Findings Of Fact JTA and DOT seek a complex air source permit from DER for construction of the Dame Point Bridge project in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. The application for the permit and supporting documents were filed and considered by DER in evaluating the permit. The proposed project is a 10.94 mile segment of a proposed easterly bypass around the City of Jacksonville. The project consists of a limited access, four and six-lane expressway which will become a portion of the Interstate 295 bypass system for Jacksonville. It will principally serve through traffic around urbanized Jacksonville and resident north-south traffic. The project extends from Monument Road, south of the St. John's River, to existing I-295 at U.S. 17, north of the River, and includes a six lane bridge over the St. John's River in the vicinity of Mill Cove and Dame Point. In addition to the bridge over the St. John's River, approximately 10,000 feet in length, the project includes seven grade separated intersections where major arterial roads serving urbanized Jacksonville intersect the project. The project will traverse high to medium density residential neighborhoods south of the St. John's River and medium to low density residential neighborhoods, developing industrial centers, and some rural property north of the River. Pursuant to Section 403.182, Florida Statutes, DER by formal agreement may delegate preview and evaluation of permit applications to qualified local programs. Such an agreement has been in force between DER and the Duval County Bio-Environmental Services Division since February 9, 1976. In compliance with that agreement, the Duval County Bio-Environmental Services Division reviewed and processed the Dame Point State Road 9-A extension application for a complex air source permit, determined that reasonable assurances of non-violation of ambient air quality standards was provided, and certified that conclusion to DER. DER then published a letter of intent to issue the permit on August 29, 1978. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the project which was submitted with the application concluded that the project would be beneficial to the economic growth of the area by providing an improved transportation network. In addition, testimony established that the project would be needed in the near future by virtue of increasing traffic demand. Approximately forty to sixty percent of the north-south through traffic in the Jacksonville area is expected to use the facility. The proposed project would provide an efficient bypass for this traffic and could divert 7,000 to 10,000 vehicles per day from the downtown Jacksonville area upon completion. Evidence established that, as a direct result of construction of the project, downtown traffic congestion would be relieved; existing industry would receive more efficient transportation service; commuter traffic from southeastern Jacksonville to northern Jacksonville would be reduced by miles; transportation routes to education facilities would be improved; and tourist traffic would be routed around downtown Jacksonville. The benefits to costs ratio of the project is positive in that for every dollar spent to construct the facility, $2.80 might reasonably be expected to be returned to the community in the form of increased economic activity and more efficient transportation. Increased traffic demand in the Jacksonville-Duval County area is of such magnitude that, according to testimony at the final hearing, in the year 2000 the demand to cross the St. John's River is expected to exceed the capacities of all existing bridges, plus the proposed facility, if constructed, and another bridge crossing south of the city. JTA and DOT prepared projections for average anticipated future use of the project using the most recent, accurate and acceptable information available. Initial projections were based upon the Jacksonville Urban Area Transportation Study Network, 11WC. When the network was revised in 1977, JTA, in coordination with the Jacksonville Area Planning Board, revised the projections to be consistent with the updated Transportation Network plan for Jacksonville. This planning information, plus extensive historical data on population growth, urban development and changing land use patterns in the area of the project, were utilized to project future vehicle use for the project. The evidence clearly establishes that the proposed project generally will relieve downtown traffic congestion by diverting traffic around the city. Traffic projections indicate that the total vehicle miles traveled daily in Duval County might be reduced by as much as 600,000 miles if the project is constructed. Most of this reduction would result from eliminating circuitous routes through the downtown area. Traffic projections were in part based upon past experience with similar projects over a 10-year period, and included a factor for added traffic which might be generated by construction of the facility. The proposed project will be linked to I-95 north of Jacksonville, and will serve the southeast area of the city and provide a connection to the industrial center around Imeson Park to the north, in addition to offering a shorter and speedier route to local beaches. Average vehicle speeds through the open roadway portions of the project, and through intersections, were calculated according to commonly accepted traffic engineering methods. The evidence establishes that general roadway speeds should average 55 miles per hour through 1992, with a potential decline to 50 miles per hour by the year 2002. Average intersection speeds should vary from 45 to 20 miles per hour over the same time period. These calculations are based upon well-recognized and, long accepted traffic engineering data contained in the Highway Capacity Manual, 1965 edition. The method employed in these calculations is that commonly used by DOT throughout the State of Florida, and included consideration of potential future congestion as well as probable signalization of traffic at some intersections. The evidence establishes that JTA and DOT accurately analyzed roadway and intersection speeds for the proposed project according to accepted traffic engineering methods, and that reasonable predictions of air pollution loading along the project corridor based upon these speed calculations can reasonably be relied upon to establish non-violation of ambient air quality standards. Further, evidence in the record establishes that traffic speeds through the toll plaza to be constructed as a part of the proposed project were adequately analyzed. Average speeds and queuing through the toll booth facility were calculated using accepted average daily traffic projections for the project and assumed a 1,000 foot zone of deceleration/acceleration on either side of the toll booth. These calculations included deceleration, queuing, stopping at the toll booth, and acceleration away from the toll booth facility. The method employed in formulating these calculations followed recognized techniques outlined in the Transportation Traffic Engineers Handbook. DOT has asserted in the permit application here under consideration that the construction and operation of the proposed project will not violate DER ambient air quality standards. Using the traffic projections and average vehicle speeds discussed above, DOT utilized various computer modeling techniques which analyzed and modeled projected worst one-hour and eight-hour concentrations of carbon monoxide along the roadway and around critical intersections and the toll plaza. The Mobile I computer model was used to predict emissions of automobile related pollutants based upon the aforementioned traffic data. Included in the Mobile I computer program were various factors including highway speed, traffic volumes, vehicle mix, "cold" versus "hot" starts, ambient temperature, and pavement height. Emission factors generated from this computer model result in predicted pollutant loadings in grams per vehicle mile. In addition, another method, AP 42, Supplement 5, was also utilized to generate comparable emission factors. Data obtained from the Mobile I computer program and from AP 42, Supplement 5, is then programmed into another computer model, Caline II, which is a basic diffusion model designed to estimate concentrations of carbon monoxide at various points along and distances from the 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 Caline II model can only project future expected carbon monoxide concentration levels. 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 model is presently available to accurately project concentrations of those pollutants. This is due, at least in part, to the greater reactivity of those pollutants with other elements in the atmosphere. Factors included in the Caline II computer model in order to predict expected concentrations of carbon monoxide along a line source include traffic volume; a "K" factor, which is a percentage of daily traffic at a given point in "peak hour" conditions; highway width and height; wind speed; stability class; and wind direction. The result of this computer program is an expected "worst case" condition for one-hour and eight- hour concentrations of carbon monoxide along the roadway for the years 1982 and 1992. Computer program results, which included background ambient conditions for eight-hour concentrations, affirmatively established that expected concentrations of carbon monoxide will be considerably less than the DER one- hour standard of 40 milligrams per cubic meter, and the eight-hour standard of 10 milligrams per cubic meter. These DER standards were not exceeded at any of the intersections or along the roadway at any point. As indicated above, no computer modeling technique was utilized fox hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, photochemical oxidants, sulphur dioxide or total suspended particulate matter. Estimates concerning these pollutants were based upon AP 42, Supplement 5, which is a document promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the Mobile I computer program. These methods do not predict concentrations, but instead deal only with total emissions. The result of this analysis was that, given background levels of hydrocarbons in Duval County, the project, if constructed, either in whole or in the segment which is the subject of this permit application, hydrocarbon levels may be expected to be reduced, at least in part due to the increased average speed of vehicles using the proposed facility. In addition, since hydrocarbons appear to act as a precursor to the formation of photochemical oxidants, any reduction in the emissions of hydrocarbons can also be expected to reduce the levels of photochemical oxidants, which are a particular problem in Duval County, which has been designated a "non-attainment area" for photochemical oxidants. Further, data derived from AP 42, Supplement 5, and Mobile I, together with data from local monitoring programs, established that no violations of ambient standards are to be expected for nitrogen oxides and, since sulphur dioxide and total suspended particulate matter are not emitted in significant quantities from automobiles, no violation of air standards for these pollutants is to be expected as result of the project. In summary, testimony adduced at the final hearing demonstrated that studies submitted to DER in support of the permit application were prepared in accordance with valid, professionally and scientifically accepted methodologies. These studies adequately establish, not only that the project will not result in violations of state air quality standards, but that positive social, economic and environmental effects will accrue from construction of the proposed facility. Petitioners, JTA and DOT have submitted proposed findings of fact. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact numbered 1 through 4 have been substantially adopted herein. JTA's and DOT's Proposed Findings of Fact have also been substantially adopted in this order. To the extent that proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in, or are inconsistent with, factual findings in this order, they have been specifically rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact The petitioner is a non-profit corporation consisting of individual members who are residents of Tallahassee and Leon County and organizational members who have chapters in Tallahassee and Leon County. The primary purpose of petitioner is to bring about a balanced transportation system in Tallahassee and Leon County taking into consideration certain criteria which include the following: the prevention of neighborhood disruption and deterioration; the prevention of environmental degradation; and the prevention of harm to historical sites. In conjunction with this purpose and these criteria, one of petitioner's primary concerns is the prevention of degradation of air quality in the Tallahassee, Leon County area. Some members of the petitioner use that part of Thomasville Road to be affected by the subject application. The project for which the Department of Transportation seeks a Complex Source Permit is the four-laning of Thomasville Road from Eighth Avenue to Interstate 10 in Tallahassee, Florida. The Complex Source Permit was originally submitted to the Department of Environmental Regulation on March 22, 1976. The Department of Environmental Regulation did not accept that application, however, due to unacceptable modeling and monitoring. Thereafter, two supplements to the application were submitted to the Department of Environmental Regulation. The first, dated September 21, 1976, and the second, dated November 16, 1976, contained additional monitoring and a repeat of the modeling effort. Because of allegedly incorrect counts and speeds, the Department of Transportation submitted yet another application with revised monitoring and modeling data on January 4, 1978. This latest revised application is the subject of this hearing. The Department of Transportation did not monitor for or project the concentrations of any pollutant listed in Section 17-2.05, F.A.C., except carbon monoxide. The Department of Environmental Regulation did not require the monitoring for or projection of concentrations of any pollutant listed in Section 17-2.05, F.A.C., except carbon monoxide. The evidence presented in this proceeding does not establish that construction of the project for which a Complex Source Permit is sought herein would result in or cause an increase in ambient pollutant concentrations of any pollutant listed in Section 17-2.05, F.A.C., with the exception of carbon monoxide. The evidence presented indicates that remaining pollutants listed in the foregoing section would be emitted in insignificant quantities having no effect on the ambient air quality standard for that pollutant. The Department of Environmental Regulation has not independently monitored for any of the pollutants considered by Section 17-2.04(8), F.A.C., but has relied entirely on data submitted by the Department of Transportation. The Department of Transportation has based its carbon monoxide projections upon the use of the California Line Source Model, also known as Calair I, which is a mathematical computer model. It appears from the evidence presented that the Calair I computer model was used in a reasonable and proper manner and produced data which could be relied upon by the Department of Environmental Regulation. The Complex Source Permit application as finally submitted on January 4, 1978, projects the following concentrations for carbon monoxide: one-hour concentration for 1979, 6.7 ppm and for 1939, 4.8 ppm; for eight-hour concentrations in 1969, 2.8 ppm and for 1989, 2.0 ppm. The ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxide set forth in Section 17-2.05(1)(c), F.A.C., is 9 ppm maximum eight-hour concentration and 35 ppm maximum one-hour concentration, both not to be exceeded more than once per year. The testimony indicates that even if the calibration factor with the Calair I model were doubled, the projected carbon monoxide concentrations would not exceed the foregoing standard. No evidence was presented on the issues initially raised in this proceeding involving the Major Thoroughfare Plan, the Transportation Improvement Plan, and the Urban Area Transportation Plan. The testimony and evidence presented in this proceeding establishes reasonable assurance that the subject project will not cause a violation of the ambient air quality standards for the major pollutants to be emitted.
