Findings Of Fact In their Prehearing Stipulation, filed on August 14, 1990, the parties stipulate to the following: Container Corporation of America (CCA) owns and operates a pulp and paper mill in Fernandina Beach, Nassau County, Florida. The mill is authorized by various Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) permits to discharge industrial wastewater and emit air pollutants and is subject to DER's power to enforce such permits, as well as Chapter 403, F.S. and DER Rules. DER issued an Administrative Notice of Violation charging CCA with various wastewater violations, an filed a judicial action alleging violation of air pollution standards at the mill. The Notice of Violation was issued on April 24, 1990, OGC Case NO. 90-0346; and the judicial action was filed in the Circuit Court of Nassau County in June of 1989, Civ Case NO. 89- 562-CA. CCA has not yet requested a hearing on the merits of the Notice of Violation; it requested an informal conference on the charges, which tolls the time for requesting a hearing. A verbal settlement has been reached, but is not yet reduced to writing. Neither DER nor CCA has requested a hearing on the merits in the judicial action. The allegations in the complaint are, however, at issue and, absent settlement, will be tried by the court. On June 27, 1990, DER gave notice of its intent to deny an operating (renewal) permit for the No. 5 Recovery Boiler and Smelt Dissolving Tank because of the pending judicial action. Subsequent to the filing of this rule challenge petition, DER notified CCA that the Notice of Intent to Deny renewal of CCA's operating permits for the NO. 5 Recovery Boiler and the Smelt Dissolving Tank dated June 27, 1990 was issued erroneously and that the permits would be issued. [Issuance is based on expiration of the 90-day deadline for denial rather than the agency's interpretation of the rule under scrutiny.] On June 28, 1990, DER notified. CCA that it may not be able to issue.. the requested construction permits [for a new batch digester and brown stock washer] due to the pending Department enforcement action ... CCA was notified that its applications for construction of the proposed new batch digester and brown stock washer were incomplete. If the judicial action is not resolved at the time action must be taken on the application for construction permits for the new batch digester and brown stock washer, the permits will be denied in reliance on Rule 17-4.070(5)(first three sentences). By a separate letter on June 28 1990, DER also notified CCA that until the Notice of Violation was resolved the application for the construction permit for the new paper machine would be held in abeyance. CCA has been notified that its application for a construction permit for its new proposed paper machine is incomplete. Subsequent to the filing of this rule challenge petition, DER has notified CCA it will not hold CCA's application for a construction permit for its proposed new paper machine in abeyance upon the submission of the requested material, or its request to process the application without the material, but will process the permit at that time and issue either an intent to issue or deny. If, however, the Notice of Violation is not resolved by the time action must be taken on the application the permit will be denied in reliance on Rule 17-4.070(5). Until or unless the judicial action against CCA filed by DER in June 1989 is resolved, Rule 17-4.070(5)(first three sentences) requires DER to deny any permit applications filed by CCA relating to the Multiple Effect Evaporators (2), Nos. 5 and 7 Power Boilers, including electiostatic precipitators, Recovery Boilers (2) and Pulp Digester Systems (2) located at its Fernandina Beach mill. Each of the foregoing sources operate by virtue of permits issued by DER. The permits periodically expire and must be renewed. DER interprets the first sentence of Rule 17- 4.070(5) to mean that no permits for the sources listed in paragraph 10 above can be renewed unless and until the pending civil action against CCA is resolved, and the issue of reasonable assurance is not reached. [As to Intervenor Florida Pulp & Paper Association) The Florida Pulp & Paper Association is a trade association representing the vital interests of its members -- the pulp and paper companies operating mills in Florida or discharging to state waters. Rule 17-4.070(5), F.A.C., the rule which is the subject of this proceeding, regulates and affects the substantial interests of the members of the Association. Each of the mills operate [sic] under various environmental permits issued by DER. Permits must be obtained when existing permits expire or when sources are replaced or expanded. The rule at issue forbids the issuance of such permit to any source or for any activity against which the Department has filed a Notice of Violation or judicial enforcement action, which remain(s) pending. The Association's scope of interest and activity includes participating in the development of rules proposed by DER membership. Here, a senior DER official has indicated that the rule at issue will henceforth be uniformly and strictly applied, industry-wide. Accordingly, a determination of invalidity of this rule is an appropriate remedy for the Association to seek on behalf of its members
The Issue The issue is whether Respondents should have an administrative penalty imposed, take corrective action, and pay investigative costs for allegedly maintaining a solid waste management facility without a permit and disposing of solid waste in an area subject to periodic or frequent flooding.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background DDD is a corporation registered to do business in the State of Florida. Its president and sole director is William H. Stanton, Jr. The corporation is engaged in the business of "mobil recycling activities" (reduction recycling services for customers). Mr. Stanton owns a two-acre tract of property located in Section 26, Township 28S, Range 24B, on the northwest corner of Mustang Road and Longhorn Drive, Lakeland, Florida. The property is zoned for heavy industrial uses and was formerly used in some form of phosphate mining operations. The Department is the agency charged with the duty of administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder. Based upon a complaint made by a Polk County Health Department employee, on October 8, 2001, a Department enforcement coordinator, Steven G. Morgan, inspected Mr. Stanton's property and observed that Respondents had filled and compacted an approximate 150 foot by 300 foot area of the site with 3 to 5 feet of "wallboard type material," which consisted of "both ground up and large pieces of wallboard." In the middle of the filled area was an additional pile of the same material around 20 to 25 feet high. Petitioner's Exhibits A, D, and E are photographs which provide an accurate representation of the site on the date of the inspection. Based on a visual inspection, but without having the benefit of his own laboratory analysis,2 Mr. Morgan concluded that the material was a solid waste made up of discarded industrial products. Under Department rules, the deposit of solid waste on such a site requires a waste facility management permit from the Department. A check of Department records indicated that Respondents do not hold a permit to operate a solid waste management facility. (DDD does hold a valid air pollution permit for grinding concrete.) During his inspection, Mr. Morgan also observed that the land adjacent to the filled area was wet, had a lower elevation than the compacted area, and contained small pockets of standing water. This was confirmed by photographs received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibits D and E. A DDD employee who was present on the site during the inspection indicated that approximately 900 truck loads of the material had been transported to the site from Plant City after Mr. Stanton had "lost" a lease on the property on which the material had previously been placed. This was confirmed by Mr. Stanton who arrived at the site shortly after the inspection began, and who indicated that he intended to use the compacted wallboard as a sub-base (or foundation) for a wallboard recycling facility. A second site inspection by Mr. Morgan conducted on February 5, 2002, confirmed that the conditions (regarding the piles of fill material but not the standing water) at the site were unchanged from those found on October 8, 2001. On that visit, Mr. Morgan observed the site from his automobile but did not walk the property. Two other site visits were made, one on June 19, 2002, by other Department personnel. Except for a photograph (Petitioner's Exhibit C) dated June 19, 2002, which indicates the piles of material were still intact and had not been removed, the results of those inspections are not of record. Shortly after the initial inspection, the Department's Tampa District Office issued a warning letter to Mr. Stanton describing Mr. Morgan's observations and outlining the potential violations. The letter also invited Mr. Stanton to resolve the matter informally and to present a corrective action plan to mitigate the site. When the matter could not be resolved informally, the Department issued its Notice on October 10, 2002, alleging that Respondents had operated a solid waste facility without a permit and had deposited solid waste in an area prone to flooding. Even though the matter was not informally resolved, Mr. Stanton has cooperated with the Department in good faith throughout the regulatory process. The Material on the Site Invoices received in evidence reflect that the source of the deposited material was James Hardie Building Products in Plant City, Florida, and that the material was described on the invoices as "Dry Waste Material," Wet Waste Material," and "Foreign Material." James Hardie Building Products manufactures HardieBoard, which is a one-half to one-inch thick concrete formulated product used in the construction of homes and other buildings, and HardiePipe, which is used in road and bridge construction, culverts, storm sewers, and concrete pipes. The material being deposited was material used in the manufacture of HardieBoard. Mr. Stanton's long-range plans are to grind up, or recycle, the material (after all necessary permits, if any, are obtained) and then sell it to other persons, including cement manufacturing plants in the area, who will then use it for a variety of purposes, including subbase and base material, cement and concrete re-additive, and cement production. HardieBoard (as well as HardiePipe) is a variable mixture of Portland cement, water, fine silica sand, less than 10 percent cellulose (a non-toxic organic material commonly added to such products as ice cream, shampoo, baby diapers, and rayon clothing), and less than 10 percent of inert materials. The cellulose fibers are added to the concrete to avoid cracking and shrinkage and to reduce the weight of the product. Unlike concrete used for driveways and the like, HardiBoard does not have any large aggregate. Disposal of Solid Waste and Clean Debris Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.300(1)(a) prohibits the storing, processing, or disposing of solid waste except at a permitted solid waste management facility. In addition, no solid waste may be stored or disposed of "[i]n an area subject to frequent and periodic flooding unless flood protection measures are in place[,]" or "[i]n any natural or artificial body of water including ground water." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.300(2)(d) and (e). These requirements form the basis for the charges in the Notice. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(113) defines solid waste in relevant part as "discarded material, including solid, liquid, semi-solid, or contained gaseous material resulting from domestic, industrial, commercial, mining, agricultural, or governmental operations." Section 403.707(2)(f), Florida Statutes (2003), provides, however, that a permit is not required for "[t]he use of clean debris as fill material in any area." See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.220(2)(f). "Clean debris" is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(15) as: any solid waste which is virtually inert, which is not a pollution threat to ground water or surface waters, is not a fire hazard, and is likely to retain its physical and chemical structure under expected conditions of disposal or use. The term includes brick, glass, ceramics, and uncontaminated concrete including embedded pipe or steel. The term "virtually inert" is not defined by statute or rule. However, the parties agree that in order for a material to be "virtually inert," it must have no potential for leaking contaminants into the groundwater. In addition, if a deposited material releases contaminants into the groundwater thereby posing a threat to human health, it is considered a "threat to [groundwater]" within the meaning of the rule. The rule also provides that the material must not be a fire hazard. Finally, if a material decomposes over time after being used as fill, and releases contaminants into the groundwater, it is not "likely to retain its physical and chemical structure under expected conditions of disposal or use." Therefore, if a material has no potential for leaking contaminants into the groundwater, is not a threat to groundwater, is not a fire hazard, and is not likely to decompose over time, it constitutes clean debris and is exempt from the waste management facility permitting requirements. As noted above, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 701.200(15) identifies four materials that are considered to be clean debris: brick, glass, ceramics, and uncontaminated concrete. If a waste product is classified as uncontaminated concrete, it constitutes clean debris and may be used as fill without a permit from the Department. Further, clean debris may be deposited in an area subject to frequent or periodic flooding so long as flood protection measures are taken, or in a natural or artificial body of water so long as other appropriate permits (such as an Environmental Resource Permit) are obtained. Here, the central issue is whether the material deposited on Mr. Stanton's property is solid waste or clean debris. This issue turns on whether the material is virtually inert, is not a pollution threat to groundwater or surface waters, is not a fire hazard, and is likely to retain its physical and chemical structure under expected conditions of disposal or use. Assuming these criteria are satisfied, the material is exempt from Department permitting requirements for solid wastes. On this issue, the Department contends that the material is not virtually inert and is unlikely to retain its physical and chemical structure. Conversely, Respondents assert that the material is clean debris and falls within the category of uncontaminated concrete. Is the Deposited Material Clean Debris? In determining whether a material is virtually inert, or is a pollution threat to ground or surface waters, two extraction procedures have been sanctioned by the United States Environmental Protection Agency to assist in the measurement of the amount of contaminants that will leak from a material: the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP). Under both procedures, the material being tested is ground up into small sand-size particles, mixed with an extraction fluid, and tumbled for 18 hours in a rotary agitator while the liquid solution extracts various metals that are found in the solids. The extracted liquid solution is then filtered and analyzed to determine the concentration of metals actually leached from the solids. Under state water drinking standards found in Table 1 of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-550, the maximum contaminant levels for chromium and barium (stated in milligrams per liter (mg/L)) are 0.1 mg/L and 2 mg/L, respectively. In reaching