Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the owner of the site known as Union 76 #702 or as Taylor's 76, Inc., located at 9700 East Indigo Street, Perrine, Dade County, Florida. The prior owner of that site was Lawrence Oil Company. There appears to be a commonality of principals between Petitioner TYU, Inc., and its predecessor in title, Lawrence Oil Company. In 1986 the Legislature created the Early Detection Incentive Program (hereinafter "EDI") to encourage early detection, reporting, and cleanup of contamination from leaking petroleum storage systems. Essentially, the Legislature created a 30-month grace period ending on December 31, 1988, for owners of sites with contamination from petroleum storage systems to apply for reimbursement for cleanup expenses due to the contamination, without retribution from the State. The statute also provided several bases for which an applicant would be deemed ineligible. Prior to the December 31, 1988, deadline Petitioner checked the various sites owned by it, including the site which is the subject of this proceeding, to determine whether contamination was present. The subject site had been a service station, selling gasoline for 30 to 35 years. From 1986 forward, however, gasoline was no longer being dispensed at the site although the underground gasoline tanks were still present. It is unknown whether the tanks were emptied at the time that they were taken out of service. Automobile repairs were still performed at the site. By 1989, the site was also occupied by a lawn maintenance company and a pool company. In 1988 and 1989 a 55-gallon drum of used oil was located on the site. The lawn company employees used that oil to lubricate their chain saws. The remainder of the used oil and the solvents from the small parts washer were picked up from that site for recycling. In November or December of 1988, Harry Barkett, president of Lawrence Oil Company, personally visited the site. He sampled the monitoring wells. Because he smelled gasoline in the monitoring wells, he retained Seyfried & Associates, Inc., an environmental consultant, to prepare a report to be submitted to the Department. That report is dated December 15, 1988. Petitioner's application for participation in the EDI program, together with the report of Seyfried & Associates, Inc., was submitted to the Department prior to the December 31, 1988, deadline. At the time, Metropolitan Dade County's Department of Environmental Resources Management (hereinafter "DERM") was performing EDI inspections for the Department pursuant to a contract. On March 22, 1989, a DERM employee who performed only industrial waste inspections went to the subject site. He specifically was not there to inspect the petroleum storage systems, and he did not do so. That employee went into the service bays where the routine auto repair and maintenance services were performed. He noticed the floor drains going from the service bays to the oil/water separator. He then inspected the oil/water separator. He noted that a hole had been cut at the top of the effluent pipe, which breached the system and which might allow oil to flow into either a drain field or a septic tank system. He did not check further to ascertain which. He took three samples from inside the oil/water separator, one for oil and grease, one for phenols, and one for metals, specifically cadmium, chromium, and lead. Not surprisingly, the laboratory analysis of those samples indicated the presence of phenols, oil, and grease. The only sampling done by that employee was of the contents of the oil/water separator. No investigation was made of, and no samples were taken from, the soil or groundwater anywhere on the site. Such sampling was not part of that employee's authority or responsibility. On October 11, 1989, Dade County DERM sent a different employee to perform the EDI inspection at the subject site. To determine the presence of contamination from petroleum or petroleum products, that employee dipped an acrylic bailer into each of the monitoring wells and then "sniffed the bailer" to ascertain if the odor of gasoline could be detected. He did not dip the bailer lower than the top foot of water since he did not wish to bring the bailer up through a column of water before sniffing. Dade County DERM employees no longer "sniff the bailer" due to the health risk involved in such a procedure. In 1989, however, it was the common practice for DERM employees to "sniff the bailer," albeit cautiously. That employee failed to detect the odor of gasoline and did not see any petroleum contamination in the monitoring wells. He issued a report to that effect. He took no samples from the soil or groundwater to determine if there were contamination from petroleum or petroleum products at the site. Based upon the second report indicating the absence of gasoline odor and based upon the first report indicating the presence of oil, grease, and phenols inside the oil/water separator, Dade County DERM recommended to the Department that Petitioner's application for participation in the EDI program be denied. Based upon that recommendation, the Department sent Petitioner a letter dated May 23, 1990, denying Petitioner's application for participation in the EDI program. That letter stated as the two reasons for denial the following: Contamination is not the