Findings Of Fact The Sound Transportation Planning Coalition, Inc., and The Florida Lung Association have standing to bring this action. This action is brought pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, and challenges the validity of the repeal of Rule 17-2.04(8), Florida Administrative Code. On or about July 8, 1977, the Department of Environmental Regulation published a notice of rule making for adoption of proposed amendments to Rule 17-2.04(8), Florida Administrative Code, in the Florida Administrative Weekly. This Publication included notice of a hearing to be held by the Environmental Regulation Commission for the consideration of the adoption of proposed amendments to the subject rule. At least thirty (30) days notice prior to the foregoing hearing by the Environmental Regulation Commission was also given in newspapers of general circulation around the state. For the purposes of this proceeding the parties have stipulated that the Department of Environmental Regulation complied with the provisions of Section 120.54(1), Florida Statutes, regarding notice of hearing on the proposed rule which was an amendment to an existing rule. The Environmental Regulation Commission took action on August 11, 1977, with regard to the matters pertinent to this Proceeding and no notice other than that referred to above in paragraph 3 pertinent to the action taken by the Environmental Regulation Commission was given by the Department of Environmental Regulation. The rule making action proposed by the Department of Environmental Regulation was the amendment of Rule 17-2.04(8), Florida Administrative Code, which amendment, according to the Department's notice, was designed to make the indirect source permit system workable and yet maintain ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide. The amendment was expected to reduce the number of permit reviews required and to limit the evaluation for each indirect source to one pollutant, carbon monoxide. The action taken by the Environmental Regulation Commission on behalf of the Department of Environmental Regulation was the complete repeal of Rule 17-2.04(8), Florida Administrative Code. After having considered the proposed amendments to the subject rule it was apparently the decision of the Environmental Regulation Commission that the better action would be the complete repeal of the rule and that is the action they took. The Department of Environmental Regulation prepared an Economic Impact Statement directed to the impact of the proposed amendments to the subject rule. The parties have stipulated that for the purpose of this proceeding only, the Department of Environmental Regulation complied with the provisions of Section 120.54(2)(a), Florida Statutes, with regard to the proposed amendments to the subject rule and the said Economic Impact Statement would have been satisfactory for the adoption of the proposed amendments had they been adopted. No Economic Impact Statement directed to the repeal of the subject rule was prepared. No individual in the Department of Environmental Regulation was instructed to prepare an Economic Impact Statement for the repeal of Rule 17- 2.04(8), Florida Administrative Code. The Department at no time prior to the hearing held by the Environmental Regulation Commission on the proposed amendments to the subject rule, gave specific notice to any individuals that it intended to repeal Rule 17-2.04(8), Florida Administrative Code.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner had just cause to terminate Respondent's employment for being under the influence of alcohol while on duty.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner employed Respondent as a facilities maintenance technician at Pathways Elementary School. Respondent's job required him to maintain the school's heating and air conditioning equipment and all electrical equipment. Respondent's position was safety-sensitive because his work occasionally exposed him to as much as 220 volts of electricity. Respondent was aware of Petitioner's personnel policy regarding illegal drug or alcohol abuse. This policy is set forth in policy No. 415, which states as follows in relevant part: It is the intention of the School Board of Volusia County to maintain a drug-free workplace and school environment for its employees and students . . . . An employee of the school board shall not manufacture, distribute, dispense, possess or use alcoholic beverages on school grounds, on school board property, or at school board activities (on or off school board property) at which students are present . . . . * * * Disciplinary action, including, but not limited to termination of employment and referral for prosecution, if appropriate will be taken against any employee who violates this policy. . . . Procedures shall be developed to effectuate the intent of this policy. The procedures shall include provisions for drug testing applicants for employment and employees. Employee testing may be part of a routinely scheduled fitness-for-duty medical examination or based upon reasonable suspicion that an employee is violating the terms of this policy. . . . Respondent signed a document on October 12, 1998, acknowledging his receipt of policy No. 415. Respondent admits he had a responsibility to make sure that he was not under the influence of alcohol at work. On July 20, 2000, the school's secretary was making photo identification badges for school staff members. The secretary radioed Respondent and requested that he come to the office to have his picture taken. During this conversation, the secretary noticed that Respondent's speech was slurred. Because Respondent's voice did not sound right, the secretary asked the school's resource teacher to be present when Respondent arrived. In order to take the picture, the secretary had to place the camera fairly close to Respondent's face. The secretary smelled alcohol on Respondent's breath. She also observed that Respondent was sweating profusely and that his complexion was very pale. Upon Respondent's arrival at the office, the resource teacher smelled a strong odor of alcohol in the room. The resource teacher noticed Respondent's slurred speech. She also observed that Respondent appeared ill because he was pale and sweating profusely. The school secretary called the assistant principal to tell him that she had observed Respondent in an intoxicated state. The assistant principal, in turn, telephoned Respondent's immediate supervisor regarding Respondent's observable intoxication. The assistant principal made this call around 1:00 p.m. Subsequently, the assistant principal observed two bottles of vodka and several bottles of mouthwash in Respondent's vehicle. The vehicle was parked in the school's parking lot. Respondent's immediate supervisor first called Petitioner's professional standards investigator who agreed to meet the supervisor at Pathways Elementary School. The supervisor and the investigator wanted to observe Respondent's behavior firsthand. Arriving at the school, the supervisor noted that Respondent's speech was slurred. Upon her subsequent arrival, the investigator noted Respondent's disheveled clothing, his confused conversation, and the smell of alcohol about his person. Based on her training and experience and her observations of Respondent, the investigator concluded that Respondent was under the influence of alcohol. Respondent freely agreed to submit to a sobriety test. The supervisor transported Respondent to Deland, Florida, for a breath alcohol test. They arrived at the testing center about 3:00 p.m. After taking two breath alcohol tests, Respondent signed a document setting forth the numerical results. As a result of Respondent's intoxication on the job, and in light of Petitioner's drug-free workplace policy, Petitioner gave Respondent another work assignment pending completion of an investigation. After the investigation was complete, Petitioner voted to terminate Respondent's employment. Petitioner's decision was consistent with its policy of terminating employees upon their first violation of the prohibition against using alcoholic beverages on school property. Respondent presented testimony that he is now enrolled in an intensive alcohol-treatment program. He admits that he "has a problem with alcohol." Respondent's testimony that he was not intoxicated from using alcohol while at work on July 20, 2000, is not persuasive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order finding just cause for terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 2001.
The Issue The issues for disposition in this proceeding are whether, as alleged in the Administrative Complaints dated December 15, 2000, and April 3, 2001, Respondent committed negligence in the practice of structural engineering, and if those allegations occurred in violation of Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, what appropriate penalty should be recommended.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record complied herein, the following relevant facts are found. At all times material hereto, Petitioner, Florida Engineers Management Corporation, was the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of engineering in this state. At all times material hereto, Respondent, Shields E. Clark, P.E., was licensed as a professional engineer in the State of Florida having been issued license No. 6826 in 1958. In the 43 years Clark has been licensed as a professional engineer, this proceeding is the only allegation of professional wrongdoing of disciplinary action taken against him. Philip Matonte is a self-employed builder/property manager and owner of William Michael & Associates, Inc. This business entity is owner of two residential properties. One property is located at 397 Leeward Drive, Clearwater, Florida, and the other property is located in Seminole, Florida. DOAH Case No. 01-2290PL - 276 Bayside Drive, Clearwater, Florida. Respondent was the engineer of record as reflected by his signature on two sheets of plans for proposed structural additions to the residential property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Miller. Both sheets, date stamped June 26, 2000, had the logo DCI, Design and Consultant's, Inc., Drafting Services. R. Brazil drew the plans and Respondent signed and sealed both sheets. On or about August 4, 2000, the above-referred two sheets of proposed structural additions to the Millers' residence were submitted to the City of Clearwater for a building permit and were rejected by the City. The basis for the reviewers' rejection were: plans were vague and missing considerable details pertaining to existing beams and were missing information pertaining to the foundation, load paths for additional weight, and anchoring for the foundational structure. Petitioner's expert, John Power, opined that the above drawings failed to provide sufficient information to indicate the nature of the existing construction or sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of what effect the new construction would have on the existing structure. According to Power, he could not determine whether the carport had a roof; whether the carport had walls; if so, the wall section was not provided; whether the roof would have to be removed to accommodate the additional construction; whether there was a beam or wall at the back of the carport; and no details provided for the double 2 by 12 beam at the rear of the proposed addition to the existing structure. Power opined that Respondent failed to provide necessary notes and specifications in the drawings. First, he failed to specify the concrete strength for the new pilaster at the rear of the building and failed to specify the reinforcement steel grade. Second, he failed to specify the required concrete steel ties and failed to indicate the framing of the proposed skylight. Respondent's explanation that he provided xeroxed copies of specific code sections pertaining to each changed section of the plans with instructions to the person drafting the plans to include the code section requirements provided is evasive. Power further opined that Respondent failed to provide necessary notes and specifications in his drawings. He failed to specify the reinforcement steel grade; failed to specify the required concrete steel ties; failed to indicate the framing of the proposed skylight; and failed to specify the grade and species of lumber, that should have been specified, for the rafters. Power reasoned that it is unlikely a builder would use anything of a higher-grade No. 1 Southern Pine lumber. Even so, grade No. 1 Southern Pine would have been inadequate and overstressed, given the proposed structural additions and the double 2 by 12 members forming the beam at the rear of the building. Respondent's drawings calling for an 8 by 16 concrete beam in the front of the building was deficient because the beam is overstressed in shear and lacks the required stirrups for attachment. Further, there are no details as to how the platforms cantilevered from the exterior walls in Section F3 of the drawings are to be supported. Included on the blueprint drawings, dated June 26, 2000, was the statement: "This structure has been designed to resist uplift pressures generated by a 102-MPH wind," with the number 102 crossed out and the number "130" written underneath. From this change, Power opined that Respondent's method of calculation for basic wind speed was not clarified nor indicated on the drawings. The wind speed calculations and the added weight of the proposed structural construction form the basis for determining the stress imposed upon the existing structure. Power and Respondent agree that there are two acceptable methods for calculating and determining wind speed. The 1997 Standard Building Code ASCE 7-95 determines a basic wind speed from anticipated three-second gusts. Conversely, the Standard Building Code 1606.2 determines a basic wind speed from anticipated fastest mph wind velocity within a given time period 10, 15, 20, 30 or 50 years. According to Respondent, had Power based his computation upon Standard Building Code 1606.2 standard of the fastest wind in a given yearly cycle instead of the anticipated three-second gusts, he could not conclude the supporting beams were overstressed. Respondent's use of the 1606.2 standard, though calculations are not shown in the plans, is an acceptable engineering practice. DOAH Case No. 01-2396PL - 397 Leeward Drive, Clearwater, Florida. According to Matonte, after the City of Clearwater recommended Respondent to him as an engineer who had provided acceptable plans in the past, he met with Respondent several times to discuss hiring him for a project on his home at 397 Leeward Drive, Clearwater, Florida. According to Tom Chaplinsky, City's Plan Reviewer, no one from the City recommended Respondent to Matonte. I find Chaplinsky's testimony credible. According to Respondent, he met and discussed with Matonte the drafting of a steel beam to support additions to a swimming pool on a property located in Seminole, Florida, not in Clearwater, Florida. Matonte drove Respondent to the Seminole property and Respondent completed, as requested, a survey and the property and drew the steel beam, charging Matonte $150.00 for the single sheet drawing. Matonte's testimony on the above points is not credible. First, the City of Clearwater did not refer Respondent to him for professional engineering services. Second, a company, not Matonte, owns the residence at 397 Leeward Drive, Clearwater, Florida. Third, Matonte's company, William Michael & Associates, Inc., does own residential property in Seminole, Florida. The three sheets of plans for the 397 Leeward Drive property contain the signature and seal of the Respondent. However, Matonte drew 26 sheets of plans that he signed and sealed in the presence of Tom Chaplinsky and from which the City filed a complaint against him for signing and sealing as a professional engineer when he was not so authorized. The record does not reflect the specific sheets of plans Matonte presented to the City which were subsequently reviewed and rejected by Olson, another reviewer. Respondent takes the position that he did not sign and seal plans for a Clearwater property. His explanation is that "someone else, probably Matonte, using his seal, signed and sealed blank sheets during one of the several visits to his office and later cut and paste structural drawing on those sheets". I find Respondent did sign and seal the three sheets of plans at issue. Power, in his review of those three sheets of plans, opined that those plans did not contain details to explain Respondent's use of the "130-MPH" wind uplift resistance. From this basic premise, Power's opinion on this issue is the same as found in paragraph No. 11 herein above. Power's conclusions, however, are slightly different from his conclusions on the 276 Bayside Drive, Clearwater, Florida, property. Here he concludes that were a builder to rely solely on the drawings, the resulting construction would constitute a threat to life and [public] safety. At first blush, it would appear Petitioner's above allegation has substance. Taken as a whole, in the opinion of Power, once he decided the 130-MPH wind resistance notation was made over the crossed-out 102-MPH notation, finding deficiencies was a matter of review when using computation based upon anticipated three-second gusts. To this proposition, Respondent correctly contended that if Power used the 130-MPH wind resistance computation based upon fastest wind velocity over a period of years, his results would show the structure to be sufficient. Upon consideration of the fact that both Respondent and Power each have over 40 years engineering experience; that Respondent has worked almost exclusively on one/two story dwelling in Pinellas County for the past 10 to 15 years using the 1606.2, Standard Building Code, for the 130-MPH computation without complaint, compared to Power's most recent engineering practice has been primarily that of an expert witness; Power's testimony on this point is less than convincing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Respondent, Shields B. Clark, is guilty of negligence in the practice of engineering and violated Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, as set forth in Counts I and II in DOAH Case No. 01-2290PL, finding that Shields E. Clark is not in violation of Section 471.033(1)(g) as set forth in Count III of DOAH Case No. 01-2290PL and Count I of DOAH Case No. 01-2396PL, and dismissing Count II of DOAH Case No. 01-2396PL. Further, giving Shields B. Clark a written reprimand, placing him on probation for two years under such terms and conditions as the Board deem appropriate, imposing a fine of $2,000.00 and assess no cost related to the investigation and prosecution of theses cases. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian A. Burden, Esquire Post Office Box 767 Tampa, Florida 33601-0767 Natalie A. Lowe, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Douglas D. Sunshine, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Gainesville Renewable Energy Center, LLC (GREC) is entitled to an Air Construction Permit from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for the construction of a net 100-megawatt (MW) biomass-fired electrical power plant in Gainesville, Florida, pursuant generally to state rules that relate to the federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401, et seq. (Clean Air Act), which is administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Specifically, the issues are whether the proposed project satisfies the requirements of Florida's EPA-authorized air program of Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), as set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-212.400, and Florida's EPA-delegated air program of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), as set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-204.800(10) and (11).