its conclusion that the fill material is a solid waste, the Department relied principally on certain tests of the material run by various laboratories between 1998 and 2000, which showed that the amount of chromium and barium leaking out of the product exceeded the State drinking water standards. See Petitioner's Exhibits K, L, M, and O. However, in every one of those tests, the laboratories used the TCLP, rather than the SPLC, which produced a worst case scenario. For the reasons stated below, the TCLP is not the appropriate procedure to be used for this purpose. The TCLP is the more aggressive of the two procedures, uses a much harsher solution than the SPLC, and generally leaches higher concentrations of metals. However, its principal purpose is to determine whether a material should be classified as a hazardous waste based on its leaching properties or characteristics. Using it to predict whether a material will leach into ground water is inappropriate because it will "leach things out in the laboratory that will never leach in the field." This is because it does not mimic conditions in the field and is "just not supposed to be used for this purpose." Therefore, TCLP leachate values should not be applied to drinking water standards. Conversely, the SPLC uses a less harsh solution during the preparation process, evaluates the potential for leaching metals into ground and surface waters, and is designed to provide a more realistic assessment of metal mobility under actual field conditions. In other words, the SPLC simulates what would happen if the sample were exposed to groundwater and rain to determine if under those conditions metals might leach into the water system below. Therefore, the SPLC is the more appropriate procedure to use here to determine whether the HardieBoard material will leach certain metals into the groundwater at levels that exceed State drinking water standards. Even various Department guidance documents provide that the SPLC (rather than the TCLP) should be used to determine if a material will leach metals into the ground water. See Respondents' Exhibits M, N, and O. Respondents' witness Foster collected three samples of HardieBoard deposited by Respondents at another site and submitted them to PPB Environmental Laboratories, Inc., in Gainesville, Florida, for a clinical analysis using the SPLC test. Those results, which have been accepted as being reliable,3 indicate that none of the leachate concentrations for arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver exceed (or even approach) the drinking water standards. Therefore, the material is virtually inert, and the groundwater quality will not be adversely impacted by use of this material as fill. The parties agree that the material is not a fire hazard. Prior to depositing the material, Mr. Stanton used a commercial waste reduction machine (a Smorcazy Bandit Beast 3680 Horizontal Trough Grinder) to grind or pulverize some of the material into fine particles. As noted earlier, a small amount of cellulose fibers are added to the product during the manufacturing process. The Department contends that after the grinding process occurs, these fibers will separate from the remaining fine particles and dissolve into the ground water. Because of this separation, the Department asserts that the material does not retain its physical or chemical structure after being deposited onto the property. Although cellulose fibers are added to the product during its preparation to strengthen the material (and have been added by cement manufacturers since the 1920s), they are distributed throughout the matrix in the material. This means that the fibers become "part and parcel of the mixture" and will not deteriorate, fall out, or leach out of the material even after routine grinding processes, such as that done by Respondents. As such, the cellulose is not biodegradable, and there is no concern that the cellulose will dissolve into the groundwater. Indeed, HardiePipe, which is used in the construction of culverts, storm sewers, and drainage pipes and has essentially the same constituents as HardieBoard, was approved by the Florida Department of Transportation in 2001 for use on State road and bridge projects. Therefore, it is found that the fill material will retain its physical and chemical structure after being deposited onto the ground. Expert testimony by Dr. McClellan established that the material meets the general definition of concrete, and because it is uncontaminated, it should properly be classified as uncontaminated concrete. As such, the material is clean debris and is not subject to the Department's solid waste management permitting requirements. Finally, the Department points out that the compressive strength (measured in pounds per square inch (PSI)) is much greater for concrete used in driveways than for HardiBoard (2500 PSI versus 20 to 30 PSI), and therefore Hardiboard is not a true concrete product. While the PSI values are indeed substantially different, the load bearing ratio or compressive strength of the material does not determine whether a material falls within the generic category of concrete. Water Issues As noted above, if a material is classified as clean debris, it may be deposited into an area prone to flooding or in a natural or artificial body of water, including groundwater (subject, of course, to other unrelated requirements or safeguards). There is no evidence that the filling occurred in a "natural or artificial water body," or directly into the groundwater. In addition, the evidence demonstrates that in October 2001, the ground next to the filled area had small pockets of standing water measuring no more than a few inches deep. However, when the inspection was made, and the photographs taken, Polk County was experiencing rather heavy rainfall, presumably due to the El Nino phenomenon. Whether these conditions (pockets of standing water) exist on the property only during the rainy season is not of record. Further, prior to the filling, Mr. Stanton contacted both the Southwest Florida Water Management District and the United States Geodetic Survey and he asserted, without contradiction, that neither agency indicated that his property was prone to flooding. In any event, even assuming that the area is subject to "frequent and periodic flooding," the permit requirements or other necessary safeguards, if any, associated with filling clean debris in such an area are not the subject of this proceeding. Investigative Costs A Department representative spent 66 hours investigating this matter for the Department. At a then-hourly rate of $18.54, this totals $1,223.64 in investigative costs. The reasonableness of this amount was not disputed by Respondents.
The Issue The issue presented for determination in this proceeding is whether the wasteload allocations set forth in respondent's interoffice memorandum dated September 8, 1977, constitute a rule subject to the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: The petitioner, a municipal corporation, applied to the respondent for renewal of its permit to operate a sewage treatment plant. The respondent gave notice of its intent to deny said application on the ground that petitioner had not met the wasteload allocations established for the upper part of the Peace River Basin. A petition for a hearing on this denial was filed by petitioner pursuant to the provisions of Florida Statutes, 120.57(1), and a hearing was originally scheduled for May 11, 1978. At the commencement of this hearing, it became apparent that petitioner was also alleging that the wasteload allocations set forth in an interoffice memorandum dated September 8, 1977, constituted a rule within the meaning of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and therefore must be adopted pursuant to the provisions of said chapter. The respondent not being prepared to meet this allegation and the petitioner not having filed a petition pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.56, the scheduled hearing was continued and petitioner was granted leave to file a petition pursuant to Section 120.56 challenging the validity of the wasteload allocations as an invalid rule. Petitioner properly filed its petition for an administrative determination of the validity of a rule and the two petitions were consolidated for hearing purposes. The "rule" being challenged herein contains revised wasteload allocations for four municipalities in Polk and Hardee Counties. These four include Bartow, Ft. Meade, Bowling Green and Wauchula, each of which discharges effluent into the Upper Peace River Basin. As noted above, these allocations are set forth in an interoffice memorandum dated September 8, 1977, and were not adopted pursuant to the rulemaking provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Wasteload allocations are derived from mathematical calculations fed into a scientific model. They are based upon information pertaining to the treatment plant, the type of effluent, the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the receiving waters and the number and nature of other discharges to the receiving waters. In developing said allocations, the respondent relies upon information received from the applicant, as well as existing water quality data from the Environmental Protection Agency, United States Geological data, local programs and university studies. The purpose of developing wasteload allocations is to determine the chemical effect of the discharge upon the receiving body of water and to determine whether a certain volume of effluent treated to a specified degree will depress water quality below the standard established for a particular class of water. Wasteload allocations are calculated by the respondent for each individual discharger to determine whether a reduction in water quality will occur. When an application for a discharge permit is made to respondent, allocations for several dischargers in close proximity affecting the same portion of a body of water may be calculated at the same time, as was done in the September 8th memorandum. However, the other individual allocations become effective and applicable only when those dischargers seek a permit from the respondent. At that time, the allocation is revisited and recalculated based upon the most recent, available information and data. The wasteload allocations have applicability only when a facility seeks a permit to discharge effluents into surfaced waters. In the State of Florida, there are approximately 1,300 domestic and municipal sewage treatment plants and 230 industrial dischargers. A uniform wasteload allocation for 1,530 dischargers would be impossible and meaningless because each has its own unique characteristics based upon the type and method of discharge and the nature of the receiving body of water. Accordingly, the wasteload allocations are established by respondent on a case by case basis in the permitting process. Approximately 1.6 million dollars in capital expenditures will be necessitated in order for petitioner to comply with the wasteload allocations established by the respondent. There would also be increases in operating and management costs for new capital improvements. Alternative methods of sewage treatment may be undertaken by the petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Kyle Brothers Land Company, Inc. filed its application with the Department of Environmental Regulation to excavate four canals and to unplug two canals which they had already dug within its development in Port Pine Heights located on Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida. The application of Kyle Brothers Land Company, Inc. was introduced as Composite Exhibit No. 1 and a plat of the proposed development was introduced as Exhibit 9. The proposed activity would be constructed on Class 3 waters as defined in Chapter 17-3, F.A.C. Test data submitted shows that the water quality of the water in the existing canals meets or exceeds the standards established in Section 17-3.09, F.A.C. The proposed canals, as well as the existing canals, are being developed as residential home sites. Two potential threats exist to the maintenance of water quality standards within the canals. The first threat is the short-term effect of increased turbidity of the waters due to the construction of the proposed activity. The second threat is the long-term effect of the increased pollution of the waters resulting from waste disposal through proposed septic tank systems to be used in the residential home sites adjoining the proposed and existing canals. The permit application appraisal, Exhibit 2, indicates that the short- term effects of increased turbidity could be controlled by the use of plugs, screens, and daily testing for turbidity and dissolved oxygen. The evidence further shows a variance in the depth of the existing canals and the two plugged canals. The two plugged canals and several of the existing canals have a depth greater than the central canal. The variance in depth permits the accumulation of debris and silt in the finger canals which under certain conditions could be stirred up and become suspended in the waters of the canals increasing the turbidity of the canals and violating the water quality standards. To prevent this from occurring these canals would have to be filled to bring them to the depth of the central canal. The long-term threat to water quality in the canals is the introduction into the canals of nutrients and chemicals attributable to surface water runoff and the proposed septic tank systems to be utilized on the residential home sites. Control of surface water runoff can be obtained by backs loping the uplands away from the canals. The control of nutrient loading associated with the septic tank systems is more complex. The Declaration of Restrictions for Port Pine Heights, Exhibit 7, recites that sewage disposal shall be by septic tank or central disposal plant. However, the plans submitted by the Applicant do not indicate any provision for establishment of a central disposal plant. Further, under the provisions of the deed restrictions there is no requirement that a resident of Port Pine Heights use a central disposal plant even if such a system were available. The current residents of Port Pine Heights currently use septic tank waste disposal systems; however, the number of current residents is substantially less than the number of residents that Port Pine Heights is designed to accommodate. The disposal of sewage by septic tanks will result in the introduction in the canal waters of partially treated effluent through exchange with subsurface waters in the porous limestone substrata present in the area. To maintain the water quality at the required level, the waste effluent from the residential development must be prevented from entering into the canal. Because of the substantial difference in the level of development existing in Port Pine Heights currently and the potential level of development, the test data and the projections based upon that data do not give reasonable assurances that the increased pollutions attributable to the use of septic tanks would not violate water-quality standards.
Recommendation Until the Applicant makes a reasonable, affirmative showing that the long- term effect of the activity will not violate the water-quality standards, the application should be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of October, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION KYLE BROTHERS LAND COMPANY, INC. Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 76-607 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Respondent. /
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Department of Environmental Protection properly determined that Respondent City of Gulf Breeze was entitled to construct a concrete jetty at the mouth of Gilmore Bayou, to widen the mouth of the bayou an additional 35 feet, and to dredge sections of the bayou to a depth of minus eight feet.