result of a discharge from a petroleum storage facility as defined in Section 376.301(11), Florida Statutes. Waste oil contamination found on the ground and groundwater was the result of poor maintenance practices by site owner/ operator. Participation in the Early Detection Incentive Program is restricted to contamination from such storage facilities pursuant to 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes. Contamination is a mixture of waste oil, grease and phenolic compounds. Participation in the Early Detection Incentive Program is limited to petroleum or petroleum products as defined in Section 37.301 [sic] (9) and (10), Florida Statutes. That letter further advised Petitioner of its right to request a hearing regarding that determination and advised Petitioner that its failure to timely request an administrative hearing would render that correspondence to be a final Order of Determination of Ineligibility. When Petitioner received that correspondence, one of its employees interpreted the letter to mean that the Department had determined that the site did not have contamination from petroleum or a petroleum product. Viewing that as good news, that employee merely put the letter in a file. No request for an administrative hearing was made by Petitioner, and the correspondence became a final Order of Determination of Ineligibility by its own terms. In 1990 the Legislature determined that all sites which had been declared ineligible by the Department would be re-determined for eligibility. The Legislature established March 31, 1991, as the new deadline by which owners or operators could request the Department to reevaluate eligibility for sites for which a timely EDI application had been filed but which had been deemed ineligible by the Department. The new legislation set forth several circumstances under which the Department would not redetermine the eligibility of a previously denied site. One of those exceptions related to the reason for which a site had initially been denied. Petitioner had remained convinced that the subject site was contaminated by petroleum or petroleum products prior to the original deadline for filing EDI applications. Petitioner was aware of the new legislation and new deadline by which sites determined ineligible could have their eligibility redetermined. Petitioner therefore retained Kiefer-Block Environmental Services, Inc., to do a site analysis to verify Petitioner's belief that the site had a petroleum contamination. That company issued a report indicating that was the case. Petitioner timely filed its application for redetermination before the March 31, 1991, deadline and submitted to the Department the information obtained from Kiefer-Block, the second environmental consultant to verify the presence of petroleum contamination. In reviewing applications for redetermination, the Department established a procedure whereby it simply looked at its original letter denying eligibility to ascertain the reason for denial. If that reason matched one of the exclusions under the new legislation, the Department advised the applicant that it was not eligible to have its site redetermined. The Department did not review the Department's files relating to a site and did no additional inspection. In 1991 the Legislature again amended the statute, this time carving out an exception to those sites excluded from redetermination of eligibility by directing that sites excluded due to an absence of contamination be redetermined for eligibility if contamination had in fact existed. That amendment went into effect July 1, 1991. Accordingly, that amendment was part of the law in effect when the Department made its decision as to whether it would redetermine Petitioner's eligibility. By letter dated September 3, 1991, the Department advised Petitioner that it was not eligible to participate in the redetermination process. That letter specifically provided as follows: This Order is to inform you that this site is not eligible to participate in the eligibility redetermination process pursuant to Section 376.3071(9)(b), F.S., because the original reasons for ineligibility were: Contamination is not the result of a discharge from a petroleum storage facility as defined in Section 376.301(11), Florida Statutes [definition in Section 376.301(15), F.S., current revision]. Waste oil contamination found on the ground and groundwater was the result of poor maintenance practices by site owner/ operator. Participation in the Early Detection Incentive Program is restricted to contamination from such storage facilities pursuant to 376.3071(9), F.S. Contamination is a mixture of waste oil, grease and phenolic compounds. Participation in the Early Detection Incentive Program is limited to petroleum or petroleum products as defined in Section 376.301(9) and (10), Florida Statutes [definitions in Section 376.301(13) and (14), F.S., current revision]. Section 376.3071(9)(b)3.c., F.S., states that redetermination of eligibility is not available to facilities that were denied eligibility due to contamination from substances that were not petroleum or a petroleum product, or contamination that was not from a petroleum storage system. Petitioner timely filed its request for an administrative hearing regarding that letter, contesting the Department's refusal to redetermine Petitioner's eligibility to participate in the EDI program.