Findings Of Fact Introduction On November 30, 2009, GREC filed with DEP an Application for the construction and operation of a net 100 MW (gross 116 MW), biomass-fired electrical power plant at GRU's Deerhaven power plant complex. GREC seeks to place the biomass plant in service on or before December 31, 2013, which is the deadline for eligibility for a federal renewable-energy grant under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. GREC is a subsidiary of American Renewables, LLC, which develops, builds, and operates renewable-energy power plants. American Renewables, LLC, is jointly owned by affiliates of three corporations that develop, operate, invest, and manage various types of energy projects. American Renewables, LLC, recently obtained permits for a similar biomass plant, also net 100 MW, in Nacogdoches, Texas. This plant, which is expected to begin commercial operation in late 2012, has a power purchasing agreement with Austin Energy, a municipal utility owned by the City of Austin. American Renewables, LLC, recently sold the Nacogdoches plant to a subsidiary of Southern Company. GRU is a municipal utility of the City of Gainesville. GRU owns and operates a power generation, transmission, and distribution system to serve its 93,000 retail customers and its wholesale customers, which include the City of Alachua and Clay Electrical Cooperative, Inc. In addition to owning a 1.4-percent share of the Progress Energy Florida Crystal River Unit Three, GRU owns three power supply facilities with a summer capacity of net 608 MW. Of these, the largest is Deerhaven, which generates net 440 MW. A former mayor of the City of Gainesville, Petitioner Bussing served on the utility committee of the City Commission and participated in utility planning for GRU. Petitioner Bussing lives less than 10 miles from the GREC site and regularly walks outdoors, works in his yard, and bicycles in the area. He enjoys canoeing on local waterways and observing wildlife, such as eagles, hawks, and owls. Identifying himself as a "locavore," Petitioner Bussing favors locally grown food. The other petitioners are similarly situated to Petitioner Bussing. Application The findings in this section are generally based on the Application, although some are also based on the Site Application. According to the Application, the GREC site consists of 131 acres within the Deerhaven site in northwest Gainesville and north central Alachua County--eight miles from downtown Gainesville to the southeast and seven miles from downtown Alachua to the northwest. The Site Application states that the Deerhaven site is within a 1146-acre parcel owned by the City of Gainesville. The Site Application notes that the Deerhaven site includes several units. Unit 1 generates 88 MW by a natural gas or oil-fired steam unit. Unit 2, which was certified in 1978, generates 235 MW (sometimes described as 250 MW) by a pulverized coal-fired unit. Unit 3 generates 76 MW by a natural gas or oil-fired, simple-cycle combustion turbine unit. Deerhaven also includes two 19-MW, simple-cycle combustion turbine units. The Application reports that the GREC site abuts the northwest boundary of the GRU's existing generating facilities at Deerhaven. The Site Application identifies the GRU facilities immediately east of the GREC site as an ash landfill, brine landfill, and large stormwater management pond. Abutting these facilities, immediately to their east, are ash settling ponds and a wastewater treatment sludge disposal cell. Abutting these facilities, immediately to their east, is a large coal pile. A spur of the CSX rail line, which is used for coal deliveries to Deerhaven Unit 2, terminates just south of the GREC site. Except for secondary access roads and unpaved trails, no Deerhaven facilities occupy the GREC site. Immediately west of the GREC site is a site used by the Alachua County Public Works Department for an office and other facilities. Also west of the GREC site is a radio tower and undeveloped land. The southernmost extent of the GREC site fronts on U.S. Route 441, which is lined by intermittent commercial and retail uses in this area. Across U.S. Route 441, over one-half mile from the GREC site, is the nearest residential subdivision, which is called Turkey Creek. The Site Application reports that, in the early 2000s, the City of Gainesville purchased an additional 2328 acres of timberland north and east of the Deerhaven site for buffer and potential expansion. The entire area, including the GREC site, was historically devoted to agriculture and pine silviculture, but the GREC site is now occupied by ditches, swales, altered forested communities, and the roads and trails previously mentioned. By groupings from west to east, the proposed improvements on the GREC site are a fuel-storage area, which consists of four separate wood piles; a parking area, offices, a warehouse, a control room, fire pumps, a water treatment facility, and water tanks; a 50-foot wide band of unoccupied land; a switchyard with a transmission line running to a new GRU switchyard at U.S. Route 441, a switchyard control room, steam turbine, fuel day bins connected to the storage area by a conveyor, a boiler, a 230-foot-high stack, a baghouse, and an aqueous ammonia storage area; and a 53-foot-high cooling tower. These components are concentrated on the north side of the site, farthest from U.S. Route 441, and toward the east side of the site, nearest GRU's Deerhaven operations. The boiler, steam turbine, emissions-control equipment, stack, and cooling tower are 3200 feet northwest of U.S. Route 441 and 2200 feet east of the public works facility. The GREC site will also include roads, an administration building, a warehouse, several stormwater detention ponds, water and wastewater treatment facilities, storage facilities for the fly ash and sand from the BFBB, and two emergency diesel engines. The main components of the GREC facility will be a bubbling fluidized bed boiler (BFBB), which will produce steam to power a conventional steam turbine generator for the production of electricity. Except during startup, when the boiler will consume natural gas until it reaches operating temperatures, the BFBB will burn a wide range of clean, woody biomass fuels in a dense, fluidized sand bed at the bottom of the furnace and also in the area above the bed. GREC will obtain the biomass fuel from forest residue (i.e., material remaining after traditional logging), mill residue (e.g., sawdust, bark, and sander dust), precommercial tree thinnings, used pallets, and urban wood waste (e.g., woody tree trimmings from landscape contractors and power-line clearance contractors). Supplementary fuel will be derived from herbaceous plant matter, clean agricultural residues (e.g., rice hulls and straw, but no animal waste), diseased trees, woody storm debris, whole tree chips, and pulpwood chips. However, GREC will not accept any biomass in the form of treated or coated wood, municipal solid waste, coal, petroleum, coke, tires, or construction and demolition waste, about which some doubt arose at the hearing, so GREC represented that it would not accept construction and demolition debris at the facility. The BFBB will combust one million tons per year (tpy) of biomass. To obtain the fuel, GREC will enter into contracts with suppliers within 75 miles of the site. GREC will incorporate in supplier contracts requirements of sustainability and incentives for good stewardship in silvicultural practices. At offsite locations, suppliers will sort, chip and grind, and screen the biomass to design size. After this primary processing, suppliers will deliver the processed biomass to the GREC facility in 130-150 trucks per day. On average, the facility will unload 12 trucks per hour, although it will be capable of unloading trucks at double this rate. Typically, the GREC facility will be open for biomass deliveries 15 hours per day, six days per week. On arriving at the GREC facility, the trucks will proceed to a drive-through structure, which contains three truck dumpers and three receiving hoppers. From the hoppers, the fuel will be conveyed to a fuel processing system, where a metal detector and magnetic separator will remove ferrous metals, a disc screen will remove oversized chips, and a hammer hog will reduce the oversized chips to the design size of three inches or less. This equipment will be located in an enclosed building with a dust-collection system. After this secondary processing onsite, the fuel is conveyed outside to the fuel storage area where it is stored in piles. One wood pile will have an automatic stacker/reclaimer that will be able to deposit, churn, mix, and remove nearly the entire pile. Another wood pile, conical in shape, has a fixed stacker, and the material will be moved by bulldozers and front- end loaders. This rolling stock will transfer some of the wood chips to a smaller, manual-reclaim pile that will also be contoured by bulldozers and front-end loaders. A fourth, much smaller pile will be maintained for the delivery of presized material, mainly sawdust. As originally sized, the wood piles are intended to store sufficient fuel for 15-20 days of operations. In the Site Application, the automatic stacker/reclaimer pile is specified to be 85 feet high, but, after consultation with the Gainesville Fire Department, as detailed below, GREC agreed to reduce the height of this pile to 60 feet. The fixed stacker pile is 60 feet high, and the manual-reclaim pile is 35 feet high. The automatic stacker/reclaimer pile is 400 feet by 400 feet, and the manual- reclaim pile is 400 feet by 465 feet. GREC will manage the separate wood piles to maintain the fuel's design moisture content, which is about 50 percent, but also to ensure that no portion of the stored wood remains in the pile for too long. In general, GREC intends to use fuel on the basis of first-fuel-in, first-fuel-out, to avoid problems of odor and spontaneous combustion, the latter of which is discussed in detail below. The high combustion temperatures reached by the BFBB and the implementation of the requirement for clean woody fuel will, the Application reports, limit the generation of pollutants. Within the 179-foot-high boiler, fluidizing air will expand the combustion zone in the boiler with high turbulence, intimate solids-to-gas contact and a high heat transfer rate in the bed. Staging or overfire air will assist combustion through openings in the furnace walls. Fluidized bed temperatures will range from 1350 to 1700 degrees. (All temperatures are in Fahrenheit.) Temperatures in the overfire air will be 200 degrees hotter to vaporize the volatile gases, such as carbon monoxide (CO) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). By staging the combustion in the fluidized bed, the formation of thermally induced nitrogen oxides (NOx) will also be reduced. To enhance the air-pollution controls represented by the effective combustion of clean biomass, the GREC facility will employ three additional measures. First, dry sorbent injection (DSI) will inject into the boiler material that, in addition to the calcium that naturally occurs in the ash, will reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), sulfuric acid mist (SAM), hydrogen chloride (HCl), and hydrogen fluoride (HF). Second, a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system will reduce NOx emissions. The SCR system will use a catalyst and a reactant (ammonia gas) to dissociate NOx into nitrogen gas and water vapor. Third, downstream of the boiler, a fabric filter baghouse will reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM) and particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10). (Discussed below, PM2.5 is particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter.) As described in the Site Application, the baghouse will comprise 12 filter compartments, each containing 250-350 bags that are six inches in diameter and 14- to 26-feet long. At the bottom of the baghouse will be a hopper to collect ash. As PM forms on the bags, it will form a filter cake that increases the filtration efficiency of the bags. But once the air pressure drops to specified limits, high-pressure air pulses will be directed, automatically, into each bag, loosening the caked fly ash and depositing it as ash in the hopper below. Fly ash from the boiler will be captured by the baghouse filter. Periodically, the fly ash will be collected dry and transported pneumatically to an onsite storage silo. From there--if needed, after stabilization with water--the ash will be transported--enclosed, if still in dry form--for use as a soil supplement or, if such use is unavailable, to an approved offsite landfill. When ash is transferred to trucks, the trucks are sealed, and the air in the trucks displaced by the ash is transferred back to the silo through a vacuum system. Coarser than fly ash, bottom ash will be landfilled, if relatively coarser grained, and transferred pneumatically to the silo, if relatively finer grained. Solid waste from the GREC facility will be transferred ultimately to the New River regional landfill in Raiford, which has a projected life of more than 50 years at current filling rates. The cooling tower will contain a drift eliminator. The purpose of this device is to capture PM/PM10 that has passed the baghouse. The GREC facility will also control PM/PM10 fugitive emissions by the use of pneumatic systems for the delivery of sand for the fluidized bed and sorbent for the DSI to their separate onsite storage silos. According to the Site Application, the City of Gainesville has identified numerous benefits from the GREC project. These include enhancing the integrity and reliability of the GRU generating system, reducing the average age of the GRU generating system, producing reasonably priced electricity, diversifying fuel sources, avoiding the price fluctuations of fossil fuels, hedging the risks of anticipated carbon-constraint legislation (if biomass is treated preferentially under such legislation), reducing construction and operation risks, reducing open burning of biomass products in forestry operations, reducing landfilling of woody biomass, and supporting the silviculture industry. In support of sound silvicultural practices and ecosystem biodiversity, GREC will require all biomass suppliers to adhere to sustainability principles by conforming to the best management practices (BMPs) of the Florida Division of Forestry and will refuse delivery of stumps (to avoid erosion in the source area) and biomass generated from the conversion of natural forests to plantation forests or from nonnative species, unless the nonnative-species biomass is generated from a forest restoration project. Additionally, GREC will pay premiums of $0.50 and $1.00 per ton to suppliers that comply with more ambitious forest stewardship practices. Among the socio-economic benefits of the GREC facility, the Site Application states that construction will generate $48 million of payroll, largely for local and regional labor, and $160 million in nonengineered construction equipment purchases. Facility operations will result in the employment of 44 fulltime employees, initially earning $4 million annually. NonGREC employment will include truck drivers and operators of wood-processing equipment. The Site Application explains that ambient air quality is a product of meteorology, atmospheric chemistry, and pollution emissions. Meteorology controls the distribution, dilution, and removal of pollutants. Atmospheric chemistry controls the transformation of primary pollutants into secondary pollutants. Primary pollutants are discharged directly from the source and, for GREC, will include NOx, SO2, CO, and PM, or, traditionally, soot, although, as a fugitive emission, PM is better considered as dust from the biomass fuel or ash residue. For GREC, the most important secondary pollutant is ozone, which forms from the combination of NOx and VOCs in sunlight. According to the Site Application, EPA has developed an air quality index that describes air quality in relative terms. Good is the highest rating and means that air pollution poses little or no risk. Moderate means that air pollution may be a moderate health concern to a very small number of persons. Unhealthy for sensitive groups means just that, and healthy groups are unlikely to be affected. Unhealthy means that air pollution may cause everyone to begin to experience health effects, and sensitive groups may experience more serious health effects. The two remaining classifications are very unhealthy and hazardous. For 2007, the EPA classified the air quality in Alachua County as 315 days of good, 44 days of moderate, and 6 days of unhealthy for sensitive groups. For 2008, the EPA classified the number of good days as only 258. In general, the EPA classifies the air quality of Alachua County as good with the main pollutant adversely affecting air quality as ozone. The Application analyzes air emissions in light of national ambient air quality standards (AAQS), Title I, Part A, § 109, Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7409; New Source Review (NSR) for PSD (NSR/PSD), Title I, Part C, Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7470-7492; New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for sources, by category, that contribute significantly to air pollution, Title I, Part A, § 111, Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7411--in particular, 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts A, DA, and IIII; and NESHAP, Title I, Part A, § 112, Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7412. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, PSD pollutants are subject to best available control technology (BACT), and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are subject to maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The Application reports that the EPA has established national AAQS for six pollutants: SO2, NO2, CO, lead, ozone, and PM, which comprises PM10 and PM2.5. Primary AAQS for these pollutants protect the public health, and secondary AAQS for these pollutants protect the public welfare, such as the environment and physical property. The Application discloses the national and Florida AAQS standards for the six pollutants and reports that the entire state of Florida is in attainment for all six pollutants. This results in the application of the NSR/PSD regulatory framework, rather than a more stringent NSR regulatory framework for areas that are determined to be nonattainment under national AAQS. The Application reports that the GREC facility will be a major facility, under NSR/PSD, because it has the potential to emit more than 250 tpy of a PSD pollutant. GREC must use BACT for all PSD pollutants that will exceed significant emission rates, which are expressed in tons per year by PSD pollutant, and show that its emissions will not violate any national AAQS or PSD increment. If emissions will adversely affect a "Class 1 area," such as a national park or wilderness area, more rigorous protection of the area and national AAQS and PSD increments would be imposed in terms of "air quality related values," but the GREC facility does not impact any of the four Class I areas in Florida. However, all NSR/PSD reviews include assessments of additional impacts on nearby land uses, as well as on soils, vegetation, and visibility. For PSD emissions that exceed their significant emissions rates, GREC must show that a PSD emission, in micrograms per cubic meter, is below what constitutes the PSD's significant impact level, which is, as a measure of ambient concentration, expressed as micrograms per cubic meter. For any PSD emission that exceeds its significant impact level, GREC would have to provide a more elaborate source-impact analysis. According to the Application, the GREC facility is expected to generate the following PSD emissions in the following amounts: NOX--418.1 tpy; SO2--243.9 tpy; CO--715.6 tpy; VOCs--78.1 tpy; PM (filterable)--130.4 tpy; PM10 (filterable and condensable)--281.2 tpy; SAM--5.9 tpy; lead--0.12 tpy; and mercury--0.0084 tpy. (Filterable PM is in a solid or liquid state in the exhaust stream and is subject to capture by a filter. Filterable and condensable PM is in a gaseous state in the exhaust stream and is converted to a solid or liquid state on condensation after passing through a filter.) All of these emissions exceed the significant emission rates except for lead, mercury, and SAM. (Mercury is not a PSD pollutant, but it has a PSD significant emission rate.) Over 95 percent of these emissions are from the BFBB; small amounts are from the diesel emergency generator and firewater pump. As noted below, DEP subsequently determined that GREC could net its SO2 and NOX emissions against offsetting decreases in emissions of these two pollutants by GRU, so that GREC would be required to demonstrate BACT only for CO, VOCs, and PM/PM10. The Application undertakes BACT analysis for PSD pollutants based on a top-down consideration of all available technology, technically feasible