Findings Of Fact On March 22, 1996, Gulf Breeze applied for a wetlands resource permit from DEP to allow the following: (a) dredging of the entrance channel to Gilmore Bayou in order to return the channel to its original width and depth; (b) construction of bulkheads on either side of the channel; and (c) construction of two jetties on the east side of the channel to slow the accretion of sediments in the channel. The proposed project is located in the waters of the state at the southwestern end of Gilmore Bayou where it opens into Pensacola Bay. The project is adjacent to and north of 406 Navy Cove Road, in the City of Gulf Breeze, Florida, Section 6, Township 35N, Range 29W. The Petitioner's home is located at 86 Highpoint Drive, Gulf Breeze, Florida. Her residence is downstream from the project at the northeastern end of Gilmore Bayou. The channel at the southwestern end of Gilmore Bayou was originally dredged in the mid-1950s. Since that time, the channel has provided a navigable outlet to Pensacola Bay for use by property and boat owners along Gilmore Bayou. The channel has also provided for water circulation and tidal flushing within the Bayou. Maintenance dredging has been performed almost annually to keep the Gilmore Bayou channel open. The purpose of the proposed project is to reduce the need for the frequent maintenance dredging and to provide for better water circulation in the bayou. A wetlands resource permit to perform maintenance dredging has not been required in the past because that activity was exempt from the permitting process. On July 28, 1997, the Department issued Gulf Breeze a Notice of Intent to Issue Draft Permit Number 572874961 to construct one seventy (70) foot long concrete jetty at the mouth of Gilmore Bayou, widen the mouth of Gilmore Bayou an additional thirty-five feet and dredge sections of the Bayou to a depth of minus eight feet. In issuing the Notice of Intent to Issue, the Department also considered Gulf Breeze's application for a five- year sovereign, submerged land easement for the location of the jetty. Gulf Breeze published the Notice of Intent to Issue in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with DEP requirements and Section 373.413(4), Florida Statutes, and Rule 62-343.090(2)(k), Florida Administrative Code. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a petition requesting that the permit be denied. Petitioner has a substantial interest in the permitted activity, as she owns property and resides on Gilmore Bayou. Petitioner's request that the permit be denied is primarily based on her opinion that water quality in Gilmore Bayou has deteriorated as a result of the original and continuous dredging of the channel at the southwestern end of Gilmore Bayou. She is concerned that the permitted activity will result in further water quality degradation and result in a further movement of the spit of land which extends in front of her home out to Deadman's Island on the northern side of the Bayou. The ecosystem in Gilmore Bayou today is a healthy system which supports various marshes and fish. The ecosystem thrives despite water quality degradation resulting from development and urbanization along its shores. More specifically, septic tanks, fertilizer runoff, and stormwater discharge have caused water quality to degrade in the Bayou. The most persuasive evidence indicates that the dredging of the channel over time has not caused the water quality to degrade. The permitted activity will have a positive effect on water quality in Gilmore Bayou, as it will enhance tidal flushing through the channel. The jetty, which is a part of the permitted activity, will slow the transport of sand into the channel, allowing for better flushing and reducing the need for maintenance dredging in the channel. Construction of the jetty is recommended and supported by the hyrdographic study of Kenneth L. Echternacht, Ph.D., P.E. Gulf Breeze obtained and submitted this study to DEP to assist in evaluating the project. The permitted activity will have no significant impact on the location of the spit of land extending from Petitioner's property to Deadman's Island. The shifting of the spit of land over the years has been caused by numerous factors which are identified in a 1993 study by Dr. James P. Morgan, Ph.D. These factors include development of the area, erosion of the surrounding bluffs, the location of the Pensacola Bay bridge, and storms and sand drift into channels to the east of the spit. Without this project or frequent maintenance dredging, the channel at the southwestern end of Gilmore Bayou would fill with silt. Eventually, the silt would inhibit water circulation and result in further water quality degradation in the bayou. The permitted activity is not contrary to the public interest. Instead, it will benefit the public interest. The project will make it possible to maintain the Gilmore Bayou channel more efficiently. The project will allow for increased flushing of the bayou. The increased flushing will improve water quality in the bayou. The permitted activity will not have any adverse effect on the conservation of fish or wildlife, or any endangered species or their habitats. The permitted activity will not adversely affect navigation or flow of water or cause any harmful erosion or shoaling. It will have a positive effect on navigation and water flow and act to prevent harmful erosion or shoaling. The permitted activity will have no adverse effect on fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project. The permitted activity will provide for permanent jetties and bulkheads at the entrance to Gilmore Bayou. The permitted activity will have no adverse effect on historical or archeological resources on Deadman's Island or in the vicinity of the project. The permitted activity will have a positive impact on the recreational functions and use of the channel and Deadman's Island.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Protection issue a Final Order determining that its Notice of Intent to Issue Permit, together with Permit No. 572874961, is final agency action. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 1998, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Jane Thies, Esquire Beggs and Lane Post Office Box 12950 Pensacola, Florida 32576-2950 Ricardo Muratti, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Patricia J. Moreland 86 Highpoint Drive Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561 Matt E. Dannheisser, Esquire 504 North Baylen Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The ultimate issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether the Department of Environmental Regulation should issue a permit to Broward County authorizing construction of the proposed Cell 14 extension of the Broward County landfill located in the Town of Davie, Florida. Broward County and the Department of Environmental Regulation contend that Broward County has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed facility will meet the requirements of the Department's rules and regulations and not cause pollution in contravention of the Department's standards. The Town of Davie contends that the proposed facility will not meet the Department's requirements and will result in pollution in contravention of the Department's standards.
Findings Of Fact Broward County presently operates a landfill known as the Davie Landfill on a tract of land comprising 200 acres within the Town of Davie, Broward County, Florida. The existing sanitary landfill includes 13 cells which cover approximately 20 acres on the northeastern portion of the site. The landfill had an original design elevation of50 feet. The Department of Environmental Regulation, in a separate permitting proceeding, has authorized an increase to the height of the existing landfill to 90 feet. The permit authorizing increasing the height of the existing landfill has been challenged by the Town of Davie and is the subject of a separate proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings. The site which includes the landfill also has a sludge lagoon and trash landfill located in close proximity to the sanitary landfill. The sludge lagoon was used until sometime in 1981 for disposal of septic tank clean-out, sludges, grease trap waste, and wastewater treatments. The trash landfill was designed primarily for disposal of yard trash. The existing landfill has vertical side slopes of 3.5 to l. In other words, the height of the landfill increases along sides by i foot for every 3.5 feet traveled horizontally. Through this application, Broward County is seeking approval to expand its sanitary landfill by adding a proposed Cell 14. Cell 14 would constitute a Class I landfill since it will receive in excess of 20 tons of solid waste per day. The proposed Cell 14 would be constructed along the existing western face of Cells 1 through 13. It would ultimately be constructed to a height of 90 feet and would be capped with an impervious substance. The western side slope of the proposed cell would also be 3.5 to 1. Cell 14 would cover approximately 11 acres, bringing the total size of the sanitary landfill to just over 30 acres. With Cell 14, the sanitary landfill would continue to operate until approximately 1986. Containing leachate and preventing it from entering surface or ground waters is a most important consideration in determining whether to permit sanitary landfills. Leachate is water that has passed through refuse and been contaminated by the refuse. If significant amounts of leachate from Cell 14 enters into surface and ground waters, violations of the Department's water quality standards would be likely. Several features have been designed into Cell 14 to prevent introduction of leachate into surface and ground waters. The base of the cell would have a high density polyethylene liner to prevent percolation of Leachate that collects at the bottom of the cell into groundwater. A leachate collection system consisting of pipes and manholes has been devised. As leachate collects at the base of the cell, it will be dumped into tank trucks and carried to nearby wastewater disposal plants where it will be treated. A stormwater collection system has been designed so that initial stormwater runoff will be pumped to the leachate collection system and tested. If significant pollutants are contained in the stormwater runoff, it can continue to be pumped into the leachate collection system and ultimately removed to off-site treatment plants. If there are not significant pollutants in the runoff, runoff will be collected in a swale system and ultimately percolate into groundwater. Water that leaves the site in this manner is not likely to cause violations of Department of Environmental Regulation standards either in surface or ground waters. Numerous technological advances have occurred since Cells 1 through 13 of the Davie Landfill were designed and constructed. These cells have a designed-in leachate collection system. The system presently functions adequately, except that the liners under the earlier cells appear to be breaking down. It is apparent that the liner under Cells 1 through 4 has deteriorated to the extent that all leachate from these cells is not collected in the leachate collection system, but enters the groundwater below the landfill. Leachate from a landfill of this sort and magnitude that enters groundwater is likely to cause pollution in violation of the Department's standards. Leachate is presently entering the groundwater from Cells 1 through 4. The nature of the liner under the remaining original cells is not known. It is thought to be made of asphalt. Many forms of asphalt, obviously including the kind that was used to line Cells 1 through 4, are not capable of containing Leachate for an extended period of time. If the liner breaks down, the leachate collection system under all of the original cells will no longer function, and leachate will enter the groundwater, causing violations of Department of Environmental Regulation standards. There will not be an impervious liner between the existing cells of the Davie Landfill and the proposed Cell 14. It has been estimated that the cost of such a liner would be prohibitive. There will be limerock placed between the existing cells and the proposed cell; however, limerock is permeable. Some Leachate from Cell 14 will seep into the existing cells. Some of the leachate from the proposed Cell 14 that enters the existing Cells 1 through 4 will find its way into groundwater under the landfill. Leachate that enters the remaining cells will also find its way into groundwater if the liner under these cells breaks down as the liner under Cells 1 through 4 has broken down. If Leachate from the proposed Cell 14 enters groundwater under the site of the landfill, it is likely to cause pollution in violation of Department of Environmental Regulation standards. Groundwater in the area of the Davie Landfill flows generally from the northwest to the southeast. Some of the groundwater from the site of the sanitary landfill is likely to find its way into a canal which is located just to the south of the site. this is the C-11 Canal. If leachate from the proposed Cell 14 enters groundwater under the site of the landfill, it is likely to ultimately cause violations of Department of Environmental Regulation standards in the C-11 Canal. Except for the fact that the liners under the existing cells of the sanitary landfill are subject to deterioration, the leachate collection system can function appropriately. The leachate collection system for the proposed Cell 14 can also function without allowing introduction of leachate into surface and ground waters. The leachate collection systems utilize pipes that are presently buried under the existing landfill and will be further buried by the construction of Cell 14. The pipes that are presently being used, and are proposed to be used, are designed to withstand pressure greater than would be imposed on them. Furthermore, they are being placed in such a manner (surrounded by rock and utilizing ball joints) as to reduce the pressure imposed upon them. It is possible that one of the pipes could break and that leachate could thus escape from the Leachate collection system. This possibility is not a likely one, however, given the design parameters of the pipes and the nature of their installation. The fact that the leachate collection system for existing cells of the Davie Landfill would be buried under the proposed Cell 14 does not raise a significant danger that the system will break down. Again, the design parameters of the pipes and the nature of their installation render breakage unlikely. The sludge pit that is located just to the southwest of the sanitary landfill and the trash landfill that is located just to the south of the sanitary landfill offer potentially severe threats to the integrity of ground and surface waters on and off of the site. The sludge pit is a hazardous waste site. The trash landfill is not designed to prevent substances placed on the landfill from percolating into groundwater. It does not appear that construction of the proposed Cell 14 addition to the sanitary landfill would increase the risk of pollution that the sludge pit and trash landfill present. It does not appear that construction of the proposed Cell 14 would cause significant additional surface or ground water flows that would increase the risk of material from the sludge pit or the trash landfill from entering surface or ground waters. The applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that its proposed addition to the Davie Landfill will not result in violations of Department of Environmental Regulation standards contained in Chapters 17-3, 17- 4, and 17-7, Florida Administrative Code. While the proposed cell has been designed with appropriate liners and with an appropriate leachate collection system, its location abutting an existing landfill which does not have an adequate liner preventing percolation of leachate into groundwater increases the risk of that occurring. It appears that the only means of preventing or reducing that risk is either to close off the existing cells, or to place a liner between the existing cells and any addition in order to prevent flows of Leachate from new landfill activities into the existing cells.
The Issue Whether Respondent is in violation of various provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action dated October 30, 1991.