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered: (1) granting Petitioner's application for redetermination of eligibility and (2) finding Petitioner ineligible to participate in the Early Detection Incentive Program. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 26th day of August, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 92-0678 Petitioner's three unnumbered paragraphs contained in its post-hearing submittal have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law or argument. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 5-18, and 20 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 4 has been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 19 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Vittorino Special Projects Manager TYU, Inc. 1601 McCloskey Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33605-6710 Brigette A. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue Did Respondents violate Florida Administrative Code Rules 64E-6.010(5) and (7) by dumping untreated septage (untreated septic tank waste) onto the ground, instead of transporting it to an approved treatment facility? Did Respondents commit gross negligence, incompetence, and/or misconduct by dumping untreated septage onto the ground in violation of rule 64E-6.022(1)(n)? Did Respondents create a sanitary nuisance, exposing human and animal life to untreated human waste and endangering the public's health and safety by dumping untreated septage onto the ground in violation of rule 64E-6.022(1)(q)? If Respondents committed any of the offenses described above, what penalties should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Mr. Casanova is a registered septic tank contractor, registration no. SR0041469. Mr. Casanova is the qualifying registered septic tank contractor for Busy Bee Septic, Inc. Mr. Casanova is authorized to provide septic tank contracting services through Busy Bee Septic, Inc., authorization no. SA0041225. Permit no. 36-QA-29343, issued by Lee County Health Department, authorizes Busy Bee to provide septage collection and disposal services. The permit authorizes Busy Bee to pump out septic tanks and transport septage collected from the tanks to an authorized disposal site. The permit does not authorize treatment of septage. It also requires Busy Bee to dispose of the septage at a permitted wastewater treatment facility. Carlos Casanova and Busy Bee are authorized to, and have provided, septic tank contractor services in Lee, Charlotte, and Collier Counties. The business operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Mr. Casanova and Busy Bee own and operate three 4,000-gallon septage collection trucks. Each truck has a passenger cab with a large tank behind it. Mr. Casanova delegates most field work to four male Busy Bee employees. Field work includes pumping septic tank contents into the trucks' tanks and transporting the septage to proper storage and disposal sites. Busy Bee is authorized to dispose of septage at Crews Environmental and Charlotte County Utility. On June 15, 2012, at approximately 10:45 p.m., a Busy Bee truck parked pointing east on the north side of Jacaranda Boulevard in Cape Coral, Lee County, Florida. Individuals with the truck ran a hose from the truck's tank into the wooded area beside Jacaranda Boulevard and discharged untreated septage into the wooded area through the hose. This is an area of palmetto and pine woods, with sandy soil. The water table lies about two feet below the surface. The next day the area where the contents of the Busy Bee truck had been discharged smelled strongly of sewage. Sewage sludge and bits of toilet paper were visible on the ground and palmetto fronds, along with marks in the dirt where the hose discharging the septage from the tanks had lain. Four days later, the 20-by-30-foot wooded area where the Busy Bee truck pumped out septage was still saturated with sewage and sludge. Traces of toilet paper remained, and the area still smelled of sewage. The hose marks remained also. The Busy Bee truck had discharged approximately 3000 gallons of septage into the area. The septage was soaking down through the sandy, porous soil to the groundwater. Septage discharged like this is a sanitary nuisance dangerous to human and animal life. It exposes animals and humans to pathogenic viruses. Eye witness testimony and photographs clearly and convincingly establish the presence of septage in the area alongside Jacaranda Boulevard. The same is true of the marks showing hoses had been run from the edge of the road to the area where the truck discharged the septage. The fact that a Busy Bee truck discharged septage onto the ground beside Jacaranda Boulevard the night of June 15, 2012, is also established by clear and convincing evidence. The evidence includes the very credible testimony of John Hendrick. The testimony of Laurie Hendrick corroborates his testimony. So, too, did photographs of the area where the septage was dumped and photographs of Busy Bee trucks. On June 15, 2012, Mr. and Ms. Hendrick were taking an evening drive in the area, which is close to their home, as was their custom. They both saw the truck when they first passed it. At that time, the truck was turning around on a side street. Mr. Hendrick was concerned