control technology in order from the most- to least-stringent, and the applicable control technology, which is both technologically and economically feasible. Because Petitioners' allegations concerning BACT relate only to SO2, NOX, and PM/PM10 emissions, it is unnecessary to consider GREC's BACT analysis for CO and VOCs. The Application also states that GREC will be a major source of HAPs because the GREC facility will emit more than 10 tpy of any individual HAP or more than 25 tpy of total HAPs. As noted below, DEP subsequently determined that GREC's initial projections of HAPs emissions were too high and that, as revised in the February RRAI, discussed below, the HAPs emissions were below both thresholds for a major source, as described below. Because GREC consequently was not required to demonstrate case- by-case MACT, it is unnecessary to consider GREC's MACT analysis. In Alachua County, HAPS are not attributable primarily to stationary fuel combustion. The Site Application states that 86 percent of these pollutants were emitted from mobile and area small sources, such as dry cleaners and gas stations. The Site Application reports that stationary fuel combustion generates about 91 percent of the SO2, about 28 percent of the NOX, about 14 percent of the PM2.5, about six percent of the PM10, and nearly none of the CO and VOCs. Applying 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart DA, which applies to electric utility steam generating units, the Application notes that the BFBB will meet all emissions limits for PM, NOx, SO2, and opacity or visible emissions. Also, the Application states that, to conform to Subpart DA, GREC will have to install with the BFBB an opacity monitoring system, a continuous bag leak detection system for the fabric filters, continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) for SO2, NOX, and oxygen or CO2, and conduct initial performance tests for SO2, NOX, opacity, and PM. The Application states that the GREC emissions are below the significant impact levels for PSD Class II areas for all PSD pollutants except PM10, for which the GREC emissions, on a 24-hour average, will be 20.4 micrograms per cubic meter, as compared to the significant impact level, on a 24-hour average, of 10 micrograms per cubic meter. Thus, the Application analyzes national AAQS and PSD increments only for PM10. Including all significant stack sources of PM10 within 60 kilometers of the GREC facility (fugitive emissions being deemed too local to require consideration) and both stack and fugitive emissions from the GREC facility, the Application concludes that GREC should not be required to perform preconstruction ambient air quality monitoring because Alachua County already performs adequate air quality monitoring for PM10, and the modeling for the 24-hour projections, as opposed to annual projections, shows that GREC's PM10 emissions in excess of the significant impact levels will be highly localized and entirely contained within the Deerhaven site. Additionally, for the 24-hour and annual projections, the Application notes that the maximum distance to significant impacts for PM10 emissions will be only 1.1 kilometers. Referring to the nearest ambient PM10 air quality monitoring site, which is 7 kilometers south of GREC, the Application concludes that, based on modeling for cumulative PM10 impacts, the air quality impacts from all sources, including background, will be substantially below the 24-hour and annual PSD Class II increments and national AAQS, so the GREC facility will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the PM10 PSD increments or national AAQS. Finally, turning to additional impacts, the Application reports that the GREC emissions are too low to significantly affect soils, vegetation, or wildlife. In discussing PM10 emissions, the Application advises that Florida's 24-hour and annual averages for PM10 emissions, under state AAQS, are 150 and 50 micrograms per cubic meter. As noted above, the GREC facility's PM10 emissions will result in an increase of PM10 concentrations by 20.4 micrograms per cubic meter, on a 24-hour average; its PM10 emissions will result in an increase of PM10 concentrations by 5.3 micrograms per cubic meter, on an annual average. Both of these increases are obviously below the state AAQS. (The national AAQS for PM10 is the same for a 24-hour average and omits an annual average.) Responses to Requests for Additional Information Attachment A to the February RRAI is a set of BMPs for biomass material handling and storage. Attachment A requires GREC to consult with the Gainesville Fire Department and develop a Fire Management Plan. Key components of the Fire Management Plan will be frequent rotation of the biomass and the prevention of biomass compaction. Attachment A provides for the covering or partial enclosing of drop points and conveyor systems for biomass. The in-ground receiving hoppers will be covered by a divided enclosure with roll-up entry doors, curtained exit doors, and stilling curtains in the upper roof. The fuel processing building, which houses the hammer hog and screens, will have local ventilation ducted to a fabric filter dust collector. Drop points to the wood piles will be minimized by telescoping discharge spouts. Boiler fill bins will have vent filters. To ensure that the dust control measures are effective, daily inspections of the equipment will take place. Also, regular maintenance of the equipment will be performed. All major roads at the GREC facility will be paved to suppress fugitive emissions. Trained GREC personnel will promptly remove excessive mud, dirt, or similar debris from paved roads. Attachment A provides that GREC will maintain the wood piles to avoid excessive wind erosion. GREC will develop a dust management plan for the storage areas. GREC will minimize the use of rolling stock on the wood piles during windy conditions. In a request for additional information, DEP commented that the projections of HAPs emissions seemed high because other biomass projects half the size of GREC had projected HAPs emissions one-quarter of those projected by GREC. Noting that 95 percent of the HAPs emissions from the GREC facility would be in the form of HF and HCl, GREC responded that the BFBB manufacturer, Metso Corporation, had recalculated the projected emissions from its boiler based on a redetermination of the fluorine and chloride content of the biomass fuel, BBFB chemical reactions, increased sorbent in the DSI, and optimization and sizing of the baghouse. Based on these recalculations, the February RRAI reports that the GREC facility will emit no more than 25 tpy of HAPs or 10 tpy of any single HAP. The February RRAI states that, based on these recalculations, the GREC will emit 170.7 tpy of SO2 (down from 243.9 tpy) and the following HAPS: HF--9.7 tpy (down from 71.4 tpy; and HCl--9.7 tpy (down from 35.7 tpy). Lead and mercury projected emissions will be the same, but total HAPs emissions will be 24.6 tpy. Also, the February RRAI projects emissions of PM2.5 to be 278.3 tpy. Due to these recalculations of HAPs, the February RRAI states that it is unnecessary for GREC to provide case-by-case MACT. Attachment D to the February RRAI is the Biomass Quality Assurance and Quality Control Plan (Biomass QAQC Plan). Restating the biomass specifications, the Biomass QAQC Plan requires GREC to contract with suppliers for woody biomass material that conforms to the material described in the Air Construction Permit. The Biomass QAQC Plan notes that the power purchase agreement between GRU and GREC requires GREC to hire two professional foresters to manage the biomass procurement. The Biomass QAQC Plan states that GREC is required to inspect each shipment of biomass, upon receipt, and reject all shipments that fail to conform to the specifications contained in the plan. The February RRAI explains why GREC is not required to perform AQRV analysis for impacts to Class I areas. The February RRAI notes that GREC has relocated several improvements by relatively short distances, but these relocations do not affect the PM modeling. The May RRAI mostly addresses PM. The May RRAI accedes to a DEP request to model fugitive emissions after the relocation of various improvements, as mentioned in the February RRAI. GREC supplied this analysis, which suggests that the GREC facility will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the PM10 PSD Class II increments or national AAQS. Attachment B to the May RRAI describes the dispersion modeling that was undertaken after the relocation of the various site improvements. In response to an EPA comment, the May RRAI adds various offsite sources of PM10, including two simple cycle combustion turbines, three emergency diesel engines, and fugitive PM10 from coal handling at Deerhaven and three simple cycle combustion turbines at another nearby GRU facility. Also, the May RRAI increases the PM10 emission rates for a nearby cement plant. As before, GREC conceded that the PM10 emissions will exceed the PSD Class II significant impact levels, but contended that preconstruction ambient air quality monitoring is unnecessary because adequate data already exist in Alachua County for this pollutant and the 24-hour PM10 impacts will be highly localized and confined with the industrialized areas abutting the GREC site. Additionally, the May RRAI reports the results of cumulative PM10 modeling. Again, the May RRAI states that the result of this cumulative modeling is that the air quality impacts from all relevant sources, including background, will be well below the 24-hour and annual PSD Class II increments and national AAQS, so the GREC facility will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the PM10 PSD increments or national AAQS. Responding to an EPA comment asking for justification for using PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5, Attachment C of the May RRAI, citing an EPA guidance memo issued March 23, 2010, explains why PM10 may be used as a surrogate for PM2.5 for the GREC facility. Using the GREC facility's PM2.5/PM10 emission ratios, Attachment C assures that the GREC facility will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of PM2.5 national AAQS. In generating the PM2.5/PM10 emission ratios, Attachment C states that GREC assumed that all of the PM emissions from the BFBB would be PM2.5 because the baghouse filter would capture the larger PM. For fugitive dust and material handling, GREC relied on an EPA published 0.10-0.15 PM2.5/PM10 emission ratio, which is applicable to fugitive dust from paved and unpaved roads, material handling and storage piles, industrial wind erosion, and material transfer operations. GREC selected the 0.15 factor, which assumes a greater presence of PM2.5 in these emissions. For the cooling tower, GREC assumed the same 0.15 PM2.5/PM10 emission ratio. Noting that drift eliminators are the only technology that control PM2.5 and PM10 emissions for wet cooling towers, Attachment C cites a 2002 article finding that a cooling tower's PM2.5 emissions are less than one percent of its PM10 emissions. For its calculations, GREC assumed conservatively that its tower's PM2.5 emissions would be 15 percent of its PM10 emissions. Attachment C restates that, primarily due to the low elevation for fugitive PM emissions, the maximum PM10 impacts would be at the GREC fenceline. However, again taking a worst- case scenario, GREC assumed that all of its PM10 emissions would be stack emissions and that the BFBB PM emissions would coincide with all other PM emissions from the GREC facility. Adjusting the background PM2.5 data to remove the data for 2007, due to the pollution caused by extensive wildfires, GREC determined that, despite all of its conservative assumptions, in some instances resulting in worst-case assumptions, the GREC facility's PM2.5 emissions, when combined with background levels, would be below the 24-hour PM2.5 national AAQS. For this reason, responding to another EPA comment, GREC rejected the need for more additional impacts analysis. DEP's Technical Evaluation On July 14, 2010, DEP issued its Technical Evaluation. The Technical Evaluation identifies four specific elements for the control of fugitive emissions: the use of the first- in/first-out method for biomass and the telescoping chute to minimize drop lengths onto wood pile, use of BMPs and design features to control fugitive emissions from conveyor system, use of enclosures for dust collectors and (where possible) telescoping chutes, and wetting of wood piles and roads, as needed. For the handling of fly ash, the Technical Evaluation notes that a baghouse or similar filter will control fugitive PM emissions from the fly ash silo, and BMPs will be used to minimize PM emissions while loading trucks. For the BFBB, the Technical Evaluation identifies several elements for the control of emissions. The BFBB design, especially its efficient combustion, will control the formation of PM, CO, and VOCs, as well as HAPs. The fabric filter baghouse will control PM2.5 and PM10 emissions. Because the biomass fuel with be low in sulfur, SO2 and SAM emissions will be controlled. These emissions will also be controlled by reaction with the alkaline fly ash and DSI. The SCR will control NOX and VOCs. Low-chloride biomass fuel will control HAPs. HAPs will also be controlled by reaction with alkaline fly ash, DSI, the fabric filter baghouse, and SCR. And drift eliminators will control PM emissions from the cooling tower. The Technical Evaluation finds that the GREC facility is a major stationary source, under NSR/PSD, because it has the potential to emit 100 tpy of any PSD pollutant and is in one of 28 categories of major PSD facilities. The Technical Evaluation explains that, for major modifications of existing major stationary sources, PSD applicability depends on whether significant emission rates will be met. For net emissions exceeding these rates, an applicant must provide BACT for each pollutant exceeding its significant emission rate. The Technical Evaluation notes that PM2.5 is a PSD pollutant, but its significant emission rate has not yet been set, at least in Florida, so PM2.5 is regulated by its precursors and surrogates, including SO2, NOX, and PM/PM10. For the NOX and SO2 emissions of, respectively, 418.1 and 170.7 tpy, the Technical Evaluation discloses that, on July 12, 2010, DEP issued a permit to GRU imposing enforceable reductions in its Deerhaven NOX and SO2 emissions of, respectively, 418 and 171 tpy. In fact, based on a 2007 permit issued to GRU, DEP and GRU expect future reductions at Deerhaven in NOX and SO2 emissions of, respectively, 7139 and 3262 tpy. The air pollution control system permitted in 2007 will, in the long term, result in reductions of SAM and mercury, in excess of the GREC facility's emissions of these two pollutants, but DEP did not consider these offsets because of the lack of CEMS and enforceability. The Technical Evaluation thus concludes that, on a net basis, the GREC facility will emit PM/PM10, CO, and VOCs in excess of their respective PSD significant emission rates. The unnetted emissions of SAM are slightly below its significant emission rate. Although not shown on the table, the emissions of mercury are more than one order of magnitude less than its significant emission rate. Thus, GREC is subject to PSD ambient air modeling and BACT for PM/PM10, CO, and VOCs. The Technical Evolution relies on GREC's revised projections of HAPs with HCl and HF each at 9.72 tpy and total HAPs at 24.7 tpy. The Technical Evaluation concludes that the GREC facility, without regard to the Deerhaven facility, fails to trigger case-by-case MACT review because it is just under the thresholds of 10 tpy for any single HAP and 25 tpy for all HAPs. The Technical Evaluation notes that the 2007 air pollution control system permitted to GRU would result in reductions of HCl and HF greater than GREC's emissions of these two HAPs, but these offsets may not be considered in calculating the HAPs increases from the GREC facility due to the lack of a netting procedure in NESHAP. Reporting that GREC requested that the Air Construction Permit limit NOX and SO2 emissions even though, after netting, such limits were no longer required, the Technical Evaluation compares the GREC facility's emissions caps of these two PSD pollutants with the emissions caps of these two pollutants by other facilities. The GREC facility's emissions caps are lower than most other facilities, including the Nacogdoches biomass plant and another biomass plant in Ft. Gaines, Georgia, which are similar in size to the GREC facility. The biomass for the GREC facility will contain two orders of magnitude less sulfur than the coal burned at Deerhaven. For SAM, DEP imposed a limit of 6.6 tpy because the GREC projection of 5.9 tpy was close to the significant emission rate for SAM of 7 tpy. For the PSD pollutants requiring BACT, the Technical Evaluation observes that GREC has adopted a strategy in the BFBB of emphasizing the control of NOX, even where this means reduced control of VOCs and CO. Noting that the addition of an oxygen catalyst could reduce VOCs and CO, the Technical Evaluation reports that GREC chose instead SCR, which is superior to another system that its affiliate used at the Nacogdoches facility. With the ensuing reductions of NOX, GREC was able to retune the BFBB to back off the NOX control in order to gain additional control of VOCs and CO, which are emitted at slightly lower rates than the rates at the Nacogdoches and Ft. Gaines facilities. Due to the ongoing need to fine tune the BFBB combustion processes and the SCR, the Technical Evaluation notes that GREC agreed to tiered limits of VOCs and CO emission rates. Also, the Technical Evaluation provides that CO compliance will be measured by a CEMS, and VOCs compliance will be measured by an annual test. For PM/PM10/PM2.5, the Technical Evaluation reports that burnout of the constituents of these pollutants is superior in a BFBB than a stoker furnace. Because more-complete combustion reduces the risk of fires in the pollution control equipment, the BFBB permits GREC to use a baghouse to produce lower PM/PM10 limits and to minimize direct emissions of PM2.5. The Technical Evaluation states that the most effective control technologies for PM are fabric filters and electrostatic precipitators, but the former provide better control of fine PM. The Technical Evaluation identifies as supplementary control strategies the minimization of PM2.5 and visible emission precursors by limiting SO2, NOX, ammonia, VOCs, and chlorides. The Technical Evaluation notes that GREC's BACT proposal for filterable PM/PM10 is the NSPS of 89 tpy based on a fabric filter baghouse. The Technical Evaluation adds that GREC estimated 250 tpy for total PM/PM10, including filterable and condensible PM/PM10. Given the BFBB, baghouse, DSI, and SCR, DEP did not expect the emissions of filterable and condensible PM/PM10 to be as high as projected by GREC and expected these emissions to be below those of the Nacogdoches and Ft. Gaines facilities, which projected PM/PM10 emissions at rates about 75 and 43 percent, respectively, of the rate of these emissions at the GREC facility, even