Findings Of Fact BEI's composting facility is a potential source of water and air pollution and to operate the facility, BEI requires a permit issued by DER. The original permit issued to DER for this facility expired on June 1, 1991 and has not been renewed. Although its permit had expired, BEI was allowed to continue to operate while informal proceedings were ongoing between BEI and DER. When these informal proceedings were terminated by DER on May 20, 1992, further operation of this composting facility was in violation of Chapter 403.707(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-709.400(1), Florida Administrative Code. On at least two occasions while this composting facility was in operation, the air around the facility was polluted by foul odors. During the period following the expiration of BEI's license, BEI failed to submit monthly operating reports and did not conduct quarterly samplings and testing of the compost and submit the testing to DER as required.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Secretary of the DER enter a Final Order finding that BEI has violated Section 403.161(1)(b), Florida Statutes, on each of five counts; and that BEI should immediately cease operation of its solid waste facility, volume reduction plant, until and unless it obtains an appropriate and valid permit from DER and in that regard, BEI shall: Immediately cease acceptance of all materials on the property. In the event that Respondent does not receive a permit from the Department to resume operations at the facility, within 90 days of the effective date of the Final Order, Respondent shall remove all solid waste from the property to an approved solid waste management facility and provide the Department written documentation of its disposal within 30 days of removal. In the event that Respondent does receive a permit from the Department to resume operation at the facility, Respondent shall remain in strict compliance with all terms and conditions of such permit. Within 30 days of the effective date of the Final Order, Respondent shall, if it has not already done so, provide the following to the Department: All records of testing and monitoring conducted on the compost material since January 1, 1990, including daily reports on the temperature and moisture content of compost material, and any testing of compost material conducted prior to distribution. All records documenting application rates of stillage, manure, and leachate to the compost withdrows since January 1, 1990. All records, documenting distribution of composted or mulch material, including amount of compost or mulch material delivered, date of delivery, specific destination of compost or mulch, and intended use of compost or mulch material delivered, since January 1, 1990. All records documenting amount of yard trash received at the facility since January 1, 1990. Within 30 days of execution of the Final Order, Respondent shall make payment to the Department for costs and expenses in the amount of $500.00. Payment shall be made by, cashier's check or money order to the "State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation". Payment, specifying Office of General Counsel Case No. 91-2006, shall be sent by certified mail to Administrator, Division of Waste Management, Department of Environmental Regulation, 3804 Coconut Palm Drive, Tampa, Florida 33619. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Tracey S. Hartman, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Howard C. Batt, Esquire 611 Druid Road East Suite 712 Clearwater, Florida 34616 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Ken Plante, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that petitioner's application for a permit to enlarge and expand its sewage treatment plant be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 30th day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Harvey V. Delzer DELZER, EDWARDS, MARTIN, COULTER & PARKER P.O. Box 279 Port Richie, Florida 33568 Mr. Reynold L. Caleen, Jr. Acting General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2562 Executive Center Circle, E. Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the costs incurred by the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Emergency Response (Department) in connection with its response to Incident Number 95-SE-0371 may be recovered from Petitioner pursuant to Chapter 376, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is a state regulatory agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapters 376, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the instant case, Petitioner has been the owner of a fenced and gated parcel of land, approximately one acre in size, located at 960 Old South Dixie Highway in an industrial area of Jupiter, Florida (Petitioner's Property or Property). Before the incident which is the subject of the instant proceeding (Incident), Petitioner had used the Property to store equipment used in his asphalt paving business. Petitioner removed the equipment from the property in December of 1989, when he moved his business operations to a new location in west Jupiter. Underground tanks that Petitioner had installed on the Property to store diesel fuel used in his asphalt paving business were also removed when Petitioner's business relocated. Groundwater tests were conducted in May of 1990, after the tanks were removed. The results of these tests revealed the absence of any pollutants. Following the relocation of his business to west Jupiter, Petitioner began renting the Property to Schmidt's Auto Body (Schmidt's), an automobile repair business located next to the Property. The rental agreement (which was not in writing), at Petitioner's insistence, included the requirement that Schmidt's maintain the Property and keep it clean. Schmidt's used the Property to store vehicles that needed to be repaired or towed elsewhere. To allow it easier access to Petitioner's Property, Schmidt's built a gate in the fence separating its business from the Property. After Petitioner relinquished possession of the Property to Schmidt's, the Property was used by others, acting without Petitioner's approval or authorization, as a dumping ground for abandoned personal property. Petitioner is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, legally blind and in failing health. Due to his blindness and poor health, Petitioner had been, prior to the Incident (and he has remained), unable to personally inspect the Property to ascertain Schmidt's compliance with the rental agreement's requirement that it maintain the Property and keep it clean. Petitioner's wife passed by the Property each month when she visited Schmidt's to collect rent for Petitioner, but she did not closely inspect the Property on these visits. There is no evidence that Petitioner was made aware, by his wife or anyone else, that his Property (which was fenced) was being used as a dumping ground. On September 8, 1995, the day of the Incident, the Jupiter area experienced an unusually heavy rain event and resultant flooding and ponding of water in some spots, including locations on and around Petitioner's Property. Depressions in portions of Petitioner's Property contained standing water, although the entire property was not flooded. At approximately 10:30 a.m. on September 8, 1995, Ann Meador, an Emergency Response Coordinator with the Department, received a report (from Palm Beach County Risk Management) of two 55-gallon drums leaking asphalt sealant on Petitioner's Property. Meador was initially told that the "situation was being handled" by Palm Beach County Risk Management, but she was later advised otherwise. Meador arrived on the scene at approximately 3:00 p.m. that same day (September 8, 1995) and served as the Department's on-scene coordinator. Upon arriving on the scene, Meador observed two 55-gallon drums which had unsecured lids and were rusted and in otherwise poor condition. One of the drums was labelled "asphalt sealant.“ (Although Petitioner was in the asphalt paving business, he did not use asphalt sealant for any of the work he performed.) Petitioner was not in any way responsible for the drums being on the Property. In fact, at no time prior to the Incident, did he even know that the drums were there. The heavy rains had caused the contents of the drums (product) to overflow. Approximately 85 gallons of product, mixed with water, had spilled onto the ground. Stormwater runoff had carried some of the product to a depression in an unpaved road adjacent to the Property and near a storm drain. Meador reasonably believed that the drums and the spilled product should be removed immediately to avoid the possibility that, with additional rainfall, the product would spread to other areas. After having learned that Petitioner was the owner of the property on which the drums were located and having obtained his telephone number, Meador called the number to inform Petitioner of the leaking drums on his Property. The person to whom Meador spoke identified himself as Petitioner. He told Meador, upon being advised that the drums and product needed to be removed from the Property, that he was not "going to do anything." Following this telephone conversation, Meador hired OHM Remediation Services, Inc. (OHM), a qualified emergency response contractor with whom the Department had a contract, to remove the drums and product (as well as the water and soil the product had contaminated) from the Property and to properly dispose of these items. OHM, in turn, contracted with Magnum Environmental Services (Magnum) to perform these services (as a subcontractor). Magnum personnel responded to the scene and performed these removal and disposal services. To determine the most appropriate means of disposal, samples of the product were collected and analyzed. The analysis revealed that the product was a petroleum derivative. Magnum properly disposed of the drums based upon the results of its analysis. The Department paid OHM $12,033.03 from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund for the services Magnum performed (as OHM's subcontractor). In requesting that these services be performed and in paying $12,033.03 for the performance of these services, the Department acted reasonably and prudently. The Department reasonably incurred other expenses (also paid from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund) totaling $461.91 in connection with its response to the Incident. The total amount the Department paid from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund to have the leaking drums and product (as well as the water and soil the product had contaminated) properly removed from Petitioner's Property and disposed of was $12,497.94. 2/ The Department is requesting that Petitioner reimburse the Department for these costs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department finding that Petitioner is not liable for the costs the Department incurred in responding to Incident Number 95-SE-0371. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 28th day of August, 1998.
The Issue This proceeding was conducted pursuant to Section 120.57, F.S., to determine whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) should grant a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) air construction permit for Florida Power & Light Company's (FPL's) Manatee Orimulsion Conversion Project (Project), and if such a permit is granted, what conditions should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact General Project Description FPL proposes to convert its existing 1600 megawatt (MW) power plant in Manatee County, Florida (the Plant), to the use of Orimulsion. The existing Plant currently operates only on relatively expensive low-sulfur fuel oil. The conversion of the Plant to the use of Orimulsion will realize significant savings in fuel costs to FPL's customers because Orimulsion will be supplied at prices much lower than the current costs for the fuel oil burned at the Plant. As a result, the Project will allow FPL to increase the average annual capacity factor of the Plant from its historical level of 30 percent up to 87 percent. Orimulsion is a mixture of bitumen, a heavy hydrocarbon, and water. Orimulsion is produced in Venezuela and will be supplied to FPL under a 20-year contract with Bitor America Corporation (Bitor). The new fuel will be shipped by Bitor America to Tampa Bay, unloaded by FPL at an existing FPL fuel terminal at Port Manatee, and sent to the Plant via an existing pipeline. The Project will involve installation of new pollution control equipment, new combustion controls, and efficiency enhancements to the existing boilers. The air pollution control equipment will be designed and constructed by Pure Air, a partnership of Air Products and Chemicals Inc. and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America Inc. Pure Air of Manatee, a subsidiary of Air Products and Chemicals, will operate the pollution control equipment. Other than this equipment and ancillary facilities, few changes to the existing plant itself will be required. Project Site and Vicinity The site of the Project is within the existing 9,500-acre Plant site. This site is located in the unincorporated, north-central area of Manatee County, Florida. The site is approximately 15 miles northeast of Bradenton and 25 miles southeast of Tampa. The site is located north of State Road 62 and approximately 5 miles east of both the community of Parrish and U.S. 301. Saffold Road marks the eastern boundary of the 9,500-acre site while an FPL- owned railroad line is along the western boundary of the site. The Little Manatee River flows through the northern boundary of the Plant site. Existing Plant and Facilities The Plant currently consists of two oil-fired generating units of 800 MW each, for a total generating capacity of 1600 MW. The first unit went into service in October 1976, and the second unit in December, 1977. Electricity is generated in the existing units by combusting fuel in the boilers. The heat of combustion converts water in the boiler tubes to high pressure steam. This steam drives a large steam turbine which is connected to an electrical generator. Electricity then flows out to the existing switchyard and out of the site over the existing transmission lines. The Plant currently burns low-sulfur No. 6 fuel oil with a sulfur content no greater than 1 percent. No. 6 fuel oil is principally the residue of operations in which light and medium crude oils are fractionally distilled and processed to produce gasoline, diesel fuel, and other products. As the "bottom of the barrel," No. 6 fuel oil is a heavy viscous material from which higher value products can no longer be economically recovered. The Plant is also currently permitted to burn No. 2 fuel oil, natural gas, and on-specification used oil from FPL operations. Existing controls for air emissions include several combustion techniques within the boiler to minimize formation of nitrogen oxides (NOx). Particulate matter (PM) from fuel combustion is controlled using mechanical dust collectors that use centrifugal force to remove PM from the flue gas. Emissions of sulfur compounds, such as sulfur dioxide (SO2), are controlled only by limiting the sulfur content of the fuel oil. Orimulsion Conversion Project Modified and New Facilities Conversion to Orimulsion will involve changes to several of the existing facilities and the installation of new equipment, principally for the control of air emissions. Enhancements to heat transfer surfaces within the existing boilers will allow them to operate more effectively and efficiently with the firing of Orimulsion. Orimulsion is an emulsion composed of approximately 70 percent bitumen and 30 percent water, with less than 0.65 percent additives, including a nonylphenol polyethoxylate surfactant. The surfactant in Orimulsion comprises approximately .17 percent (+/- .02 percent) by weight of Orimulsion, and may be increased