allows the cement to flow into the truck while air is displaced back into a venting system. Each loading spout will have its own venting system. The Fuller Company performance warranties provide, in pertinent part: Fuller Company warrants, when the equipment covered by this agreement, is adjusted and operates at the design operating conditions, as specified within the specifications, and as enumerated in Section A hereafter; that the maximum solid particulate emissions exiting the baghouse will not exceed 0.02 Gr/ACF excluding condensibles. The potential sources of air pollutant emissions associated with the Florida Sun cement facility are as follows: unconfined and unquantifiable particulate matter emitted from the hold of the ship during the unloading process; the emissions from the Cyclonaire unit (the venting required to separate the dust-laden air in order to pass the cement into the conveyor line); emissions from two diesel engines which generate energy for the extraction and conveying unit; the baghouse which vents the silos as they are being loaded; the truck spout venting units; and the unconfined but quantifiable particulate matter generated by truck traffic. The total of the quantifiable emissions for the Florida Sun facility will be 19 tons per year. The Florida Sun facility will not contain the 240 ton cement storage bin authorized by the 1984 permits. Based upon Florida Sun's stipulation to that effect, potential emissions from that source have not been considered. The Florida Sun facility will not contain the packhouse authorized by the 1984 permits. Based upon Florida Sun's stipulation to that effect, potential emissions from that source have not been considered. The stipulated Florida Sun annual throughput of cement for this facility will be 279,000 tons per year, plus or minus 10 percent. In addition to the equipment to be utilized to limit the expected emissions, Florida Sun intends to pave or grass its entire facility. Regular maintenance of this area will provide reasonable precautions that unconfined particulate matter will not be released into the atmosphere. Further, training of personnel will aid in the proper operation and maintenance of the equipment. Operation of the Cyclonaire should not occur during wind conditions exceeding 35 miles per hour. While helpful to determine air quality impacts, air quality modeling is not required by rule for permit approval for minor projects with a non-toxic source. To be helpful, an air quality model must be based upon assumptions of fact likely to occur. All parties utilized the Industrial Source Complex Short- Term model. That model is an EPA approved model for general air quality analysis. In this case, the model submitted by Tuxedo and the City contained numerous emission factor errors which rendered their model's results unreliable. Among the errors were: the assumption that the truck loading activities would occur twenty-four hours a day, 365 days a year; the by Tuxedo and the City contained numerous emission factor errors which rendered their model's results unreliable. Among the errors were: the assumption that the truck loading activities would occur twenty-four hours a day, 365 days a year; the assumption that the truck loading activities would result in a spillage of cement material at a rate of 1.2 grams per second for twenty-fours a day, 365 days a year; and the assumption that truck loading would occur outside of the enclosed silos. The air quality models run by Dr. Koogler and Mr. Rogers corroborated the other forms of assurances given by Florida Sun. The Tuxedo packing house is located directly across the street to the north from the Florida Sun facility. There is also another citrus packing house located directly across the street to the south from the Florida Sun property. The Tuxedo packing house boxes a variety of fresh citrus fruits for the fresh market. Citrus fruit is sensitive to skin abrasion which can result in a premature decay of the fruit and limited shelf-life of the fruit. As a result, prudent packers take every precaution to avoid abrasive particles from coming in contact with fresh fruit. Cement is an abrasive material. The Tuxedo packing house is ventilated by large doors located around the building and an opening at the top of the structure. In general, Tuxedo is located downwind from the Florida Sun facility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order approving the application for permit no. AC 56-157174 with special conditions to include the prohibition of loading via the Cyclonaire Docksider during wind speeds in excess of 35 miles per hour, proper and routine inspection and maintenance of the equipment to assure it is operated in accordance with the manufacturers' directives, and training for operators of the Cyclonaire to assure compliance with manufacturer's guidelines equipment to assure it is operated in accordance with the manufacturers' directives, and training for operators of the Cyclonaire to assure compliance with manufacturer's guidelines. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO CASE NOS. 89-1121 AND 89-1271 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY TUXEDO: Paragraphs 1 through 19 are accepted. Paragraph 20 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence; during normal and proper operation of the truck loading spouts, spillage should not occur. Incidents of spillage would suggest a violation of the permit conditions and require immediate correction. Paragraph 21 is rejected as comment or irrelevant. It is accepted the loading spouts have a tolerance of approximately one-half inch; the balance of paragraph 22 is rejected as irrelevant, embellished comment, or argument. The first four sentences of paragraph 23 are accepted; the balance is rejected as comment, recitation of testimony, irrelevant, or argument. Paragraph 24 is accepted. With regard to paragraphs 25 and 26, it is accepted that Dr. Koogler visited the Tampa Cyclonaire facility on two occasions, that the winds on the first visit were approximately 2-5 miles per hour, that on the first visit he observed no visible emissions, that on the second visit the winds were 5-10 miles per hour, and that on the second visit he observed visible emissions while a front-end loader scraped the cement off the bottom of the hold to the center for the Cyclonaire to extract it; otherwise, the paragraphs are rejected as comment, argument, embellishment on fact, or irrelevant. Paragraph 27 is accepted. Paragraphs 28 and 29 are accepted. Paragraph 30 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. While the barge will be free-floating and capable of being located along side the hold to be unloaded, the barge will not be in motion during unloading, no assumption to the contrary has been made. Paragraph 31 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 32 is accepted. Paragraph 33 is rejected as repetitive, comment, unnecessary. See 7 above. Paragraphs 34 and 35 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 36, it is accepted that Dr. Koogler and Mr. Yocum used the same emission factors for the four sources identified and listed in the paragraph; otherwise, the paragraph is rejected as comment or irrelevant. It is accepted that Mr. Yocum utilized the AP-42 to compute the emission factors used for the diesel engines; otherwise the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. It is accepted that Dr. Koogler utilized data from the diesel engine manufacturer to compute the emission factors he used; otherwise the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 39 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, argument, or comment. Paragraph 40 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, argument, or comment. Paragraph 41 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. That individuals attempted to quantify the fugitive emissions from the hold does not render such attempts reliable for purposes of determining air quality impact. Such "best guesses" are only estimates which, in this case, do not suggest the project should not be permitted. Paragraph 42 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 43 is rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence to the extent that it suggests such occurrences would be under normal and proper operating conditions. Incidents of such operation would be a violation of the permit terms. With regard to paragraph 44, it is accepted that the spout's ability to collect the cement dust and route it up to the baghouse is not warranted; however, it should be noted that during that function the truck loading will take place within an enclosed silo. With that clarification, the paragraph may be accepted. Paragraph 45 is rejected as irrelevant; spillage is not anticipated under normal and proper operating conditions. Further, truck loading occurs within an enclosed silo. Paragraph 46 is rejected as a recitation of testimony/ Paragraph 47 is rejected as repetitive (see p. finding 15). Paragraph 48 is accepted to the extent that it recites Mr. Yocum's process for computing an emission factor; that factor, however, is rejected as unreliable and contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 49 is accepted but is irrelevant to the resolution of the issues of this case. With regard to paragraph 50, it is accepted that all parties attempted to model sources in connection with this application; otherwise, the paragraph is rejected as argument, comment, or irrelevant. Paragraph 51 is accepted. Paragraph 52 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 53 is rejected as recitation of testimony, comment, or irrelevant. Paragraph 54 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 55 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 56 is rejected as argument, comment, or irrelevant. Paragraphs 57 and 58 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Footnote 5 of paragraph 59 is accepted; the balance is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the evidence. Paragraph 60 is accepted. Paragraph 61 is rejected as argument, comment or irrelevant. Paragraph 62 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 63 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 64 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 65 is rejected as irrelevant. When modeling is required, paragraph 66 is accepted as the proper standard; otherwise, rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 67 through 69 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 70 is accepted. Paragraph 71 is accepted. With the clarification that there would also be receptors with lower concentrations, paragraph 72 is accepted. Paragraphs 73 through 75 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 76 is rejected as argument, comment, or irrelevant. Paragraph 77 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 78 through 80 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. Paragraph 81 is accepted. Paragraphs 82 through 83 are accepted. Paragraphs 84 through 92 are rejected. The paragraphs accurately recite what Hoffnagle did; however, the facts proffered are rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence, irrelevant, or unsupported by the record. Paragraphs 93 through 98 are accepted. Paragraph 99 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 100 through 106 are accepted. With the deletion of the word "strikingly" paragraph 107 is accepted. Paragraphs 108 through 115 are accepted. Paragraphs 116 through 118 are rejected as irrelevant. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE CITY: Paragraphs 1 through 6 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 7, the throughput stipulated to was 279,000 tons per year plus or minus 10 percent; otherwise, paragraph 7 is accepted. See comment p. 2 above, paragraph 8 accepted. Paragraphs 9 and 10 are accepted. With the substitution of the phrase "may be" for the word usually," paragraph 11 is accepted. There is no evidence as to whether Florida Sun will use such a system or not. With the deletion of the word "only" paragraph 12 is accepted. Paragraphs 13 through 21 are accepted. Paragraph 22 is accepted; however, there is no evidence which suggests the plant will, in fact, be operated 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. Further, the throughput limitation would suggest to the contrary. Paragraphs 23 through 31 are accepted. Paragraph 32 when clarified to include that emissions are sometimes less than the average, is accepted. Paragraph 33 is accepted. Paragraph 34 is rejected to the extent that it suggests Mr. Yocum's emission rate should be accepted as fact of this case. While the paragraph accurately states what Mr. Yocum did, his factor is rejected as unreliable or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 35 is accepted. Paragraph 36 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 37 is accepted. Paragraph 38 is rejected as irrelevant; that parties attempted to model the hold emissions does not render the results reliable, such "best guesses" may be noble but have not formed the basis for a finding of fact. Paragraph 39 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 40 through 43 are rejected as irrelevant, see comment in P. 16 above. Further, such fugitive emissions are unquantifiable under the present methodology. Paragraph 44 is accepted. Paragraph 45 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 46 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 47, it is accepted Dr. Koogler and Mr. Yocum used the same emission factor for the silo baghouse/ Paragraph 48 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 49, it is accepted Dr. Koogler and Mr. Yocum used the same emission factor for the truck spout filters. With regard to paragraph 50, it is accepted that the doors to the silos will be closed during truck loading. In their models, both Dr. Koogler and Mr. Yocum assumed otherwise. Consequently, both may have obtained an inflated result. Paragraphs 51 and 52 are accepted. To the extent that paragraph 53 suggests spillage may result from improper operation, such paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. Under normal and proper operating conditions, spillage would not occur. If so, it would be a violation of the permit. Paragraph 54 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 55, see comment p. 27 above; consequently, the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 56 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 57 is rejected as irrelevant and erroneous (math error). The number of trucks per year is limited to the throughput cap; the number which might be filled during a 24 hour period would depend on the factual circumstances at the time (whether the silos were full, etc.). Paragraphs 58 through 62 are accepted. Paragraph 63 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. While the paragraph correctly states what Mr. Yocum did, no confidence has been given his analysis. To the extent that Dr. Koogler attempted to tie the daily truck rate to the annual throughput cap, paragraph 64 is accepted; however, for the reasons set forth in p. 31 it is irrelevant. Paragraphs 65 through 68 are accepted but are unnecessary. Paragraph 69 is accepted to the extent that it recites Mr. Yocum's finding but is unnecessary and irrelevant. Mr. Yocum's emission factors are unreliable based upon the weight of the evidence in this case. Consequently, little value has been placed on the model results which were based on his factors. Paragraph 70 is rejected as argument, irrelevant, or contrary to the weight of the evidence. The last two sentences of paragraph 71 are accepted. The first sentence is rejected as rejected as speculative, irrelevant, or contrary to the weight of the evidence. The factual matters addressed in paragraphs 72 through 75 are accepted to the extent addressed in my findings of fact; otherwise, the paragraphs are rejected as comment or recitation of testimony. Paragraphs 76 and 77 are accepted. With the deletion of the word "much," paragraph 78 is accepted. With the deletion of the "s" on the word "meter" (used two times), paragraph 79 is accepted. Paragraph 80 is accepted. Paragraph 81 is rejected as argument or comment. There might also be receptor locations with smaller concentrations. Paragraph 82 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 83 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 84 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 85 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 86 through 89 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 90 is accepted. Paragraphs 91 through 96 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 97 and 98 are accepted. Paragraphs 99 and 100 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 101 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 102 through 105 are accepted. Paragraph 106 is rejected as irrelevant. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, SUBMITTED BY FLORIDA SUN: To the extent addressed in findings of fact paragraphs 4 and 5, paragraph 1 is accepted otherwise rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 2 through 4 are accepted. Paragraph 5 is accepted to the extent in findings of fact paragraphs 20 and 21; otherwise, rejected as irrelevant or unsupported by the record. The first sentence of paragraph 6 is accepted. With regard to the balance of the paragraph it is rejected as irrelevant except to the annual throughput being 279,000 tons plus or minus 10 percent. Paragraphs 7 through 12 are accepted. Paragraph 13 is rejected as argument or conclusion of law. Paragraphs 14 through 23 are accepted. The second sentence of paragraph 24 is rejected as unsupported by the record. The balance of the paragraph is accepted. Paragraphs 25 and 26 are accepted. With the exclusion of the last phrase of the paragraph (which rated the opacity of the emissions on Koogler's second visit), paragraph 27 is accepted. Paragraphs 28 through 34 are accepted. To the extent that Dr. Koogler and Mr. Yocum used the same emission factors for the Docksider silo, and spouts, paragraph 35 is accepted. Otherwise, the paragraph is rejected as argumentative, comment, or irrelevant. The basis for determining the unreliability of Mr. Yocum's factors is addressed. The first sentence of paragraph 36 is accepted. The balance is rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraph 37 is accepted. To the extent that a facility which emits less than 100 tons per year is defined to a minor facility, paragraph 38 is accepted. Otherwise, is rejected as argument, comment, or irrelevant. Paragraphs 39 through the first sentence of paragraph 40 are accepted. The balance of paragraph 40 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 41 through 43 are accepted. Paragraph 44 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 45 is rejected as recitation of testimony. The first sentence of paragraph 46 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The balance of the paragraph is accepted. Paragraphs 47 and 48 are accepted. Paragraphs 49 and 50 are accepted but are irrelevant, immaterial or unnecessary. Paragraph 51 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 52 is accepted to the extent that it states this facility is a minor facility located in an attainment area; otherwise, rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or argument. Paragraph 53 is accepted. Paragraphs 54 through 56 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 57 is accepted. Paragraph 58 is accepted. Paragraph 59 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraph 60 is accepted. Paragraphs 61 and 62 are accepted. Paragraph 63 is rejected as irrelevant or unsupported by the record. Paragraph 64 is rejected as irrelevant or unsupported by the record. Paragraph 65 is accepted. The first three sentences of paragraph 66 are accepted; the balance is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 67 is rejected as outside the scope of the record, contrary to the record, or argument. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 through 21 were accepted. Paragraph 22 is rejected as argument. Paragraphs 23 through the first sentence of paragraph 26 are accepted; the balance of paragraph 26 is rejected as argument, comment or irrelevant. Paragraph 27 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 28 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 29 through 31 are accepted; however, it should be noted that modeling was not required, by rule in this case, and further, that the modeling performed by Mr. Hoffnagle based upon Mr. Yocum's emission factors is not reliable due to the erroneous assumptions built into the factors. Paragraph 32 is accepted. Paragraph 33 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 34 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 35 is accepted. Paragraph 36 is accepted. Paragraph 37 is rejected as irrelevant, comment, argument, or immaterial. Paragraphs 38 and 39 are accepted. Paragraph 40 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraphs 41 through 44 are accepted. Paragraphs 45 through 57 are rejected as irrelevant, argument, comment, or recitation of Tuxedo's case-- for the reasons previously stated, the modeling efforts submitted by Tuxedo have not been the basis for a finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Bram D.E. Canter Haben & Culpepper, P.A. 306 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sylvia M. Alderman Paul R. Ezatoff Katz, Kutter, Haigler, Alderman, Eaton, Davis and Marks, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul H. Amundsen F. Phillip Blank, P.A. 204-B South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carol A. Forthman Deputy General Counsel Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