though it would emit less NOX and SO2 and would be equipped with a superior catalytic control system. DEP elected the NSPS limit for PM/PM10, but warned that the GREC facility will eventually need to comply with a filterable PM NSPS limit that, when initially proposed by EPA, was about half the emissions rate proposed by GREC. The Technical Evaluation requires compliance by initial and annual stack testing using EPA Method 5 or 17 for filterable PM/PM10 emissions and EPA Method 202 for filterable and condensible PM/PM10 emissions. The Technical Evaluation adds that a visible emissions limit of 10 percent opacity over a six-minute average, except for one six-minute period of not more than 20 percent opacity, which is BACT, will be demonstrated by the continuous opacity measurement system. The Technical Evaluation states that GREC has incorporated BACT into its proposal concerning PM2.5. This finding is based on the BACT limits for PM/PM10, CO, and VOCs; low emissions of SO2 and NOX; enforceable reductions in PM2.5 precursors from Deerhaven; the visible emissions limit, which controls the fraction of PM2.5 that interferes with light transmission; and limits on ammonia and HCl. Controlling SO2, NOX, CO, VOCs, chlorides, and ammonia controls PM2.5 because these pollutants are PM2.5 precursors. For HCl, the Technical Evaluation acknowledges that DSI and the fabric filter will control emissions, for which DEP will require a CEMS. For HF, the Technical Evaluation notes that the fly ash interaction, DSI, and the fabric filter will control emissions, for which DEP will also require a CEMS. For the four metallic HAPs, phosphorus, chromium, manganese, and lead, and nine organic HAPs, which exclude dioxins or furans, DEP will require initial and annual stack tests. For PM, the Technical Evaluation reviews the BMPs for biomass fuel delivery, preparation, storage, and handling. As for the quality of the biomass accepted at the GREC facility, the Technical Evaluation notes that GREC will contractually obligate its suppliers to provide biomass that conforms to the biomass described in the Air Construction Permit. The Technical Evaluation states that GREC must inspect each shipment of biomass and reject nonconforming biomass. GREC must document each shipment and document rejected shipments, including the ultimate disposition of such shipments. Discussing the three PSD pollutants--VOCs, CO, and PM/PM10--that the GREC facility will emit in excess of PSD significant emission rates, the Technical Evaluation approves of GREC's use of PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5, especially due to the enforceable reductions at Deerhaven of SO2 and NOX. The Technical Evaluation reports that, between 2007 and 2009, Florida's power plants reduced their SO2 and NOX emissions by 38 percent and 54 percent, respectively. Agreeing with GREC that the only pollutant emissions to exceed their significant impact levels will be PM/PM10 for Class II areas, but not Class I areas, the Technical Evaluation also agrees with GREC that no purpose would be served by requiring preconstruction air monitoring for PM because of the low emissions of these pollutants by the GREC facility and the existence of adequate monitoring for PM in Alachua and Putnam counties, which disclose attainment with national AAQS for PM10 and PM2.5. In its multisource PSD Class II increment analysis, the Technical Evaluation explains that the PSD increment is the amount by which new sources may increase ambient ground level concentrations from a baseline concentration. For PM10, the Technical Evaluation agrees with GREC's modeling that the 24- hour and annual averages would not come close to the maximum allowable increment. Likewise, the Technical Evaluation agrees with GREC that its PM10 impacts would not come close to national or state AAQS for this pollutant. Lastly, the Technical Evaluation agrees with GREC in terms of additional impacts. The Technical Evaluation states that the GREC facility will not have an adverse impact on soils, wildlife, or vegetation. The Technical Evaluation reports that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not require an AQRV analysis due to the facility's low emissions. Based on its analysis, the Technical Evaluation found that the Application, as amended and conditioned by the Air Construction Permit, meets all federal and state air pollution control requirements. Air Construction Permit Draft Air Construction Permit Section 1 highlights the GREC facility's pollution control technology: the efficient combustion of clean woody biomass in the BFBB to minimize formation of PM/PM10/PM2.5 (which is referred to as PM in the draft Air Construction Permit), NOX, CO, and VOCs; limitation of biomass to clean woody biomass to minimize the formation of SO2 and HAPs, including HF and HCl; injection of ammonia into the SCR to SCR to destroy NOX; use of DSI and alkaline fly ash to control SO2, HF, and HCl; installation of fabric filter baghouse to control PM and remove injected sorbents; implementation of BMPs to minimize fugitive PM emissions from biomass handling, storage and processing, ash handling, storage and shipment and alkaline sorbent handling, storage, and processing; and appropriate design of draft cooling tower to minimize drift (PM). For emissions monitoring, draft Air Construction Permit Section 1 identifies the following: CEMS for CO, SO2, NOX, HCl, and HF and a continuous opacity measuring system for visual emissions. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 1 notes that GRU's Deerhaven facility is a major source of HAPs, but the GREC facility itself is not a major source of HAPs. The draft Air Construction Permit states that the GREC facility is a major stationary source under the NSR/PSD program and is subject to NSPS and NESHAP, under the Clean Air Act. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 2, Specific Condition 11 provides: No person shall cause . . . or allow the emissions of unconfined particulate matter from any activity, including vehicular movement; transportation of materials; construction, alteration, demolition, or wrecking; or industrial related activities such as loading, unloading, storing, or handling; without taking reasonable precautions to prevent such emissions. . . . Appendix BMP . . . provides a Best Management Plan of reasonable precautions specific to the GREC facility to control fugitive PM emissions. General reasonable precautions include the following: a. Paving and maintenance of roads, parking areas and yards; b. Application of water or chemicals to control emissions from such activities as demolition of buildings, grading roads, construction, and land clearing; c. Application of asphalt, water, oil, chemicals or other dust suppressants to unpaved roads, yards, open stock piles and similar activities; d. Removal of particulate matter from roads and other paved areas under the control of the owner or operator of the facility to prevent re- entrainment, and from buildings or work areas to prevent particulates from becoming airborne; e. Landscaping or planting of vegetation; f. Use of hoods, fans, filters, and similar equipment to contain, capture and/or vent particulate matter; g. Confining abrasive blasting where possible; and h. Enclosure or covering of conveyor systems. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.A applies to the emissions unit of biomass delivery, preparation, storage, and handling. Section 3.A describes the unit as consisting of three truck dumpers, two sets of screens and hogs, and automatic and manual stackers to maintain, on average, a 15-20 day supply of biomass based on full load operation and average biomass fuel moisture content. Noting that suppliers will initially chip, ground, and otherwise process the biomass at offsite locations before trucking it to the GREC facility, Section 3.A reports that 130-150 fuel truck deliveries are expected daily, six days per week. During peak periods, the GREC facility is expected to handle 24 truckloads of biomass per hour. By design, the maximum processing rate is 600 tons per hour with a maximum yearly rate of 1.395 million tons. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.A describes the four wood piles. The automatic stacker/reclaimer pile will be 85 feet high--the draft Air Construction Permit does not incorporate the 60-foot height restriction added at the hearing--with a storage capacity of 125,000 cubic yards of fuel. The stock pile will be shaped like a cone, 60-feet high, and capable of storing 8500 cubic yards of fuel. This pile will be fed with a fixed stacker, including a telescoping chute to minimize drop distances. The second storage pile will be 35 feet high with a storage capacity of 79,000 cubic yards of fuel. Rolling stock will transfer fuel from the stock pile to the second storage pile. A fourth, small pile will be for sawdust, which will be delivered, moist, by trucks to an open area adjacent to the second storage pile. Front-end loaders will reclaim the sawdust. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.A.1 authorizes the construction of biomass delivery, unloading, and processing equipment consisting of truck scales, a fully enclosed building containing surge bins, size disc screens and hogging equipment, three drive-through truck dumpers with receiving hoppers, six conveyors to transport the biomass from the truck dumpers to the fuel handling and storage system, a metal detector and self- cleaning magnetic separator on the conveyor entering the screen/hog building, two surge bins and two reclaimers within the screen/hog building to accept the biomass from the conveyors from the truck dumpers, two sizing discs in the screen/hog building to screen any oversized biomass and send it to the hogs for reduction to design size, and two hogs in the screen/hog building to reduce the size of any oversized biomass. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.A.2 authorizes the construction of biomass fuel handling and storage system equipment consisting of a stacker/reclaimer system for the first storage pile, a telescoping chute for the stock pile, two conveyors to transport the fuel to the stacker/reclaimer pile, a telescoping chute for the stock pile, five conveyors to transfer the fuel from the two storage piles to the BFBB bins, and scales and magnetic separators for some of the conveyors. The two BFBB bins will store sufficient biomass for 45 minutes of boiler operation and will be equipped with bin vent filters to control PM emissions. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.A.3 provides for the control of fugitive PM by the use of enclosed conveyors, where practical, and installation of dust collectors on conveyor drop transfer points, also where possible. One exception to the enclosure of the conveyors is a small section near the truck dumpers to allow visual inspection of biomass to ensure that the GREC facility has accepted conforming loads. Section 3.A.3.a requires the addition of a baghouse to the screen/hog building to control PM emissions, and the installation of a screw conveyor to transfer the PM captured in the baghouse to the conveyor taking the biomass to the biomass fuel handling and storage system. Section 3.A.3.b requires the installation of bin vent filters to control PM emissions from the boiler bins. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.A.4 requires a BMP plan to control fugitive emissions from this emissions unit. The BMP plan will include provisions to ensure that the biomass conforms to the qualitative standards imposed by the draft Air Construction Permit. A draft BMP plan is attached to the draft Air Construction Permit, but GREC must provide DEP with a final BMP plan at least 180 days prior to opening the facility. The draft BMP plan addresses fugitive emissions, pile management, and fire prevention. After reciting the clean woody biomass materials that are permitted, as noted above, the draft BMP plan prohibits wood that has been chemically treated or processed, yard trash, paper, treated wood such as CCA or creosote, painted wood, and wood from landfills. The draft BMP plan does not explicitly prohibit the acceptance of construction and demolition debris, although GREC offered at the hearing to add this prohibition. The draft BMP plan requires the covering or partial enclosure of conveyor systems and drop points for biomass. The hoppers into which biomass trucks deliver their loads must be covered for dust control. The hoppers will be in a divided enclosure with roll-up entry doors, slitted curtains at the exit doors, and stilling curtains in the upper roof area. Processing equipment will be in an enclosed building, identified above as the screen/hog building, which will be equipped with local ventilation and ducted to a fabric filter dust collector. Drop points to the wood piles will be designed to minimize the overall exposed drop height by using telescoping discharge spouts. Boiler fuel bins must be equipped with bin vent filters. GREC staff will conduct daily observations of the conveyor system and drop point integrity to ensure proper operation. All major roads at the GREC facility will be paved. GREC staff will promptly remove excessive mud, dirt, or similar debris from the paved roads. All paved roads and gravel areas will be wetted as needed to minimize fugitive dust emissions. GREC shall manage and maintain the biomass storage areas to avoid excessive wind erosion. Ninety days after the plant becomes operational, GREC shall submit to DEP a fugitive dust management plan for the biomass storage area. Front-end loaders and other equipment will minimize movement of the biomass on high wind event days. When necessary to minimize fugitive dust emissions, GREC will wet the biomass before moving it with front-end loaders and other equipment. GREC staff shall observe the biomass storage areas daily to determine if they need to implement elements of the fugitive dust management plan. GREC staff will work with the Gainesville Fire Department to develop a Fire Management Plan. GREC will avoid spontaneous combustion and odors by rotating the biomass in the wood piles. The stacker/reclaimer pile will be divided into zones to facilitate the removal of the oldest biomass first. The fuel yard manager will do the same with the manual pile. Compaction of the biomass will be minimized. To assure that the qualitative biomass specifications are met, GREC will require that suppliers perform most of the processing offsite. For each shipment of biomass, GREC must record the date, quantity, and description of the material received. GREC must inspect each shipment for nonconforming materials, and GREC must reject or segregate such material, if it is discovered. GREC must maintain records of rejected shipments and their disposition. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.A.6 specifies the qualitative standards for the biomass. GREC may receive only "in-forest residue and slash," which are defined as "tops, limbs, whole tree material and other residues from soft and hardwoods that result from traditional silvicultural harvests"; "mill residue," which is defined as "saw dust, bark, shavings and kerf waste from cutting/milling whole green trees; fines from planing kiln-dried lumber; wood waste material generated by primary wood products industries such as round-offs, end cuts, sticks, [and] pole ends; and reject lumber as well as residue material from the construction of wood trusses and pallets"; "pre-commercial tree trimmings and understory clearings," which are defined as "tops, limbs, whole tree material and other residues that result from the cutting or removal of certain, smaller trees from a stand . . .; and forest understory which includes smaller trees, bushes and saplings"; "storm, fire and disease debris," which are defined as "tops, limbs, whole tree material and other residues that are damaged due to storms, fires or infectious diseases"; "urban wood waste," which is defined as "tree parts and/or branches generated by landscaping contractors and power line/roadway clearance contractors that have been cut down for land development or right-of-way clearing purposes"; "recycled industrial wood," which is defined as "wood derived from used pallets packing crates; and dunnage disposed of by commercial or industrial users"; and "supplementary fuel material," which is defined as "herbaceous plant matter; clean agricultural residues (i.e. rice hulls, straw, etc.: no animal wastes or manure); and whole tree chips and pulpwood chips." Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.A.8-13 describes visible emissions limits and opacity testing that GREC must perform. The description conforms to the limits described above. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.B applies to the BFBB. Section 3.B provides that the maximum heat input capacity is 1358 mmBTU per hour on a four-hour average basis. The BFBB's steam production capability will be 650,000 to 930,000 pounds per hour. Section 3.B repeats the description of the pollution-control technology contained in the introduction of the draft Air Construction Permit, adding only that the fabric filter baghouse will have a design efficiency of 99.99 percent to control PM and visible emissions. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.B describes the stack as 12 feet in diameter and at least 230 feet tall. It will release flue gas with a temperature of about 310 degrees at a volumetric flow rate of 520,600 actual cubic feet per minute. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.B requires CEMS for CO, NOX, SO2, HCl, and HF, as well as continuous opacity monitoring systems for visible emissions. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.B.1 describes the BFBB. Section 3.B.2.a requires the addition of a fabric filter baghouse to control PM and visible emissions. Section 3.B.2.b requires the addition of an ammonia-based SCR to reduce NOX emissions. Section 3.B.2.c requires the addition of DSI to control the emissions of SO2 and HAPs, particularly HCl and HF, although there seems to be no mention of the trona sorbent that GREC selected, after submitting the original application, to achieve greater pollution control. The 24-hour average from CEMS of SO2, HCl, and HF will be monitored daily by trained staff to determine if adjustments are required to DSI to assure that emissions of these pollutants do not exceed the limits stated in the draft Air Construction Permit. GREC must report these emissions data quarterly to DEP. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.B.9 states the emissions limits for the BFBB and the applicable tests. Selected limits are: NOX--416.4 tpy--12-month CEMS; SO2--170.7 tpy--12-month CEMS; SAM--1.4 lb/hr--initial and annual stack test; CO--0.12/0.18 lb/mmBTU--30-day CEMS; HCl--9.72 tpy-- 12-month CEMS; HF--9.72 tpy--12-month CEMS; HCl, HF, organic HAPs, and metallic HAPs--24.7 tpy--12 month CEMS plus initial and annual stack tests; visible emissions--10 percent opacity-- continuous opacity monitoring system and initial stack test; VOCs--0.01/0.009 lb/mmBTU--initial and annual stack test; and heat input rate--1,358 mmBTU/hr--four-hour average. "Lb/mmBTU" means pounds per million BTU heat input. The alternative values for CO and VOCs state the limit for the first 360 calendars after certification of the CEMS followed by the limit thereafter and allow GREC time to fine tune the BFBB and air pollution control technology. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.B.13 requires GREC to install, calibrate, maintain, and operate CEMS for SO2, NOX, CO, HCl, and HF, as well as a diluent monitor for either CO or oxygen, from the boiler stack to show compliance with Section 3.B.9. This section provides the standards for certification, operation, maintenance, and recordkeeping for each CEMS. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.B.18 provides that the initial and annual stack tests shall be conducted between 90 and 100 percent of maximum heat input rate. A note states that the initial test must be done at 90 to 100 percent of permitted capacity, but the draft Air Construction Permit will be modified to reflect true maximum capacity, as constructed, so, implicitly, the annual tests will be based on the adjusted maximum heat input rate. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.B.19 provides similarly for HAPs. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.B.20 identifies the EPA Method stack tests and calculations for various emissions. EPA Method 320 is for the measurement of Vapor Phase Organic and Inorganic Emissions by Extractive Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy. EPA Methods 5, 5B, and 17 are for the measurement of PM. EPA Methods 201 and 201A are for the measurement of PM10. All but one of the EPA Methods are specified in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A. Despite the statement in the Technical Evaluation that DEP would require GREC to use EPA Method 202 to measure filterable and condensible PM emissions, the draft Air Construction Permit omits this test, as well as any other test for filterable and condensible PM emissions. Draft Air Construction Permit Sections 3.B.22 and 23 require GREC to continuously measure and record pressure drops across each baghouse compartment controlling PM boiler emissions. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.B.25 specifies the information to be contained in the stack test reports submitted to DEP. Section 3.B.26 provides that GREC will submit to DEP monthly records of the hours of operation of the BFBB, tons of woody biomass burned, cubic feet of natural gas burned (for start-ups), pounds of steam, total heat input rate, hourly heat input rate to the BFBB, and the updated 12- month rolling results for each of these parameters. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.B.27 provides that GREC will submit to DEP quarterly records of CO, NOX, SO2, HCl, HF, and opacity emissions. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.C pertains to ash handling, storage, and shipment. Section 3.C states that about two-thirds of the ash created by the combustion of the biomass will leave the BFBB as fly ash and the remaining one- third will leave as bottom ash. Fly ash from the boiler connective pass and baghouse hoppers will be collected dry and transported pneumatically to a single fly ash storage silo by means of two vacuum blowers. The transferred fly ash will first pass through a receiver/collector that will separate the fly ash from the conveying air stream. After passing through an air lock valve, the fly ash will be deposited into the storage silo, which will be vented through a baghouse to control PM emissions. The fly ash will either be stabilized with water or loaded dry into a receiving truck. If stabilized with water, the ash will be transferred by chute into covered trucks, which will haul it offsite for reuse or disposal. If transferred dry, the ash will be transferred by an enclosed process by chute into sealed trucks. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.C states that bottom ash from the bed will consist primarily of noncombustible materials (e.g., rocks, glass, sand, and metal) from the biomass fuel. The coarse bottom ash will be removed from the BFBB through ash hoppers and chutes. The coarse material will be sieved in a rotating screen prior to conveyance to the bottom ash container. The contents of this container will be taken offsite for disposal at a properly licensed landfill. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.C.1 authorizes GREC to construct an emissions unit consisting of the above-described equipment for the handling, storage, and shipment of fly and bottom ash. Section 3.C.2 requires GREC to install and operate, where practical, enclosed conveyors for bottom and fly ash to minimize fugitive PM and, where practical, dust collectors on the bottom and fly ash transfer points, drop points, hoppers, and chutes. Section 3.C.2 requires GREC to design, install, and maintain a baghouse to remove PM from the fly ash storage silo exhaust. This baghouse will achieve a PM emission rate of 0.15 grains per dry standard cubic foot. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.C.4 provides that the maximum design transfer rate of the fly ash handling system will be 3.2 tons per hour with a maximum annual design transfer rate of 27,594 tpy. Section 3.C.5 provides that the maximum design transfer rate of the bottom ash handling system will be 1.5 tons per hour with a maximum annual design transfer rate of 13,140 tpy. The overall ash handling, storage, and shipment system will have a maximum annual design transfer rate of 40,734 tpy. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.C.7 imposes a 10 percent opacity limit from the bottom and fly ash conveyors, transfer points, drop points, hoppers, chutes, and dust collectors, except for a 20 percent rate for one six-minute period per unspecified period of time. Section 3.C.8 limits PM emissions from the baghouse of the fly ash silo to 0.15 grains per dry standard cubic foot. Draft Air Construction Permit Sections 3.C.11 and 12 pertain to initial and annual testing for visible emissions. Section 3.C.13 provide that these tests sill serve as a surrogate for PM emissions tests. If the visible emissions standard is unmet, a PM test using EPA Method 5 must be conducted on the baghouse stack to show compliance with the PM emissions standard specified in Section 3.C.8. Section 3.C.14 requires GREC to maintain continuous operation of bag leak detection systems on the fly ash storage silo baghouse. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.D describes the cooling tower as a four-cell, mechanical, draft-type tower with high efficiency fill and drift eliminators. Cooling tower evaporation loss at maximum load is estimated to be 1.34 million gallons per day. GREC will obtain makeup water from two onsite wells drilled to the Floridan aquifer. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.E describes an emergency diesel generator with a maximum design rating of 564 kW. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.F describes an emergency diesel firewater pump engine with a maximum design rating of 275 hp. In addition to the draft BMP plan, described above, the draft Air Construction Permit contains several other appendices. Appendix CEMS requires GREC to evaluate the acceptability of each CEMS by conducting a performance specification. Appendix CEMS Section 8 provides: for CO CEMS, GREC will use EPA Performance Specification 4 or 4A; for NOX and SO2 CEMS, GREC will use EPA Performance Specification 2; for HCl, GREC will use EPA Performance Specification 15, Method OTM 22, or alternative specification approved by DEP; and for HF, GREC will use EPA Performance Specification 15, Method OTM 22, or alternative specification approved by DEP. The EPA performance specifications are found at 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B. Appendix CEMS Section 9 requires GREC to implement EPA quality assurance procedures found at 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix F. These apply to each pollutant mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Appendix CTR covers common testing requirements. Appendix CTR Section 1 requires that emissions tests take place with the emissions unit, such as the BFBB, operating at permitted capacity, which is defined as 90 to 100 percent of the maximum operation rate allowed by the final Air Construction Permit. Appendix CC covers common conditions. Appendix CC Section 10 provides that GREC will comply with changes in Florida statutes and DEP rules after "a reasonable time for compliance." Other Findings Dioxin Petitioners claim that GREC has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed facility protects public health and the environment from emissions of dioxins, including furans and PCBs, and the draft Air Construction Permit fails to impose emissions limits for dioxins. Dioxins are not among the pollutants covered under national AAQS. Dioxins are classified as HAPs, but, unlike the situation with HCl and HF, Petitioners do not contend that DEP incorrectly concluded that dioxin emissions would be under 10 tpy. Instead, Petitioners claim that the projected emissions of dioxins by the GREC facility, although indisputably well under 10 tpy, are nonetheless high enough to endanger public health and the environment. Dioxins are compounds that result from the combustion of chlorine-containing materials, including wood. The family of "dioxins" includes furans and polychlorinated biphenyls (more commonly known as PCBs), which all are within the family of persistent organic pollutants. Common sources of dioxins include boilers, electrical power plants, municipal and medical waste incinerators, crematoriums, cement kilns, forest fires, household fireplaces, cigarette smoking, pulp production, and open burning. Dioxins have been associated with cancer and disorders of the immune, skin, digestive, and reproductive systems, where dioxins may act as endocrine disruptors. Work with rats suggests that a major effect of excessive dioxin exposure in utero is upon the reproductive system of the fetus. Dioxins are persistent. Their half lives in the environment range from 30 to 40 years. Because they are hydrophobic and accumulate in fatty tissue, dioxins enjoy half lives of 7-12 years in humans. Humans acquire dioxins by breathing, skin contact, consuming water, consuming food, breastfeeding, and transplacental movement while in utero. The last three means are the principal routes of human exposure. The virtually safe dose, or reference dose, for dioxins is low: one picogram per kilogram per day. One picogram is one-trillionth of one gram. An EPA work in progress may lower this reference dose to 0.7 picograms per kilogram per day. For the late 1990s, the EPA estimated that the average American acquired 6-10 picograms per kilogram per day, later reducing this estimate to 6-8 picograms per kilogram per day. The EPA estimate for children, including breast-fed infants, is five to seven times higher, around 40 picograms per kilogram per day. This is about 60 times higher than the virtually safe dose. However, the trends for dioxin levels are good. In its 2006 reassessment of dioxin, the EPA reported that dioxin levels in the environment had decreased by over 90 percent since the late 1980s. Over roughly the same period, the Centers for Disease Control reported that dioxin concentrations in human blood had decreased 80 percent, although decreases in dioxin concentrations in human fatty tissue over the same period of time are likely less. To some extent, dioxin emissions will be limited by the pollution control equipment, especially the redesigned fabric baghouse and SCR catalyst, which, according to the Technical Evaluation, will help destroy VOCs and is a documented strategy for dioxin control. Also, the temperature of the air leaving the stack will be about 310 degrees--90 degrees below the temperature at which dioxins form. GREC has provided reasonable assurance that the GREC facility will not emit dioxins in significant amounts. Thomas Davis is the principal engineer of GREC's consultant, ECT. Mr. Davis, who has considerable experience in air pollution control technology, analyzed the potential for dioxin emissions from the GREC boiler. Mr. Davis found five, operational fluidized bed boilers for which relevant data were available on the rate of dioxin emissions. He then applied the derived emissions rate to the GREC boiler. Mr. Davis determined that the GREC boiler will likely emit .11 grams per year of all dioxins and about .012 grams per year of 2,3,7,8 TCDD, the most potent dioxin. Expressed in another way, the .11 grams per year of total dioxins emitted by the GREC boiler is 110,000,000,000 picograms per year or 301,369,860 picograms per day. If the average person--young and old--weighs 50 kilograms, this emission rate translates to about 6 million picograms per kilogram per day. If the population of Alachua County were 250,000 persons, then the daily exposure, without regard to dispersion patterns, would be 24 picograms per day. For many reasons, 24 picograms of dioxins per kilogram per day of exposure represents only a starting point in the calculations necessary to grasp the limited extent of the dioxin exposure posed by the GREC boiler. An adjustment of one order of magnitude is suggested by the fact that Mr. Davis calculated the emissions rate of most toxic 2,3,7,8 TCDD at one- tenth the rate of the dioxins family. This means that the most toxic dioxin is produced at the rate of only 2.4 picograms per kilogram per day. A larger adjustment is required because the GREC biomass plant will displace substantial open burning that presently takes place in North Florida. The result will be a large net reduction in dioxin emissions. How much and over what area is hard to say, partly due to the replacement of dispersed burning with point-source combustion. The record supports an estimate that about half of the biomass to be combusted by GREC would have been open burned. Using this estimate, the open burning of this biomass would have produced dioxin emissions of 3-8 grams per year. GREC has effectively replaced these dioxin emissions with .11 gram per year. And, if the dispersed dioxin emissions displaced by the GREC facility were closer to agricultural areas, given the role of food consumption, not inhalation, as the primary means of consumption, another adjustment downward in effective dose would be necessary. Calculations by two witnesses support GREC's reasonable assurance of the insubstantiality of the impact posed by the GREC boiler in terms of dioxins. Mr. Davis calculated dioxin dispersal patterns for air and deposition and found that the average annual maximum concentration was .000000000149 micrograms per liter of air per and the average annual wet and dry deposition rate was .0000000000206 grams per square meter. These are reassuringly low numbers. Making more elaborate dioxin calculations, Dr. Christopher Teaf, an expert in environmental chemistry, toxicology, and human health risk assessment, performed a large number of calculations in the most conservative manner possible, such as by assuming that all dioxins were 2,3,7,8 TCDD and treating the emissions from the GREC boiler as new emissions (i.e., disregarding the fact that GREC's dioxin emissions displace far higher dioxin emissions from open burning). Dr. Teaf showed that air concentrations and wet and dry deposition rates were well below--usually, by one or more orders of magnitude--recently published EPA regional screening levels for air, water, and soil. Petitioners' contention for a limitation on dioxins emissions in the Air Construction Permit misses a couple of points. The GREC boiler will result in a net reduction in dioxin emissions, and, even without regard to the netting, GREC has provided reasonable assurance that the GREC facility's dioxin emissions are not, themselves, significant. GREC has provided reasonable assurance that the GREC facility adequately protects the public health and environment from emissions of dioxins, including furans and PCBs, and, based on the circumstances of this case, the Air Construction Permit is not required to contain a dioxins emissions limit. Mercury Petitioners claim that GREC has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed facility protects public health from emissions of mercury. Mercury is not among the pollutants covered under national AAQS. Although not a PSD pollutant, as noted above, NSR/PSD sets a significant emission rate for mercury, and the mercury emissions of the GREC facility will not exceed this rate. Although a HAP, mercury, like dioxins, is not emitted at rates anywhere near the 10 tpy threshold. Instead, as with dioxins, Petitioners claim that the projected emissions of mercury by the GREC facility, although indisputably well under 10 tpy, are nonetheless high enough to endanger public health and the environment. The biomass fuel contains trace amounts of mercury. Combustion at 1500 degrees vaporizes the mercury into gaseous elemental mercury. Subsequent cooling may produce elemental mercury, particle-bound mercury, and oxidized mercury compounds, which is also known as reactive gaseous divalent mercury (RGM). The baghouse filters might capture some of these mercury emissions, although GREC's analysis conservatively assumed that they would not. Of the 16.7 pounds per year of all forms of mercury projected to be emitted by the GREC biomass plant, about 70 percent of it, according to GREC's conservative assumptions, will be elemental mercury and 30 percent of it will be RGM. The former has long residence time in the atmosphere and travels long distances, and the latter deposits locally and regionally. By comparison, annual anthropogenic emissions of mercury in the United States were 145 tons in 2005, including 48 tons from power plant emissions. In 1999, mercury emissions from Florida coal-fired plants were 1923 pounds. Worldwide, anthropogenic emissions of mercury account for two-thirds of total mercury emissions, the remainder being from natural causes, such as volcanic eruptions and oceans. The Site Application considers wet and dry deposition rates of mercury in the Santa Fe River basin. After calculating an average areal wet deposition rate from the GREC facility, the Site Application concludes that it is 6000 times less than the average areal wet deposition at the nearest location for which such data are available. The Site Application also concludes that the wet plus dry deposition rate of mercury from the GREC facility will be 400 times less than the wet-only rate at the comparison location. Additionally, as noted above, the air pollution control system installed at Deerhaven will reduce mercury emissions by more than the increases caused by the GREC project. Because these decreases will not be subject to CEMS and will not be enforceable, DEP's NSR/PSD analysis could not net the GREC facility's mercury emissions against the corresponding decreases in mercury emissions at Deerhaven. However, the GREC facility will emit mercury at a rate over one order of magnitude less than the PSD significant emission rate for mercury. And, to the extent that Petitioners have questioned the safety of GREC's projected mercury emissions outside of NSR/PSD and