in the future to as much as .2 percent (+/- .02 percent), for a maximum of .22 percent. Orimulsion is currently used as a boiler fuel in 6 power plants in England, Denmark, Japan and Canada. After conversion, FPL may use high-sulfur fuel oil (HSFO) with maximum sulfur content of 3.0 percent, as an alternative fuel at the Plant if Orimulsion is not available. Low-sulfur fuel oil will also be an alternative fuel. No. 2 fuel oil, natural gas and/or propane may be fired during unit startup. On- specification used oil from FPL operations may also be fired. Within the boilers, the existing fuel burners will be replaced with new low-NOx burners that will control the formation of NOx during combustion. Reburn technology also will be installed in both boilers to stage the combustion process and further minimize the formation of NOx. The new low-NOx burners and reburn fuel injectors will replace the existing NOx controls for the Plant. Two electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) will be installed for each generating unit to control particulate matter (PM) resulting from fuel combustion. The ESPs remove PM by passing it through an electrical field. A negative charge is placed on the PM, causing it to migrate toward positively charged plates in the ESP. The PM collects on the surface of the plates and is periodically removed by rapping the plates, causing the layer of collected dust to shake loose and fall to compartments at the bottom of the ESP as flyash. Approximately 90 percent of the PM entering the ESP will be removed. The ESPs also will remove toxic substances from the flue gas. Following the ESPs, a flue gas desulfurization (FGD) unit, or scrubber, will remove SO2 and other sulfur compounds from the flue gas. Flue gas enters the scrubber where it meets a limestone/water slurry mixture and the limestone reacts with the SO2, forming calcium sulfate or gypsum. The water and gypsum fall into a tank at the bottom of the scrubber. The clean flue gas then passes through a mist eliminator, which recovers some of the water vapor in the flue gas. The clean flue gas then exits the Plant via the existing chimneys or stacks. The scrubber will remove 95 percent of the SO2 formed during combustion. ESPs and scrubbers are well-proven technologies that have been in use for more than 30 years. Limestone used in the scrubber will be delivered by truck to the site. It will be transferred to a receiving hopper and then into on-site limestone storage silos, which will provide three days of storage. A backup limestone storage pile, providing 30 days of supply, will also be established to insure limestone availability if deliveries are interrupted. The limestone will be processed in a ball mill, combining it with water and grinding it to a fine consistency to create the limestone slurry used in the scrubber system. Measures will be taken during delivery and transfer of limestone to control emissions of PM and fugitive dust that might be generated. These measures include covered trucks, paving of on-site roadways and use of covered transfer conveyors. The limestone will be moist when received and therefore will not be dusty. However, water sprays will be used on the open storage pile if it gets dusty from prolonged dry periods. Project Construction and Schedule Construction of the Project will require approximately two years. Following permit approval, construction would commence with the relocation of existing equipment and the installation of foundations for the new pollution control equipment. During initial construction, the Plant would still be operated. For the last 90 days of construction the Plant would cease operation and FPL would undertake the boiler enhancements. This would involve installation of the new low-NOx burners and tie-in of the pollution control equipment. Pure Air will design and install the new pollution control equipment while FPL will be responsible for construction of the boiler modifications and alterations to the fuel delivery system. Construction impacts to natural areas are expected to be minor since much of the construction will be undertaken within the existing developed area of the Plant and only localized excavation, grading and levelling will be necessary. Temporary dewatering of groundwater may be necessary during construction of foundations for the pollution control equipment. Fugitive dust generated from construction traffic and excavation will be minimized by water sprinkling. Other open areas will be either paved or vegetated to reduce fugitive dust and wind erosion. Under the arrangement between FPL and Pure Air, of the total capital cost of approximately $263.54 million, approximately $83.5 million will be paid for by FPL, and $180 million, including pollution control facilities, will be paid for by Pure Air. Air Emissions, Controls, and Impacts Existing and Proposed Emissions FPL received air construction permits for the Plant units from the Florida Department of Air and Water Pollution Control (DWPC) in 1972 and air operation permits from the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) in 1977 and 1978. FPL currently utilizes fuel quality and combustion controls to achieve existing permitted emission limits for SO2, NOx, PM, and visible emissions. The existing emission limits for SO2 and NOx are more stringent than emission limits for most power plants in Florida. Although the Plant units currently are permitted to operate at a 100 percent capacity factor (i.e., utilization rate), the units historically have operated at an average annual capacity factor of approximately 30 percent, due in large part to fuel oil costs. As a result of the conversion to Orimulsion, the Plant units are expected to operate at an annual average capacity factor of 87 percent. Despite the increase in Plant utilization, total short-term (hourly) and total annual (tons per year or "tpy") air emissions are expected to decrease in comparison to both permitted and historical levels. With installation of FGD, actual emissions of SO2 will decrease by approximately 13,000 tpy or 45 percent from historical levels. Similarly, with installation of ESPs, annual emissions of PM and toxic substances also will decrease, and visible emissions will be limited to 20 percent opacity instead of the 40 percent level authorized under existing permits. Although low-NOx burners and reburn technology will be installed on both units to achieve a reduction from the existing short-term NOx emission rate, annual emissions will increase by approximately 6,000 tpy due to increased Plant operation. Likewise, short-term emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) will decrease; but annual emissions will increase by approximately 3,500 tpy. Because the converted Plant is expected to displace other plants in FPL's generating system, it is expected that the Project also will affect air emissions on a system-wide basis. Based on an analysis of projected fuel usage and emission rates for the various units in FPL's system through the year 1999, the Project will result in system-wide reductions in air emissions of all pollutants except CO. In the first year of Project operation, for example, system-wide emissions of CO are predicted to increase by 2,607 tons; but there will be significant reductions in all other pollutants, including PM (-2,252 tons), SO2 (-48,626 tons), NOx (-10,425 tons), volatile organic compounds or "VOCs" (-109 tons), and toxics (-181 tons). The analysis made appropriate assumptions concerning other FPL permits, power purchase contracts and changes in power demand from population growth and other factors. Best Available Control Technology for NOx DEP has determined that conversion of the Plant units to fire Orimulsion constitutes a "modification" subject to review under DEP's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations in Chapter 62-212, F.A.C. For modifications of existing sources, these regulations require a determination of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for all air pollutants which will experience emission increases in excess of applicable significant emission rates. Rule 62-212.400(1)(f), F.A.C. Because NOx and CO emission increases exceed applicable significant emission rates as a result of the conversion to Orimulsion, BACT is required for those pollutants. DEP rules define "Best Available Control Technology" or "BACT" as: An emissions limitation, including a visible emission standard, based on the maximum degree of reduction of each pollutant emitted which the Department, on a case by case basis, taking into account energy, environmental, and economic impacts, and other costs, determines is achievable through application of production processes and available methods, systems and techniques (including fuel cleaning or treatment or innovative fuel combustion techniques) for control of each such pollutant. Rule 62-212.200(16), F.A.C. In determining BACT, DEP must give consideration to prior BACT determinations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and any other state, all available scientific and technical material and information, and the social and economic impacts of application of such technology. Rule 62-212.410(1), F.A.C. DEP has no rule on making BACT determinations. In making BACT determinations, DEP attempts to follow EPA guidelines. Unfortunately, EPA also has not promulgated the guidelines as rules; they consist of a 1990 draft entitled EPA New Source Review Manual. To make matters worse, one reason why the EPA draft guidelines have not been adopted as rules may be that they are so complicated and confusing. It was noted by one expert practitioner in the field that it is with good reason that the design of the cover of the EPA draft guidelines is a jigsaw puzzle and, notwithstanding their official title, practitioners commonly refer to the guidelines as "the puzzle book." In accordance with EPA requirements, DEP currently uses a "top down" approach in determining BACT. Under the "top down" approach, alternative control technologies are ranked in terms of stringency. An emission limit reflecting the most stringent control alternative generally is selected as BACT unless rejected as technically or economically infeasible. Under the "top down" BACT approach, the most stringent NOx emission limit for sources similar to the Plant units is 0.17 lbs/mmBtu (pounds per million British thermal units) of heat input, using selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and combustion controls. SCR involves the injection of ammonia into the flue gas in the presence of a catalyst. The ammonia reacts with NOx on the surface of the catalyst, thereby transforming NOx into nitrogen and water. The SCR is not entirely selective; it also results in undesired reactions, including the conversion of SO2 to SO3 and the creation of ammonium sulfate and bisulfate. SCR systems require a flue gas temperature in the range of 600 to 750 degrees (F) which for some applications can be achieved between the boiler and the air preheater upstream of the ESP and FGD system. This configuration is referred to as a "front-end" SCR system. With fuels such as Orimulsion and high sulfur fuel oil which contain relatively high amounts of sulfur and vanadium, however, a front-end SCR can lead to significant problems because the vanadium in the fuel deposits on the SCR catalyst and results in an ever-increasing SO2 to SO3 conversion rate. Despite an extensive research program conducted jointly by European and American corporations involved in SCR manufacture, design, and operation, there are no available means of avoiding the ever-increasing SO2 to SO3 conversion rate when a front-end SCR is used with high-sulfur and high- vanadium fuels on utility units operated at base-load (i.e., operated continuously). Excessive SO3 created by a front-end SCR can plug the air preheater, which is a large piece of equipment approximately 45 feet in diameter. In addition, the SO3 condenses into sulfuric acid which corrodes the air preheater and ESP. There are no available means of protecting the air preheater from the excessive SO3 created by a front-end SCR system. Additional ammonia can be injected after the air preheater to neutralize the increased SO3 and thereby protect the ESP. However, additional ammonia injection causes more operational problems including ammonia slip, which can contaminate the water in the FGD and partially leave the stack as an emission, as well as an additional ash stream which would result in either higher particulate emissions or the need for a larger ESP. For these reasons, a front-end SCR system is technically infeasible for the converted Plant units, which are expected to operate base-loaded while firing Orimulsion. There was some testimony that a front-end SCR has been used on a unit which apparently has fired Orimulsion in Japan for approximately one year. However, that was a small peaking unit that could be shut down for maintenance when needed. In contrast, FPL's plans for the converted Manatee Plant units is to operate them as base-loaded units. Unlike peaking units which operate sporadically, base-loaded units operate continuously and are not out of service enough to allow for the performance of the additional maintenance required for a front-end SCR system. For that reason, a front-end SCR is not technically feasible for base-loaded units firing Orimulsion. Under a "back-end" design in which the SCR system is located downstream of the air preheater, ESP and FGD, the operational problems associated with the front-end system are avoided because the ESP removes vanadium, and the FGD removes sulfur from the flue gas. However, there are significant energy, environmental, and economic disadvantages to a back-end system. A back-end system would require installation of additional fans to overcome significant pressure loss and either duct burners or steam heat exchangers to reheat the flue gas to achieve the temperature necessary for the catalytic reaction. Approximately 6.72 percent of the energy generated by the boilers would have to be used to power this additional equipment--the approximate equivalent of the electrical use of 30,000 homes. In addition to higher energy consumption, a back-end system would result in secondary emissions from the burning of additional fuel and increased capital and operating costs. The EPA guidelines seem to say that both average and incremental cost effectiveness should be used to evaluate particular control options. Average cost compares the total amount of pollutant reduction from a combination of technologies to the cost of those technologies. Incremental cost effectiveness assesses the cost of adding a technology to emissions already controlled to some extent by other technologies. Of the two analyses, DEP believes that incremental cost effectiveness is the better accepted engineering practice, and there is a larger incremental cost database that can be used for making project- to-project comparisons. For these reasons, DEP relies more on the incremental cost effectiveness analysis. In prior BACT determinations for NOx emissions, DEP has viewed incremental costs in the range of $4,000 per ton of NOx removed as economically viable. By comparison, DEP has considered incremental costs in the range of $5,000 per ton of NOx removed to be unacceptable in determining BACT for NOx. The total capital costs of a back-end SCR system are on the order of $80 million to $100 million per unit. When capital costs are considered with operational costs and annualized over time, the total per-unit cost of a back- end SCR system ranges from $27 to 29 million per year. Unlike SCR, which reduces NOx that has already formed in the boiler, low-NOx burners minimize the formation of NOx by reducing the temperature and amount of time that nitrogen and oxygen have to react in the boiler. For the converted Plant units, low-NOx burners are capable of achieving a NOx emission rate of 0.27 lbs/mmBtu or lower at a total