NESHAP, then the limitations on netting do not preclude attaching significance to the fact that, when considered in conjunction with roughly contemporaneous pollution control improvements at Deerhaven, the GREC facility's mercury emissions are nonexistent. GREC has provided reasonable assurance that the GREC facility adequately protects the public health and environment from emissions of mercury. Netting of NOX and SO2 To Avoid BACT Petitioners claim that DEP improperly allowed GREC to net its NOX and SO2 emissions against enforceable reductions of NOX and SO2 by GRU at Deerhaven, so as to avoid BACT analysis. On July 12, 2010, DEP issued a permit to GRU imposing enforceable and permanent reductions on Deerhaven Unit 2's emissions of NOx and SO2--418 tpy of the former and 171 tpy of the latter. These reductions were achieved by GRU's installation of more effective pollution control technology. Under NSR/PSD, GREC may net out its emissions of NOx and SO2 by taking into account these offsetting GRU reductions because GREC and GRU constitute one major stationary source, under NSR/PSD permitting. Offsetting the increased emissions of GREC with the decreased emissions of GRU is authorized by the proximity of the two operations and their common operational control. Specifically, GRU controls GREC's operations through their power purchasing agreement, which gives GRU the authority to dispatch the power generated by the GREC facility, to determine when the biomass plant will start up and shut down, to control the amount of electricity that the GREC biomass plant will produce while operating, and to regulate the voltage of such electricity. GRU will supply the switchyard and transmission lines by which GREC-produced power will enter the power grid and will distribute GREC-produced power among GRU customers. GRU will also supply the natural gas that GREC requires for start-up and the electricity that GREC requires for start-up and stand-by operations. GRU even agreed to reduce its groundwater withdrawals by 1.4 million gallons per day, so GREC could withdraw an equal amount of groundwater for its operations. Contrary to Petitioners' contention, this aggregate treatment of GRU and GREC is not a legal fiction designed to circumvent BACT under the NSR/PSD program. On these facts, it would be much easier to prove that the independence of GREC is a legal fiction, or that GREC serves as GRU's contractor, ushering the biomass plant through certification, permitting, the acquisition of supplier contracts, and start-up, perhaps then to sell it to GRU at the same late stage that GREC's affiliate sold the Nacogdoches plant. But whatever the precise relationship between the two entities is, or proves to be, at this stage, without doubt, GRU controls GREC. Contrary to Petitioners' contention, the emissions reduction achieved by GRU at Deerhaven cannot somehow be disregarded in this case and "banked" as a gain in achieving cleaner air. From all appearances, GRU pursued this emissions reduction--and certainly the permit modification enforcing the emissions reduction against GRU permanently--for the same reason that it agreed to reduce its groundwater withdrawals. The reason is not an abundance of good will among corporate partners working shoulder to shoulder in providing America's power needs or a gestalt moment of environmental awareness. GRU effected this emissions reduction as a strategic decision to enable GREC to come online sooner and provide GRU with a reliable source of power from a plant much newer than any that it has in place at Deerhaven. This is the economic reality of the closer-than- armslength relationship that exists between GRU and GREC. The netting of NOx and SO2 emissions means that GREC effectively emits no such pollutants. But to put GREC's offset emissions into context, Deerhaven Unit 2 produces roughly 2.5 times the power that the GREC plant will produce. Even after the July 2010 emission reductions, Deerhaven Unit 2 is permitted to emit 3381 tpy of NOx emissions and 8005 tpy of SO2 emissions. If the GREC plant were scaled up to Deerhaven Unit 2's capacity and the NOX and SO2 emissions could be extrapolated linearly, the GREC biomass plant would produce about one-third as much NOx and one-twentieth as much SO2. Nothing in the record suggests that GREC's relatively low emissions of NOx and SO2--even without regarding to netting--presents a significant risk to human health or the environment. GREC has provided reasonable assurance that its NOx and SO2 emissions properly should be netted against offsetting reductions in these emissions at Deerhaven and that BACT analysis for these pollutants is thus unnecessary. Not Major Source of HAPs So No MACT Petitioners claim that DEP improperly determined that the GREC facility will not be a major source of HAPs, so DEP improperly relieved GREC of the burden of demonstrating case-by- case MACT. As noted above, originally, GREC stated that its emissions of HCl and HF, as well as total HAPs, were sufficiently high to trigger MACT case-by-case review. Originally, the HCl and HF emissions were projected to be 36 tpy and 71 tpy, respectively, and total HAPs were 114 tpy. However, after DEP representatives advised GREC representatives that their HCl and HF projections seemed very high, based on DEP's experience with comparable facilities, GREC representatives met with representatives of the boiler manufacturer, Metso, to determine if they could implement more stringent emission control technology. The purpose was to reduce HAPs emissions to levels more in line with DEP's experience, which would be sufficiently low to avoid triggering MACT case-by-case review. The means by which GREC and Metso achieved this reduction essentially constituted MACT. The difference was that, by following DEP's recommendations, GREC was able to avoid months of formal MACT analysis. On February 2010, GREC presented to DEP a revised set of projections of HAPs emissions that were just beneath the MACT thresholds of 10 tpy for any single HAP and 25 tpy of all HAPS. As noted above, the revised projections are for 9.72 tpy of HCl and HF, each, and 24.7 tpy of all HAPs. GREC justified these revised projections by several means. First, Metso reconsidered the chlorine and fluorine concentrations in the clean woody biomass to be received by the GREC facility, reevaluated the chemical reactions, and reduced its earlier assumptions. Second, Metso and GREC selected for the DSI a more effective sorbent, trona, which reduces the emissions of HF and HCl. Third, Metso and GREC increased the amount of sorbent to be injected into the flue gas system, which will further reduce emissions of HF, HCl, and SO2. Fourth, Metso and GREC changed the catalyst in the SCR, which will remove HAPs more effectively. Fifth, Metso and GREC increased the size and optimized the design of the fabric filter baghouse, which will further reduce stack emissions of PM, but also HAPs to a lesser degree. These are not paper adjustments, but are actual investments in technology that will cost GREC millions of dollars. Petitioners, though, remain skeptical, partly due to the proximity of the revised projections to the regulatory thresholds. For HF, at least, the skepticism is clearly misplaced. The actual projection for HF emissions is much less than 9.72 tpy. Metso and GREC selected 9.72 tpy for HF to allow for a margin of error in the projections. GREC's motivation was obviously to a avoid a sub-threshold breach of a projected emissions limit and the resulting regulatory intervention of DEP. Metso's motivation probably arises from the fact that, to induce GREC to purchase its boiler, Metso provided GREC a guarantee that, at least initially, the boiler will meet these revised HAPs emissions limitations. So, the proximity to regulatory thresholds, at least for HF, is not a ground for skepticism. As revised, the pollution control systems restrict HAPs, and other pollutants, as follows: 1) good combustion practices in the BFBB control PM, CO, VOCs, and HAPs generally; 2) the fabric filter baghouse controls emissions of PM10, PM2.5, and HAPs; 3) clean biomass fuel, reaction with alkaline fly ash, and DSI control SO2 and SAM; 4) ammonia-based SCR controls NOx, VOCs, and HAPs generally; and 5) high-efficiency drift eliminators in the cooling tower control PM. Assurances that these close margins for the HAPs thresholds, as well as the other pollutant limits, will not be breached is also supplied by the CEMS: for SO2 and NOx, 24-hour, 30-day, and 12-month CEMS; for SAM, an initial and annual stack test; for CO, a 30-day CEMS; for HCl and HF, an initial stack test and 12-month CEMS; for HAPs generally, an initial and annual stack test and 12-month CEMS; for PM/PM10, an initial and annual stack test; and for visible emissions and VOCs, an initial and annual stack test, as well as continuous opacity monitoring. Finally, the GREC facility's HAPs emissions are offset by decreases in emissions of HCl and HF, as well as SAM and mercury, as a result of the enhanced pollution control technology adopted by GRU at Deerhaven. Although these reductions, which are all greater than the emissions of these pollutants by the GREC facility, are not enforceable and netting is unavailable under NESHAP, these reductions are relevant in assessing Petitioners' broader claims concerning human health, again outside of the context of NESHAP. GREC has provided reasonable assurance that its facility will not emit more than 9.72 tpy annually of any individual HAP or 25 tpy of all HAPs. Thus, DEP properly determined that case-by-case MACT analysis was unnecessary. Stack and Diesel-Exhaust Emissions of PM/PM10 and Failure to Require BACT Petitioners claim that the draft Air Construction Permit inadequately accounts for stack and diesel-exhaust emissions of PM and PM10 and fails to require BACT for these pollutants. In one respect, Petitioners' claim is correct. The failure of the draft Air Construction Permit to incorporate the provision of the Technical Evaluation that DEP would require GREC to measure filterable and condensible PM with EPA Method 202, in conjunction with the apparent absence of any other test for filterable and condensible PM, is, literally, inadequate accounting for stack emissions of PM/PM10, at least where such a test is commonly enough available to be identified as an EPA Method. But DEP can easily repair this defect by adding this requirement to the Air Construction Permit. In all other respects, though, GREC has adequately accounted for stack emissions of PM/PM10 and provided BACT for these PSD pollutants. As noted in the Technical Evaluation, GREC has provided BACT through the superior combustion of a BFBB, baghouse, DSI, and SCR, as well through the control of SO2 and NOX and visible emissions. GREC's stack emissions of PM10 do not exceed the NSPS limit for this pollutant. Although GREC's stack emissions of PM10 require more elaborate PSD analysis due to their exceeding the PSD significant impact level for PM10, GREC's modeling supports a finding that the these impacts will be highly localized-- restricted to the GREC/GRU site, mostly along the south fenceline--and will require no ambient air quality sampling due to the sampling program already in existence in Alachua County. GREC's modeling also supports findings that the impacts of GREC's stack emissions of PM10, when combined with the air quality impacts from all sources, will be substantially below the 24-hour and annual PSD Class II increments and national AAQS, so the GREC facility will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the PM10 PSD increments or national AAQS. Fugitive Emissions of PM/PM10 Petitioners claim that the draft Air Construction Permit inadequately accounts for fugitive emissions from the wood piles and biomass handling of PM and PM10. The preceding analysis included all of GREC's PM10 emissions--stack and fugitive. The draft BMP plan and other design elements adequately account for fugitive emissions of PM/PM10, and the procedures described in the BMPs plan and other design elements constitute BACT. Spontaneous Combustion of Wood Piles and PM Emissions Petitioner claims that the draft Air Construction Permit fails to adequately protect against spontaneous combustion and the PM emissions that would result from a fire. The wood piles present a risk of fire from spontaneous combustion. Microbial metabolic action within the pile can generate sufficient heat to cause the wood pile to combust. The primary safeguard against this risk is proper fuel management to minimize the heat buildup within the pile. One way to manage the fuel for fire safety is to mix the wood piles to aerate the piles and prevent hot spots. Another way to manage the fuel is to ensure that the fuel is not allowed to remain in the pile too long. GREC's first-fuel-in, first-fuel-out policy limits the age of any part of the wood pile. The implementation of this policy is further assured by the fact that the fuel loses heat value over time, so GREC will gain more burn for the dollar by combusting the fuel sooner, rather than later. The ratio of stored fuel to combustion rates suggests that all fuel will be turned over within 20 days--probably sooner, after the late revision lowering the height of the automatic stacker/reclaimer pile by 25 feet. Anecdotal evidence suggests that 20 days' residence in the wood pile is well short of the age of fuel that has spontaneously combusted in piles in the past. The stormwater management system will also enhance fire safety by draining rainwater and runoff from the piles and discouraging the ongoing saturation of the fuel piles. Excessive, intermittent saturation of the pile may encourage the microbial activity that can lead to combustion. As part of the local review that took place for the GREC facility, Gainesville Fire Department representatives met three times with GREC representatives to address fire safety, as the Development Review Board of the City of Gainesville reviewed the GREC proposal. As a result of these meetings, GREC agreed to a number of changes to assure substantial compliance with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards for the management of wood storage areas. As noted above, one change after consultations with the fire department was to reduce the automatic stacker/reclaimer pile from 85 feet to 60 feet. This reduces the risk of fire by making it easier to mix the entire pile and reduces the volume of fuel stored onsite and, thus, the time that that the fuel may remain unused in the wood pile. Secondarily, this change also reduces the volume of fuel available to burn in an unintended fire. To conform to NFPA standards, GREC also agreed to place low barrier walls between the fuel piles; to drive stakes around the perimeter of the piles, so inspectors could more easily check that the piles are not migrating or expanding; and to insert temperature probes into the piles to allow timely detection and elimination of hot spots that might otherwise develop into fires. A revised site plan, as reflected in Exhibits 50A, 50B, and 50C, incorporates the barrier walls and perimeter stakes identified above, as well as the layout of the fire main and fire hydrants that loop the fuel storage area and some access issues for firefighting equipment, which may weigh as much as 30 tons. After DEP adds to the Air Construction Permit the changes to the above-described changes to the site plan, which do not relocate emissions units so as to require remodeling emissions, GREC has provided reasonable assurance that the draft Air Construction Permit adequately protects against spontaneous combustion and the PM emissions that would result from a fire. Failure To Assure Uncontaminated Supplies of Biomass Petitioner claims that the draft Air Construction Permit fails to adequately assure that the biomass fuel will be free from contaminants prior to its combustion in the BFBB. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.A.6 requires clean woody biomass, and the draft BMP plan addresses the means to ensure that only clean woody biomass is burned in the BFBB. Suppliers must perform most of the processing offsite; for each shipment, GREC must record the date, quantity, and description of the material received; GREC must inspect each shipment for nonconforming materials; GREC must reject or segregate nonconforming material, if it is discovered; and GREC must maintain records of rejected shipments and their disposition. At the hearing, GREC agreed to another prohibition--namely, that it may not burn construction and demolition debris. GREC has provided reasonable assurance that only clean woody biomass will be combusted at the GREC facility.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that, subject to the additional conditions set forth in the preceding paragraph, DEP enter a final order granting the Air Construction Permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings This 7th day of December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Beason, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Mimi Drew, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 David S. Dee, Esquire Young Van Assenderp, P.A. 225 South Adams Street Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1700 Mick G. Harrison, Esquire 205 North College Avenue, Suite 311 Bloomington, Indiana 47404 Jack Chisolm, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Raymond O. Manasco, Jr., Esquire Gainesville Regional Utilities 301 Southwest 4th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32614 Douglas S. Roberts, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams 119 South Monroe Street Suite 300 Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard E. Condit, Esquire 1612 K Street, Northwest, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006