capital cost of approximately $5 million per unit. Operating costs are low, and the incremental cost effectiveness of low NOx burners used to achieve a .27 lbs/mmBtu emissions rate is only about $670 per ton removed. When compared to use of low-NOx burners at a 0.27 lbs/mmBtu NOx emissions rate, the incremental cost of adding a back-end SCR to achieve a 0.17 lbs/mmBtu rate is in the range of $8,000 to $9,000 per ton of NOx removed, which is well in excess of costs previously found to be too high in prior BACT determinations. Shortly before the start of the final hearing, FPL agreed to add reburn, another combustion control technology, on one unit as a test to ascertain if it could further reduce NOx emissions during the generating process; if so, FPL agreed to add the technology to the other unit as well. However, FPL still maintained that the BACT emissions limit should be set at .27 lbs/mmBtu. By the end of the hearing, a stipulation was entered into among FPL, DEP, EPC and Pinellas County that reburn technology also will be installed on both units to achieve a NOx emissions limit of no greater than 0.23 lbs/mmBtu (30-day rolling average) while firing Orimulsion. In addition, it was stipulated by those parties that DEP may modify the NOx emissions limit if it is determined that a rate lower than 0.23 lbs/mmBtu can be practicably and consistently achieved based upon the results of a six-month test program to be developed by a NOx Emissions Reduction Team consisting of representatives from FPL, the low-NOx burner supplier, FPL's reburn technology consultant, DEP, Pinellas County, Manatee County and EPC. The evidence was somewhat confusing as to the capital and operating costs of the reburn technology. It appears that the capital cost would be approximately an additional $8 million per unit, making the total capital cost of the combination of low NOx burners and the reburn technology approximately $13 million per unit. The evidence did not specify the operating costs. However, the evidence was that incremental evaluation of the addition of back- end SCR using the lower .23 lbs/mmBtu emissions limit would result in SCR being even less cost-effective--more on the order of $15,000 per ton of NOx removed. There is some indication that, while BACT emission limits for SCR systems have been set at .17 lbs/mmBtu, the technology actually might be capable of achieving emission reductions on the order of .10 lbs/mmBtu. If the lower emissions rate is assumed, SCR would look more cost effective. However, no calculations were made based on the lower emissions rate, and there was no competent evidence on which a finding could be made that, for purposes of determining BACT, the cost-effectiveness of back-end SCR should be assessed based on the lower emissions limit. The evidence was that the .10 lbs/mmBtu was a design emissions rate for certain SCR equipment; the evidence called into question the ability of SCR to achieve a continuous emission rate of .10 lbs/mmBtu. Although DEP has declined to give much weight to consideration of the average cost of NOx removal, some evidence was introduced at hearing on the average cost of reducing NOx emissions at the converted Manatee Plant using a combination of low NOx burners and back-end SCR. Under an average cost effectiveness analysis, the emissions limit determined to be achievable by a combination of control technologies is compared to what EPA calls the "realistic upper bound" uncontrolled emissions rate. Using an "upper bound" emissions rate of .58 lbs/mmBtu, and an emissions limit of .17 lbs/mmBtu, one witness found the average cost of reducing NOx emissions at the converted Manatee Plant using a combination of low NOx burners and back-end SCR to be on the order of just $2,000 per ton removed. But the use of .58 lbs/mmBtu as the "upper bound" number was based on incomplete and to some extent inaccurate information. FPL and DEP presented evidence that the actual average cost per ton of NOx removed is more on the order of $4,300. These analyses used .395 (or .4) lbs/mmBtu as the "upper bound" starting point. This starting point was based on more complete and more accurate information, but there seems to be room for argument as to the most suitable starting point. There also was evidence of an earlier FPL calculation that average cost per ton of NOx removed is approximately $2,900. However, the evidence was not clear as to the assumptions used in this calculation. Although DEP has declined to give much weight to consideration of the average cost of NOx removal, there was some indication that other states do. Pennsylvania was said to use average cost of $4,000 per ton of NOx removed as a benchmark for determining the economic feasibility of BACT emissions limits, and Wisconsin was said to use $6,000. However, the evidence was not clear as to how those states make BACT determinations for NOx emissions. In light of the excessive incremental costs of SCR for the converted Plant units, imposition of SCR is not warranted. Although concerns have been raised about the potential effect of NOx emissions on ozone levels and nitrogen deposition in the Tampa Bay area, as discussed infra, NOx emissions from the converted Plant units are not expected to have a significant impact on either ozone levels or water quality. Moreover, the evidence was not clear that such environmental impacts would be significantly different whether or not SCR is installed on the converted Plant units. Based upon a case-by-case consideration of the energy, environmental, economic, and other factors discussed above, a NOx emission rate of 0.23 lbs/mmBtu based upon use of low-NOx burners and reburn technology constitutes BACT for the converted Plant units when firing Orimulsion. For CO emissions from the converted Plant units, BACT is an emissions limit of 0.325 lbs/mmBtu based upon use of combustion controls. Other than combustion controls, there are no feasible means of controlling CO emissions from fossil fuel- fired steam electric generating units. Air Quality Impact Analysis Ambient air quality impact analyses demonstrate that emissions resulting from maximum operation of the converted Plant will comply with applicable ambient air quality standards and PSD increments for CO and NO2. Because the NO2 analyses were based upon a NOx emissions rate of 0.3 lbs/mmBtu, actual impacts on ambient NO2 concentrations are expected to be lower in light of the subsequently agreed-upon NOx emissions rate of 0.23 lbs/mmBtu. Although ambient impact analyses are not required for SO2 and PM because emissions will be below significant emission rates, FPL also performed air dispersion modeling demonstrating compliance with ambient air quality standards for those pollutants. Additional impact analyses demonstrate that projected emissions of SO2, NOx, and CO will have no adverse impact on soils, vegetation, wildlife, or visibility in the vicinity of the Plant. Likewise, the results of air dispersion modeling demonstrate that projected emissions will not adversely impact air quality related values (AQRVs), such as vegetation, soils, wildlife, and visibility, in the Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area which is the PSD Class I area closest to the Plant. Effect of Proposed NOx Emissions on Ozone Levels Ambient air quality analyses for ozone typically are not required for sources, such as the Plant, which are located in areas that are in attainment of the ozone standard. However, because the Plant is located within a mile of the Hillsborough County/Manatee County line, and not far from Pinellas County, and because Hillsborough County and Pinellas County are in the process of being redesignated from nonattainment to attainment for ozone, concerns have been raised regarding the potential effect of proposed NOx emissions on ozone levels. Ozone formation is a complex process involving precursor pollutants such as NOx and VOCs (volatile organic compounds). There is no direct relationship between increased NOx or VOC emissions and increased ozone levels. Depending upon conditions in the particular area in question, NOx reductions may or may not benefit ambient ozone levels. The impact of a NOx emissions point source, such as the Manatee Plant, on ozone levels is difficult to predict. There are no EPA-recommended models to analyze the effect of NOx emissions from a particular source on ozone concentrations, but other models and tools that are available can be used to try to assess whether a particular source may have a significant impact on ozone formation in a particular urban area. FPL used the models suggested by DEP. To assess the impact of projected NOx emissions on ozone formation, FPL first utilized the Empirical Kinetics Modeling Approach (EKMA), which DEP used in support of the ozone redesignation request submitted to EPA for the Tampa Bay area. The EKMA model is not a dispersion model designed for use in predicting ozone impact of a NOx emissions point source, such as the Manatee Plant. It essentially evenly distributes NOx and VOC's within a certain volume of air, such as the air over the Hillsborough/Pinellas nonattainment zone, and models the totality of what occurs within the airshed. It also does not account for either other additions from outside the zone being modeled or components of the air mass leaving the zone being modeled. FPL essentially adjusted the model by adding the NOx emissions from the converted Manatee Plant. It is a relatively crude model used primarily for screening purposes. Because of the difficulty in predicting the impact of the converted Manatee Plant, and the limitations of the EKMA model, DEP requested that FPL also use the Reactive Plume Model (RPM) to further assess the effect of the projected emissions on ozone concentrations in Hillsborough and Pinellas counties. The RPM model also has its limitations and is not approved by the EPA for predicting ozone concentrations resulting from a point source. The RPM models ozone precursor reactions resulting from the point source being studied that occur within the plume. It is clear that, as a result of the complex nature of the ozone precursor reactions, significant ozone formation also will occur "off-plume." RPM attempts to account for this ozone formation as well. In any event, it is not clear how "off-plume" reactions would be affected by the point source being evaluated. Like the EKMA model, the RPM model used by FPL also did not account for either additions from outside the zone being modeled or components of the air mass leaving the zone being modeled. FPL did not attempt to predict future additional sources of ozone precursors and run either the EKMA model or the RPM model assuming impacts from those additional sources. The evidence was that this exercise would have been difficult if not impossible to undertake. It is not clear whether, with new air pollution regulations, NOx levels will increase or decrease, and it is difficult to predict where new source will originate. (The same probably could be said for VOC's.) For these reasons, such an exercise, if undertaken, would have been of questionable predictive value. Despite its limitations, the RPM model does provide additional useful information in attempting to assess the impact of the converted Manatee Plant on ozone formation, and it is the only other reasonably available tool. Better models or "observation-based approaches" that might be effective for purposes of point source permitting have not been developed yet. An Urban Air Shed Model (UASM) would provide useful additional information, but UASM's are extremely complex and typically are conducted by a consortium of governments and universities for entire metropolitan areas. UASM's take years to complete and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is not reasonable to require FPL to finance and conduct such a study in this case. Although there are limitations to the EKMA and RPM models, FPL has done more to analyze potential impacts of NOx emissions, using the reasonably available tools, than any other applicant in the history of Florida's air permitting program. The EKMA and RPM modeling indicate that NOx emissions from the converted Plant will not have a significant impact on ozone levels in the Tampa Bay area. Based on these modeling analyses, FPL has provided reasonable assurances that the Project will not cause or contribute to a violation of the ozone standard. By notice published in the Federal Register on December 7, 1995, EPA proposed to redesignate the Hillsborough/Pinellas county area as attainment for ozone. Under the proposal, EPA would approve the redesignation request and maintenance plan jointly submitted by DEP, Pinellas County, and Hillsborough County. The Orimulsion Conversion Project itself will not trigger any specific action under the maintenance plan because the Manatee Plant is located outside of Hillsborough and Pinellas counties. There are two "triggers" for a response under the maintenance plan. The first would be a violation of the ozone ambient air quality standards in the two-county area, i.e., the fourth maximum daily value greater than .12 parts per million (ppm). The only recorded exceedances since 1990 occurred on June 10, 1995. The second "trigger" has two conditions: the first is an increase in the inventory of NOx or VOC emissions in the inventory update years 1994, 1997 or 2000 exceeding 5 percent over the levels recorded in 1990, a year in which there were no ozone violations; the second would be the a design value for the update year of greater than .114 ppm (compared to the ambient air standard of .12 ppm). While the 1994 inventory of NOx emissions was between 7 and 8 percent over the 1990 inventory, no maximum concentrations over the "design value" have been recorded. (The 1995 inventory was not available at the time of the hearing.) Recognizing the limitations of the EKMA and RPM modeling, it nonetheless is not expected that emissions from the Project will trigger any action under the maintenance plan. If an ozone violation or other specific contingencies occur in the future, however, the maintenance plan would require the state to undertake rulemaking to implement corrective action. Such corrective action could include imposition of Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for existing sources of NOx in the region and expansion of NOx and/or VOC control strategies to adjacent counties. FPL also has agreed to further minimize NOx emissions during the "ozone season," which generally lasts from May 15 through September 15. Under the stipulation between FPL, DEP, EPC and Pinellas County, daily NOx emissions from the Plant shall not exceed 42.23 tons during the ozone season when Orimulsion is fired. This daily cap is more restrictive than a 30-day rolling average. As incentive to further reduce NOx emissions, FPL will pay annually, to a trust fund jointly administered by Manatee, Pinellas, and Hillsborough Counties to benefit air quality in the region, $200 per ton of NOx emitted from both Plant units, on a daily basis, in excess of 38.6 tons per day during the ozone season. Effect of Proposed NOx Emissions on Water Quality The Plant is located within the watershed of Tampa Bay, a large estuary comprised of four major segments including Old Tampa Bay, Hillsborough Bay, Middle Tampa Bay, and Lower Tampa Bay, and other embayments including Cockroach Bay and Little Cockroach Bay in the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve, which is designated as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). The Little Manatee River, another OFW, also is part of the Tampa Bay watershed. Because Tampa Bay is located in a phosphate-rich area, phosphorus levels in the bay are extremely high. Due to high phosphorus levels, nitrogen is considered the limiting nutrient in Tampa Bay. Major sources of nitrogen to Tampa Bay include nonpoint runoff (i.e., materials that run off the land surface and are carried through riverine systems into the bay), atmospheric deposition both on the surface of the bay and within the watershed, point sources (e.g., discharges from wastewater treatment systems and industrial facilities), and internal sources within the bay itself. Although there are ongoing studies, including the Tampa Bay Atmospheric Deposition Study, to better quantify actual deposition in the Tampa Bay area, available analyses indicate that atmospheric deposition is an important source of nitrogen loading to Tampa Bay. The water quality of Tampa Bay varies from "good" in Lower Tampa Bay to "fair" in portions of Hillsborough Bay which historically have had water quality problems such as high levels of chlorophyll a. The water quality of Cockroach Bay reflects the water quality in adjacent Middle Tampa Bay, which has been characterized as "poor" during certain times of the year due to relatively high chlorophyll a levels. Due to nutrient inputs and other factors such as dredge and fill activities, prop-scarring from motor boats, and other physical activities, portions of Tampa Bay, including Cockroach Bay, have experienced significant losses in historical seagrass coverage. In recent years, however, seagrass coverage has increased in Tampa Bay overall. Lake Manatee is another water body of potential concern located near the Plant within the Tampa Bay watershed. Lake Manatee is a man-made lake which supplies drinking water to Manatee County, Sarasota County, and various municipalities. Based upon its trophic state index of 50 to 60 for the past few years, Lake Manatee has water quality in the upper end of the "good" range. However, Manatee County treats Lake Manatee with copper sulfate to prevent blooms of blue-green algae which can create taste and odor problems in the water. Studies have determined that nitrogen is the limiting nutrient of Lake Manatee and that nitrogen levels have increased. Due to high color levels and other factors, however, Lake Manatee appears to be a dystrophic system in which primary nutrients, such as phosphorus and nitrogen, are not responsible for most of the plant growth. In fact, the most recent study of Lake Manatee water quality indicates that algal growth there has a stronger correlation to temperature and specific conductance than to total nitrogen. In addition, the blue-green algae associated with taste and odor problems in lake water have the ability to "fix" nitrogen from the atmosphere and, therefore, have a competitive advantage over other algae in the absence of external nitrogen inputs. To assess potential impacts of the Project on water quality in the Tampa Bay area, the effect of proposed NOx emissions on nitrogen deposition in the Tampa Bay watershed was calculated using the best tools reasonably available. Assuming a NOx emissions rate of 0.23 lbs/mmBtu following the conversion to Orimulsion as proposed with the stipulated conditions of certification, the Plant's contribution will be 1.25 percent of the total nitrogen deposition in the watershed. Based upon consideration of background deposition in more pristine locations in Florida and local deposition within the Tampa Bay area, as well as a comparison of current and projected emissions from the Plant with regional NOx emissions, NOx emissions from the converted Plant will result in a less than 0.8 percent increase in nitrogen deposition throughout the Tampa Bay watershed. Additionally, the estimated increase in nitrogen deposition was apportioned among the various segments of the watershed based upon the results of dispersion modeling. Atmospheric nitrogen can reach Tampa Bay and other water bodies through direct deposition on the water surface as well as "indirect deposition" and subsequent runoff from land surfaces within the various segments of the watershed. Due to soil absorption and plant uptake, however, not all atmospheric nitrogen deposited within the watershed ultimately reaches Tampa Bay. Using the Project's calculated impact on nitrogen deposition and conservative runoff coefficients for the "indirect deposition" component, nitrogen loading budgets were calculated for Tampa Bay and its various segments, as well as Lake Manatee. Existing nitrogen loadings are on the order of 3,000 metric tpy for Tampa Bay and 300 metric tpy for Lake Manatee. In comparison, the increase in nitrogen loadings attributable to the Project is on the order of 21 metric tpy (or 0.69 percent) for Tampa Bay and 1.2 metric tpy (or 0.39 percent) for Lake Manatee. In light of the existing loading to these systems, the predicted increases attributable to the Project are insignificant. Because these loading analyses are based upon a NOx emissions rate of 0.27 lbs/mmBtu, actual impacts on nitrogen loading are expected to be less in light of the lower 0.23 lbs/mmBtu emissions rate subsequently agreed upon in the stipulation between FPL, DEP, Pinellas County and EPC. Although nitrogen within the water column will deposit in the sediments, increased nitrogen loadings will not have an extended cumulative effect over time because the amount of nitrogen available to the system ultimately reaches equilibrium as a result of a continual burial process. Additionally, other processes, such as denitrification, decrease the amount of nitrogen in the sediments. Accordingly, marginal increases in atmospheric deposition of nitrogen have only marginal effects on sedimentary nitrogen concentrations and internal loadings. To assess the Project's impact on biological activity in surface waters in the vicinity of the Plant, laboratory tests were performed on water samples collected within the Lower Tampa Bay, Lake Manatee, Cockroach Bay, the Little Manatee River, the Manatee River, and Lake Manatee utilizing the algal assay procedure (AAP). AAP is a procedure developed and recommended by EPA to determine the effect of increased nitrogen loadings on algal growth within receiving marine or freshwater systems. Under the AAP, water samples taken from the field are spiked with varying levels of nitrogen as well as algae with a given growth potential. After the spiked samples are set aside for five to seven days, algal growth is measured and comparisons between the spiked and control samples are made to determine the effect of the nitrogen additions. In each of the AAPs performed, no statistically significant increase in algal growth was noted with nitrogen additions up to 10 times the amount anticipated from the Project. FPL provided reasonable assurances that nitrogen loadings attributable to the converted Plant will not have a significant adverse impact on water quality or biological activity in any marine, estuarine, or aquatic systems in the Tampa Bay area. The evidence indicates that the impact is likely to be so small that it will be difficult to measure and distinguish from natural fluctuation in nitrogen levels. For the same reason, FPL has provided reasonable assurances that, when considered in conjunction with nitrogen loadings of the same order from other NOx emission sources which have been permitted but have not begun operation in the Tampa Bay area, the Project will not cause or contribute to an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna or a dominance of nuisance species in Tampa Bay, including Cockroach Bay. Likewise, because nitrogen loadings from the Plant are not expected to have a significant adverse impact on algal growth, such loadings are not expected to impact other flora, other trophic levels, such as seagrasses or fisheries production, or transparency levels in Tampa Bay. In their case, Manasota-88 and MCSOBA presented two expert witnesses who generally opined that 20 tons of additional nitrogen would be detrimental to Tampa Bay, would cause an imbalance of aquatic flora and fauna in violation of DEP's nutrient rule, as well as violations of DEP's transparency and nuisance rules, and that nitrogen loading to Tampa Bay has the potential to be a cumulative problem. The expert witnesses presented by Manasota-88 and MCSOBA did not perform or make reference to any studies or other analyses that contradict the analyses performed by FPL's expert witnesses related to nitrogen deposition impacts. Theirs was more of a qualitative evaluation. Clearly, seagrass coverage in Tampa Bay and Cockroach Bay has declined due in large part to shading from algal growth resulting from nitrogen. It follows logically, in their opinion, that adding 21 tons of nitrogen a year to current and future levels cannot help, but can only hurt, even if the impact is too small to measure. They urge that DEP should prohibit any increases in nitrogen loading to Tampa Bay, in accordance with the recommendations resulting from the federally-funded National Estuaries Program (NEP) study of Tampa Bay, including any increases from atmospheric deposition. Regulatory links between air emissions and water quality criteria are developing through the policy of management. But DEP historically has not regulated atmospheric deposition of nitrogen to surface waters, and ecosystem management has not yet matured to the point where DEP is ready to begin regulating atmospheric deposition of nitrogen as a surface water discharge subject to surface water quality permit review. If it does, it is possible that some recommendations of the NEP Tampa Bay study on nitrogen loading to Tampa Bay could be achieved through new surface water quality permit review of nitrogen loading through atmospheric deposition. Such regulation may result higher power generating costs from stricter NOx emissions limits, but it may be determined that those costs would be lower than the costs of trying to rehabilitate water bodies after nitrogen has been deposited and loaded into them. In the absence of such regulation, however, FPL nonetheless has provided reasonable assurances that nitrogen deposition resulting from NOx emissions from the converted Plant will not have any meaningful or measurable impact on water quality, biological activity, or transparency in any marine, estuarine, or aquatic system in the Tampa Bay area. Human Health Risks Associated with Proposed Air Emissions Despite increased plant utilization, there will be no increase in either short term or annual emissions of any hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) or other "air toxics" as a result of the conversion to Orimulsion. To assess potential health-related impacts of Project emissions, air dispersion modeling was conducted to predict ambient concentrations of HAPs and other air toxics. The predicted ambient concentrations for all HAPs and air toxics except vanadium are below ambient reference concentrations (ARCs), which are conservative screening values established for various air toxics in DEP guidelines. Predicted concentrations of vanadium exceed the ARC for the 24-hour averaging period at the maximum point of impact within the plant site, but the exceedance is very small (i.e., at the third decimal place), and the ARC is between 100 and 1000 times lower than any exposure level shown to cause effects in humans. Moreover, vanadium is not bioaccumulative and does not have any interactive effect with other substances. Accordingly, the proposed level of vanadium emissions does not pose a significant threat to human health. Although there is no regulatory requirement for a formal risk assessment, a multi-pathway risk assessment was performed to evaluate potential human health impacts of air emissions from the converted Plant. Whereas the ARCs established by DEP address only the inhalation pathway of exposure, the multi-pathway risk assessment considered the cumulative effect of oral and dermal exposure in addition to inhalation exposure to all pollutants emitted from the converted Plant. Utilizing conservative assumptions, the multi- pathway risk assessment analyzed potential exposures to residential and occupational populations, including potentially sensitive populations such as children and persons who live and work near the Plant. Based upon the results of the multi-pathway risk assessment and other analyses, the health risks from operation of the Plant while firing either oil or Orimulsion are negligible. Compared to historical operation with No. 6 fuel oil, future operations following conversion to Orimulsion would provide a benefit from a toxicological and risk assessment standpoint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order granting FPL's application for a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit for the Manatee Orimulsion Conversion Project with the conditions included in the December 5, 1995, Draft Permit that was filed on January 17, 1996. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of February, 1996. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), F.S. (1995), as construed by the decision in Harbor Island Beach Club, Ltd., v. Dept. of Natural Resources, 476 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: FPL/DEP Proposed Findings of Fact. All of the proposed findings of fact proposed by these parties have been reviewed. This review reveals that most of the proposed findings of these parties were proven by a preponderance of the evidence and, except as follows, they have been accepted. 3. Last sentence clarified to reflect that, while there will be few other changes to the plant itself, there will be severally significant changes to the project area as a result of conversion to Orimulsion. 23. Last sentence rejected as irrelevant; otherwise, accepted. 25.-26. In part, conclusions of law; otherwise, accepted. 27. Fourth sentence, rejected as contrary to the evidence in that both analyses should be conducted; otherwise, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the evidence to the extent that it implies that the Preserve is an embayment; otherwise, accepted. Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the evidence to the extent that it implies that the recent increase is uniform throughout the bay, as opposed to in parts of the bay and overall; otherwise, accepted. 47. Rejected as not proven that there will be no cumulative effect over time; otherwise, accepted and accepted in its entirety if it means only that an equilibrium will be reached at some point in time. 49. "Will not," in first two sentences, rejected as not proven; otherwise, accepted and accepted that reasonable assurances were provided. 51. "Demonstrated," in second sentence, rejected as not proven; otherwise, accepted and accepted that reasonable assurances were provided. Manasota-88/MCSOBA Proposed Findings of Fact. Much of what is proposed by Manasota-88 and MCSOBA as findings of fact actually are conclusions of law. Proposed findings of fact numbered 4 through 203 actually are labeled "Findings Concerning Applicable Laws; most of these propose conclusions of law (although a few proposed findings of fact, mostly related to agency policy, are included.) Many of the other proposed findings of fact numbered 204 through 435 also actually propose conclusions of law. Even as construed by the decision in Harbor Island Beach Club, supra, Section 120.59(2), does not require rulings on proposed conclusions of law. In addition, it should be noted that much of was has been proposed in the single joint PRO Manasota-88 and MCSOBA filed for both the certification case and the PSD permit cases is relevant only to the certification case, and not to the PSD cases. For example, 3.a., 4-20, 26-159, 204-375, and 432-435 do not seem to be relevant to the PSD cases. Nonetheless, to preclude any argument that Manasota-88 and MCSOBA will be prejudiced by their decision to file a single joint PRO, and because of their expansive secondary and cumulative impacts theories, rulings on all of their proposed findings are repeated here. 1.-2. Accepted. Subordinate and unnecessary. (94-5675EPP covers all permits, etc., from all agencies, except for the PSD and NPDES permits.) Conclusion of law. 5.-6. Accepted. Subordinate and unnecessary. 7.-18. Conclusions of law. Irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as not supported by any evidence. Also, irrelevant and unnecessary. 