The Issue The issues for determination in this case are 1) whether Respondent Department of Environmental Protection, Hillsborough County, as the permitting authority, should issue a final Title V Air Operation Permit to Respondent Southeast Oil Development Corporation, for its fiberglass lay-up and abrasive blasting facility in Thonotosassa, Florida; and 2) whether the conditions contained in the Draft Title V Air Operation Permit proposed for issuance to Southeast Oil are sufficient to ensure compliance with applicable provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 62, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners, JAMES REINA, ANGELO M. REINA, NANCY C. REINA, HELEN REINA, and STEVE QUICK, are residents of Thonotosassa, in Hillsborough County, Florida, and reside within one-third mile of a fiberglass lay-up and abrasive blasting facility owned and operated by Respondent SOUTHEAST OIL & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. Petitioners’ residences are located to the southwest of the fiberglass facility. Respondent, SOUTHEAST OIL & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (SOUTHEAST), owns and operates a fiberglass lay-up and abrasive basting facility located at 11801 Elyssa Road, Thonotosassa, in Hillsborough County, Florida. Respondent, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY (EPC), is the local regulatory agency authorized to act as the permitting authority for Title V Air Operations permits. EPC is processing and acting on the subject’s air permit on behalf of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, pursuant to operating agreements between the state and local agencies. The SOUTHEAST facility operation which is the subject of these proceedings consists of taking a steel tank shell and abrasive blasting around the filer ports openings. The tank is then covered with a layer of mesh, mylar, and styrene based fiberglass resin. The tank is rotated to aid in an even application. Prior to shipment, wood crates are cut to protect the tank in transit. The SOUTHEAST facility has been in continuous operation, manufacturing tanks at this location since 1985. During the manufacturing process, there is no open air venting while chemicals are mixed. Manufacturing is conducted in an enclosed and covered facility. Chemical containers are tightly capped when not in use. The SOUTHEAST facility currently manufactures approximately 150 tanks on an annual basis. The tanks are primarily used for gasoline storage. Styrene is the chemical that produces a fiberglass odor during the tank manufacturing process. Under the terms and conditions of its current and proposed permits, SOUTHEAST is limited in the amount of styrene allowed to be used in the manufacturing process. Approximately three years ago, SOUTHEAST changed its formula for the manufacturing process. The current formula includes a secret ingredient designated “Ingredient A” which contains significantly less styrene than SOUTHEAST’S prior formula. The use of “Ingredient A” has resulted in less styrene emission during the manufacturing process. The fiberglass odor emitted during the manufacturing process is sporadic and dependent on the wind and weather conditions. Petitioners do not detect the odor on a continual basis, and for several months at a time, there is no noticeable odor. The objectionable nature of the odor is dependent on the various sensitivities of the Petitioners. On at least two occasions within the last year, some of the Petitioners have complained to EPC of the odor; however, EPC’s investigators who responded to the complaints in a timely manner were unable to detect significant levels of fiberglass odor at Petitioners’ residences. The investigators did not consider the odors detected as objectionable. The fiberglass odor emitted during the manufacturing process is not offensive to all of the neighboring businesses and residences. The owner of the business closest in proximity to SOUTHEAST has not made a complaint regarding an objectionable odor emission and does not consider the odor objectionable. There is no evidence that the odor emitted during the manufacturing process presents a health problem to the residents of the area. The permit proposed by EPC contains conditions controlling the emission of objectionable odors and places limits on the amount of styrene which may be utilized by SOUTHEAST during the manufacturing process.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order granting Southeast Oil’s Application for Title V Air Operation Permit for the fiberglass lay-up and abrasive blasting facility, with the conditions included in the December 13, 1996, Draft Permit with conditions. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. RICHARD HIXSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: David M. Carr, Esquire 600 East Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Richard E. Fee, Esquire Ganther and Fee, P.A. 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Barnett Plaza, Suite 1030 Tampa, Florida 33602 Sara M. Fotopulos, Esquire Vernon R. Wagner, Esquire Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission 1900 9th Avenue Tampa, Florida 33605 Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 James Reina, pro se 9947 Fowler Avenue Thonotosassa, Florida 33592 Angelo M. Reina, pro se Nancy C. Reina, pro se 9949 Fowler Avenue Thonotosassa, Florida 33592 Helen Reina, pro se 9951 Fowler Avenue Thonotosassa, Florida 33592 Steve Quick, pro se Betty Quick, pro se 9953 Fowler Avenue Thonotosassa, Florida 33592
The Issue Whether Respondent Coastal Lumber Company (Coastal) has provided reasonable assurances to Respondent Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) that it can comply with applicable provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and related rules in the Florida Administrative Code regarding odor and visible emissions, and whether DEP should issue a Title V Air Operation Permit to Coastal Lumber.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioners live in Gadsden County, Florida. Their home is approximately a half a mile from Coastal's plywood plant in Havana, Florida. DEP is the agency that reviewed Coastal's application for a Title V Air Operation Permit and issued a draft permit and a notice of its intent to grant Coastal’s permit request. Coastal is the applicant for the proposed permit. Since 1971, Coastal has operated a wood products facility off of U.S. Highway 27 North in Havana, Florida. Coastal has operated various sawmill and hardwood operations during its existence. However, the sawmill and hardwood activities ceased operation in 1991 due to a shortage of logs in the area. Coastal began manufacturing plywood in 1980 and continues its plywood manufacturing activities today. Coastal employs approximately 250 people with shifts covering 24 hours a day, seven days a week, year round -- including most holidays. The shifts rotate, so the same employees cover both day shifts and night shifts. The operations of the plant, including compliance with environmental standards, are the same at night and on weekends as they are during the daytime shifts. Coastal has operated the plant at normal capacity up to and during this proceeding with the exception of its peeler operations, which ceased operating on February 8, 1998, because of a lack of logs. However, all the other equipment was operated at its normal rate throughout the hearing. Manufacturing Plywood Logs arrive at Coastal and are separated by size and stored in log yards along the southern and southeastern portions of the mill property which is bordered by 159-A and U.S. 27 North. Logs are later moved to a block conditioning area, stripped of their bark, and cut into eight-foot lengths. The eight-foot logs are then soaked in hot water for about eight hours to soften them. After that, the logs are placed in a lathe that spins the logs against a sharp knife and peels them into sheets of veneer. The sheets of veneer are placed on dryers for six to nine minutes to drive off moisture. Then, the dried sheets of veneer are layered with glue between layers of veneer and placed in a press for four to five minutes. The result is a sheet of plywood. The plywood is stacked according to its quality and some stacks are sealed by spraying the ends with canned spray paint. In a separate area, the cores of the logs are treated and shaped to be used as landscaping material. Air Pollution Sources at the Plant Coastal has been operating under seven separate DEP operating permits. The Title V permit, mandated by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the subject of this proceeding, will combine those seven operating permits into a single operating permit. The seven permits cover five boiler systems and seven dust control systems. Two boilers (numbers 1 and 2) have restrictions on particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and visible emissions. Boiler number 3, with a “wet scrubber,” also has restrictions on particular matter, on nitrogen oxides, and on visible emissions. Boilers numbered 4 and 5 have visible emission limits. Three veneer dryers and two plywood presses are not permitted, but are proposed to be permitted to Coastal under the permit which is the subject of this proceeding. Boilers 3, 4, and 5, are operating and are used to generate steam for the plant. The boilers are all fueled with wood waste such as bark chips and saw dust generated at the plant. The boilers are incapable of operating with a different type of fuel such as fuel oil. Also, it would be inefficient for Coastal to use any other type of fuel in the boilers because Coastal Lumber has an abundance of wood waste. The dust control systems include two filters for sander dust and four cyclones. A cyclone is a device which swirls dust and air together eventually releasing the air out of the top and letting the dust settle downward. The cyclones at the Coastal facility do not have filters inside. Three of the cyclones are not currently in use because they were used for the sawmill operations or to load rail cars and, at present, Coastal uses solely trucks. Coastal has included them in the application in the event that rail loading again becomes feasible. The fourth cyclone handles chips and sawdust collected throughout the plant. The veneer dryers and plywood presses emit steam mixed with small quantities of pine oil naturally present in the wood and are operating under a construction permit until covered under the Title V permit. Coastal's Title V permit application does not contemplate an increase in operations or capacity. Specifically, Coastal could not change its permitted capacity without adding new sources to its plant which would require additional permits. Coastal can operate its Havana plant in compliance with the conditions in its draft Title V Permit. Issues Raised by Petitioners Petitioners raised two issues in challenging the issuance of Coastal's Title V Air Operation Permit: sulfur or acid odors, and "smoke" or excess visible emissions that they attribute to the Coastal facility. According to Petitioners and some of their witnesses, the odors are worse when it is humid or following a rain, at night, and on weekends. Thick smoke experienced in the past by Petitioner Chester Nalls as a result of open burning at Coastal’s facility has ceased. Burning operations at present are only those instances of permitted burning for reforestation purposes. Two of Petitioners' witnesses, however, Cathy Moore and Sondra Rowan do not have any complaints about sulfur or acid odors from the Coastal facility. Moore testified that she occasionally smells a "treated wood smell" that she associates with Coastal Lumber. Rowan described what she perceived to be smoke from the facility, but has never had a problem with smoke or odor on her property. Donald Daniels, a neighbor of Petitioners, has experienced a burning wood smell and a smell that he describes as “chemical.” Sometimes, the smoke is like a fog and not distinguishable from condensed steam. Ash has been deposited on his truck. Nancy Lowe lives near the Coastal facility and claims that her car is often coated with ash. But she was unable at hearing to testify concerning the source of the ash. She has experienced a smell that she cannot identify, which she believes is created by Coastal since she associates that smell with smoke that settles like a fog on her neighborhood. Norma Page described what she believed to be smoke, but her testimony was unclear regarding where she observed the smoke. Additionally, she was not sure that she could distinguish between fog and smoke. Linda Pickles lives an equal distance from Coastal’s facility and the Peavy and Son asphalt plant in Havana. She has experienced “smokey” smells and sulfur smells, as well as the deposit of an ash-like substance at her home. She did not testify concerning the source of the substance. Although several types of odors --mainly wood odors-- are generated by Coastal's plywood manufacturing process, Coastal does not generate any odors that could be described as acid or sulfur odors. The log yard where Coastal stores harvested pine logs has odors of cut pine logs. The block conditioning area where logs are cut into eight-foot lengths and soaked in hot water has additional odors of cut wood and wet wood. A small amount of caustic or base is added to the water occasionally to keep the pH of the water neutral because wood is naturally acidic. Caustic generally tends to smell like soap or bleach; however, no such odors were associated with the caustic at Coastal Lumber. The area where the logs are peeled into thin veneer sheets generates pine odors. The dryers used on the sheets of veneer generate a smell described alternatively as a pine oil or a cookie-baking scent. Where the gluing occurs there is a faint odor similar to Elmer's glue. Additionally, an area near the boilers where sawdust and bark are stored for fuel generates smells, but none that would be objectionable. The area where the cores of the logs are treated and sliced into landscaping timbers has a slight, treated-wood odor. Also, where the plywood is color-coded by painting the edges, there is a localized paint smell. Neither the boilers nor a re-circulating pond at the Coastal facility are associated with any odors. From 1989 until the publication of the Notice of Intent to issue the Title V permit, Coastal did not receive any complaints about its Plywood Manufacturing facility in Havana, Florida. None of the processes at the Coastal facility generate sulfur or acid types of odors. Acid odors are usually associated with chemicals that contain sulfur. Wood fuel, as is used in the boilers, does not generally generate sulfur emissions. A facility such as the asphalt plant near Coastal’s location burns fuel oil and could generate sulfur odors. The asphalt plant is subject to the same emissions limitations as Coastal. Frequent open burning of trash, including tires, by other persons occurs near the Coastal facility and could produce sulfur smells. None of the odors at the Coastal facility are likely to mix with odors produced at other facilities in the area to create objectionable odors. Nor would any of the odors or processes within the plant combine to create chemical reactions leading to objectionable odors. Coastal employees who offered testimony regarding odors have a normal sense of smell. None of the Coastal employees who have responded to the Petitioners’ complaints have been able to detect the odor conditions described by Petitioners. No employees have complained of objectionable odors at the plant. No employees have been made sick by or quit because of odors at the plant within the last five years. Nor have any workers' compensation claims been filed because of odors generated by the plant. Contractors from Air Consulting and Engineering, Inc., hired by Coastal to conduct emissions testing at its facility, and a consultant from Environmental Resources Management Group, hired to study odors generated by the facility, have never noticed objectionable odors at the Coastal facility. DEP inspectors have visited Coastal on rainy, humid days when the odors would be expected to be at the worst and did not detect objectionable odors. Also, DEP inspectors who responded to Petitioners' complaints were unable to detect significant levels of odors at Petitioners' residence. Coastal's operations are not offensive to neighboring businesses and residences. A restaurant, located closer to Coastal Lumber than Petitioners' residence, has not made any complaints regarding odor. No credible evidence established that the odors complained of by the Petitioners were produced by Coastal Lumber. To the contrary, the evidence demonstrates that the odors may be caused by one or more other sources in the vicinity. No evidence was presented to indicate that odors emitted at the plant pose any danger to human health or welfare. Coastal Lumber's operations do not produce objectionable odor. The main sources of visible emissions which would be covered by the Title V permit are the three boilers used to generate steam for the plant. "Excess emissions" occur when a boiler becomes "upset" due to a malfunction of equipment or the startup or shutdown of equipment. Such conditions account for occasional dark puffs emitted by the boilers, but do not occur for long periods of time. Under DEP rules and the draft permit conditions, excess emissions may not exceed two hours in a twenty-four (24) hour period. Coastal has complied with excess emissions limits in the past and can comply with the draft permit conditions regarding excess emissions. The boilers at Coastal Lumber are equipped with oxygen sensors that regulate the rate of fuel coming into the boiler before an upset condition occurs, thus, minimizing excess emissions. Coastal Lumber has excess steam capacity so if a boiler is not operating properly it will be shut down. A computer also records the occurrence of upset conditions. Because the sensors are sent to an outside facility to be maintained and calibrated, Coastal employees can not change sensor settings or information recorded by the computers. Under its current operating permits, Coastal is required to conduct annual testing for visible emissions and has been found in compliance every year. During that testing, the plant operates under its normal procedures and at its normal capacity. Under its current operating permits, Coastal has been subject to inspections by DEP investigators, including weekend inspections. Some of the visits are scheduled so that Coastal knows the inspectors are coming, and others are not scheduled or announced in advance. Contractors from Air Consulting and Engineering, Inc., hired by Coastal to conduct visible emissions test have always found Coastal in compliance with visible emissions limits placed on it. Air Consulting and Engineering, Inc.'s reports and test results have always been accepted by DEP. DEP personnel have inspected the Coastal facility at least ten (10) times between December of 1996 and the hearing on February 9, 1998 -- eight of those inspections were made after January 24, 1998. Those inspections included an unannounced weekend inspection of the plant. Based on the Title V Application and Coastal Lumber's history of compliance with emissions limits, Coastal can comply with DEP emissions regulations. No employees have been made sick by or quit because of smoke at the plant. Nor have any workers' compensation claims been filed because of smoke generated by the plant. Petitioners also complained of black smoke from Coastal's log loaders. These diesel-fueled motor vehicles are not subject to the Title V air permit. Coastal has responded promptly to complaints of Petitioners and has made diligent efforts to locate excess emissions from its plant, but Petitioners' complaints can not be substantiated. In the absence of credible evidence that Coastal exceeds DEP emissions limits or that emissions from Coastal are harmful to human health or property, it is established that Coastal can operate in compliance with DEP standards for visible emissions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order GRANTING Coastal's Application for a Title V Air Operation Permit subject to the conditions set forth in the Draft Permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul H. Amundsen, Esquire Julia E. Smith, Esquire Amundsen and Moore Post Office Box 1759 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Brown, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Chester Nalls Thelma Nalls Post Office Box 396 Havana, Florida 32333 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