21.-24. Conclusions of law. 25. Accepted that DEP attempts to follow the guidelines, but they are not clear and are susceptible to different interpretations. 26.-48. Conclusions of law. 49. Accepted but irrelevant or argument. 50.-58. Conclusions of law. 59.-60. In part, conclusion of law; otherwise, accepted but conclusion of law, and either irrelevant or argument. 61. Conclusion of law. 62.-63. Accepted. Accepted but irrelevant because it is not regulated as a discharge. In part, conclusion of law; to the extent that it seeks to establish agency policy, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence; otherwise, accepted. 66.-68. Conclusion of law; to the extent that it seeks to establish agency policy, rejected as contrary to the evidence. 69.-70. Conclusion of law. 71.-72. In part, conclusion of law; otherwise, accepted. 73.-77. Conclusions of law. 78.-79. Conclusion of law; to the extent that it seeks to establish agency policy, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Conclusion of law. In part, conclusion of law; otherwise, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. 82.-86. Conclusions of law. 87. Accepted (but DEP does not issue such permits per se. 88.-90. Conclusions of law. 91. In part, conclusion of law; to the extent that it refers to agency policy, accepted. 92.-96. Conclusions of law. 97.-98. Accepted. 99.-114. Conclusions of law. 115. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 116.-120. Conclusions of law. 121.-123. Accepted. 124.-126. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 127. In part, conclusion of law; otherwise, ejected as contrary to the evidence. 128.-131. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the evidence (as to "any other form of record evidence"). Conclusion of law. Last sentence, accepted; otherwise, conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence (that DEP uses "two different non-rule policy interpretations.) First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence; second, conclusion of law. 137.-142. Conclusions of law. 143. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. 144.-145. Subparagraphs, accepted; rest, conclusions of law. Conclusion of law. Accepted. 148.-150. Conclusions of law. 151.-153. Accepted (but as to 153, only sodium is a primary standard.) 154. Rejected as not clear from the evidence what is "common regulatory practice." 155.-157. Conclusions of law. 158.-159. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (that DEP was "deviating from the common regulatory practice.") 160.-168. Conclusions of law. 169. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 170.-172. Conclusions of law. 173. In part, conclusion of law; otherwise, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (that salt water intrusion results). 174.-179. Conclusions of law. 180.-181. Accepted. 182.-190. Conclusions of law. 191. Accepted. 192.-193. Conclusions of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. 196.-203. Conclusions of law. 204. "Very sensitive" rejected as argument not supported by evidence; otherwise, accepted. 205.-211. Accepted. 212.-213. Rejected as contrary to the evidence that excessive nitrogen is the only cause; otherwise, accepted. 214.-216. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence as to all of Tampa Bay; accepted as to parts of the bay. "At least 10 percent," rejected as contrary to the evidence; also, the TBNEP proposal is not clear from the evidence in the record. (Cf. Garrity, T. 2110-2111.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The estimate was calculated using a .27 lbs/mmBtu emission rate.) 220.-221. Accepted. (Variation primarily is driven by rainfall.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The witness's estimate, which was very rough, was referring to atmospheric deposition, not nitrogen loading; the two are different, and the percentage increase of the former actually is higher than the actual percentage increase in the former resulting from the Orimulsion conversion project.) First clause (the premise), accepted; second (the conclusion), rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (Ozone may affect "dry deposition"; but much more atmospheric deposition is "wet deposition," which can vary by an order of magnitude depending on rainfall.) 224.-225. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The witness was referring to atmospheric deposition, not total nitrogen loading. See 222., above.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. (However, while there might be some longer term impacts from sedimentation, those affects will be marginal, first because the impacts themselves are marginal, and second because nitrogen entering the sediments also will be subject to denitrification through biological and chemical processes and to burial over time.) 228.-229. Conclusions of law; also, subpara. c., rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted in the general sense that it is 21 tons in the wrong direction. However, the "detrimental effect" was not measurable. Accepted. (It is not clear what "water quality levels" are meant. F.A.C. Rule 62-302.530(48)(b) speaks for itself. Presumably, "water quality levels" refers to nitrogen loadings.) To the extent not conclusion of law, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Conclusion of law whether the rule applies. In any event, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that "no evidence" was presented. Rejected. First, conclusion of law whether air emissions are a "proposed discharge," and whether the "clearly in the public" test applies. Second, assuming that the test applies, and that it raises a mixed question of law and fact (not a pure question of law), neither of the witnesses cited were in a position to give competent testimony on the issue. Accepted. (There was no evidence as to where in the bay the violations occur.) Conclusion of law; also, subparagraphs a. and d., rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Conclusion of law; also, subpara. c., rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. (It is not clear what "ambient water quality levels" are meant. F.A.C. Rule 62-302.530(48)(b) speaks for itself. Presumably, "ambient water quality levels" refers to nitrogen loadings.) To the extent not conclusion of law, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 240.-241. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (There was no indication of what the witness meant by "nuisance condition." Compare testimony to F.A.C. Rules 62-302.500(1)(c) and 62-302.530(47). Accepted (assuming reference is being made to atmospheric deposition. See 222., above.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (TBNEP projection was hearsay.) 244.-245. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 246.-249. Accepted. 250. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. ("Trophic," not "tropic," state index.) 251.-253. Accepted. 254.-255. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. (It is not clear what "water quality levels" are meant, or what "nuisance standard" is meant. In any event, both F.A.C. Rules 62- 302.500(1)(c) and 62-302.530(47) speak for themselves. Presumably, "water quality levels" refers to nitrogen loadings.) To the extent not conclusion of law, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The rule was judged not to apply.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (Other parameters were "reviewed" in the sense that they were considered along with salinity, but only salinity was studied in detail.) 260.-262 Accepted (but, as to 261., the extent of "further degradation" of water quality required to degrade biological productivity is not specified, so fact is not useful.) Accepted, but a conclusion of law whether it is "foreseeable" for purposes of "cumulative effects." Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The evidence was 5 percent of the months.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The option was considered and rejected.) Otherwise, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The evidence was it was 6, but it is changing.) Accepted but so general and speculative as not to be useful. 269.-270. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (While absolute certainty does not appear to be possible at this time, DEP seems to have made this determination based on the best information available.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as to RPM; accepted as to EKMA. 275.-278. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (While absolute certainty does not appear to be possible at this time, it is believed based on the best information available that the Tampa Bay airshed is VOC- limited.) Conclusion of law. 283.-284. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 288.-289. To the extent not conclusion of law, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. The evidence is not clear that the expansion is "foreseeable." 293.-296. Accepted. 297. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (42.23 is an absolute maximum per day; there also is a maximum 30-day rolling average.) 298.-299. Rejected as inaccurate calculation. 300.-301. Accepted. 302. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (Emissions from the Manatee Plant were not part of the Hillsborough/Pinellas inventory of stationary sources.) 303.-304. Accepted. 305. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. See 298.-299. and 302., above. 306.-307. Accepted. 308.-309. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. See 302., above. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (There was circumstantial evidence, but a "correlation" was not determined.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Not clear from the evidence, especially without a corresponding VOC reduction. Also, so general as to be of little usefulness. 314.-315. Accepted. 316. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The evidence was that, at the time of the hearing, the SWUCA was a proposed rule and that the proposed withdrawals are in the Eastern Tampa Bay WUCA.) 317.-318. See 316., above; otherwise, accepted. The Floridan was not specified; otherwise, accepted. Accepted, assuming "sources" and "uses" mean the same thing. See 316., above. Accepted. Accepted (although specific reference only was to the former FPL wells.) Rejected as not supported by evidence on which a finding of fact could be made. 325.-326. Rejected. (These appear to be conclusions of law, although the intended legal significance of "straight transfer" is not made clear.) 327. Conclusion of law. 328.-329. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 330. See 316., above. 331.-332. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. See 316., above. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The explanation was that the SWFWMD regulations allow it.) 335.-337. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 338. Accepted. (That is why the ZOD was expanded vertically.) 339.-341. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 342. Cumulative. 343.-344. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Unintelligible. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. See 346., above. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as not supported by any evidence. Rejected. Not a legal requirement. 352.-353. Cumulative. 354. Rejected as not supported by any evidence. 354.(Number 2) Not clear what is meant by "water communities." An oil spill will affect the surface and shore more; Orimulsion would affect the water column and bottom more, especially in deeper water. 355.-356. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as not clear from the evidence what the impact on property values will be. Also, not subject to determination in this case. Rejected. F.A.C. Rule 60Q-2.031(3). Not subject to determination in this case. Rejected. Subpara. a., rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Subpara. c., unclear what is being referenced. Also, effect on government jurisdictions other than Manatee County not subject to determination in this case. Rejected as not supported by any evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (As to c., no evidence as to what is meant or how it would help.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (However, as proposed, Bitor is the responsible party.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that these methods are "reasonable." (As to d., the rule does not apply.) Rejected as not supported by any evidence that this alternative is "reasonable." 367.-368. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Unintelligible. Conclusion of law. Accepted. 372.-377. Conclusions of law. 378.-379. Accepted. 380.-383. Conclusions of law. 384. Accepted. 385.-386. Conclusions of law. 387. Accepted. 388.-389. Conclusion of law. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by any evidence. 392.-395. Conclusions of law. 396. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 397.-398. To the extent not conclusion of law, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence as to "foreseeable cumulative" impacts; also no evidence that foreseeable cumulative impacts "justify higher than normal BACT." Conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (DEP tries to follow it, but it is complicated and difficult to apply.) Rejected as not supported by the evidence. (The only evidence was that EPA suggested that DEP give proper consideration to the claims of some SCR manufacturers that their technology achieves .10 lbs/mmBtu.) Accepted. 403.-404. Accepted (assuming reference is made to average costs.) Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (There also were other factors.) Accepted. (However, the initial application has been modified in many respects during the course of these proceedings.) Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is BACT or that it was the only calculation making those emissions rate assumptions. Accepted. (Incremental cost calculations also are recommended.) 412.-414. Conclusions of law. 415. Accepted. 416.-418. Rejected as not supported by facts on which findings of fact can be made. 419. Accepted. (However, that was just one of several calculations and not FPL's final calculation.) 420. Rejected as not clear from the evidence that both calculations used .395 lbs/mmBtu. 421.-422. Accepted. 423.-426. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (As to 425., it is not technically feasible for this application, so it cannot be economically feasible; where technically feasible, it has been shown to be economically feasible as well.) 427. Accepted (although it varies from year to year.) 428. Rejected as not supported by any evidence. 429. Accepted (but vanadium content is not high enough to create problems of technical feasibility.) 430.-435. Cumulative. Conclusions of law. To the extent that accepted proposed findings are not contained in the Findings of Fact, they were considered to be subordinate, irrelevant or otherwise unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Douglas Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kenneth Plante, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Douglas Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Peter C. Cunningham, Esquire Carolyn S. Raepple, Esquire Kathleen L. Blizzard, Esquire Douglas S. Roberts, Esquire Gary V. Perko, Esquire Hopping Green Sams and Smith, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Charles T. "Chip" Collette, Esquire Twin Towers Office Building Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 2951 61st Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 A. Alexander Rhodes, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Pinellas County 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616 Vernon R. Wagner, Esquire Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County 1900 Ninth Avenue Tampa, Florida 33605