when he saw the truck in a lightly populated residential area surrounded by wetlands. For this reason he drove past it again at the end of their drive to observe what the truck was doing and identify the name on the company's truck. Mr. Hendrick focused on identifying the truck by reading the name painted on it. The name Busy Bee was prominently displayed on the truck. Mr. Hendrick's testimony that Busy Bee was the name on the truck is credible, clear, and convincing for a number of reasons. He was paying close attention and concentrating on the name on the truck. Mr. Hendrick took the time needed to make sure he read the name. He slowed to 25 miles per hour to make sure that he could read the name. Although it was an evening, it was a summer evening, and there was enough light, especially with the aid of the car headlights. Mr. Hendrick's memory is clear and is his own. No one suggested the name Busy Bee to him. His emails the next day, trying to draw the authorities' attention to the septage discharge, identified the truck as a Busy Bee truck. Mr. Hendrick is also a trained observer. Before retiring, he worked 18-to-20 years in an emergency room where careful observation is an important skill. There is no indication that Mr. Hendrick's eyesight is impaired. Mr. Casanova argues that Mr. Hendrick's eyesight is deficient, because Mr. Hendrick had not had his eyes tested in three years. No evidence establishes that a person whose eyesight has not been tested in three years presumptively has impaired vision. Mr. Casanova also argues that because Mr. Hendrick expressed some uncertainty about the color scheme of the truck, his testimony about the name on the truck should be discounted. The argument is not persuasive. Mr. Hendrick focused on the name on the truck to make sure he could identify it. His memory of that focused observation is persuasive. Mr. Casanova's efforts to create the impression that Mr. Hendrick may have observed a truck of a septic tank contractor in Collier County with the name Beebe Septic were not persuasive for a number of reasons. The reasons include the fact that the Beebe name is not painted on the trucks and the fact that nothing in the name Beebe Septic resembles the "Busy" in Busy Bee. Mr. Casanova's other efforts to undermine the testimony of Mr. Hendrick are equally unpersuasive. Clear and convincing evidence proved that on the night of June 15, 2012, individuals operating a Busy Bee truck pumped untreated septage onto the ground adjacent to Jacaranda Boulevard in Cape Coral, Florida. The odor, the presence of toilet paper, the physical characteristics of the sludge, and the fact that the Busy Bee trucks were designed and permitted for transporting untreated septage establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the septage was untreated. The Department of Health has taken disciplinary action against Carlos Casanova three times in matters resolved by settlement agreements. The agreements expressly provide for consideration of them in subsequent disciplinary actions. On February 13, 2012, the Department entered Final Order No. DOH-12-0251-FOI-HST against Carlos Casanova imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00 to resolve charges filed October 6, 2011. On February 13, 2012, the Department entered Final Order No. DOH-12-0252-FOI-HST against Carlos Casanova imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00 to resolve charges filed on November 18, 2011. Finally, on February 13, 2012, the Department entered Final Order No. DOH-12-0253-FOI-HST against Carlos Casanova imposing a fine in the amount of $1,500 to resolve charges filed September 14, 2011.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order revoking the septage collection and disposal permits of Petitioners, Carlos M. Casanova and Busy Bee Septic, Inc., and revoking the septic tank contractor registration of Carlos M. Casanova. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 2013.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is eligible for reimbursement for allowable costs pursuant to Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes, related to the cleanup of certain contamination at the Petitioner's ground transportation facility.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Facts stipulated to by the parties The subject facility is a bus, limousine and van storage, dispatch, and service area for a ground transportation company serving Miami International Airport which contains a parking lot, fuel storage tanks, an administration building, and a maintenance shop. The Department of Environmental Regulation is the agency charged with responsibility for administering the provisions of Section 376.3071, Florida Statutes. Red Top Sedan, Inc., through its agents, notified the Department of possible ground and ground water contamination on or about September 10, 1986. The Department received said notification and on September 19, 1986, advised Red Top that the notice was adequate and requested further information. Following various correspondence and requests for information, the Department determined that it had sufficient information and, on February 1, 1988, issued its Notice of Intent regarding the eligibility of the subject sites for participation in the program. One area, adjacent to and surrounding the diesel fuel pumps, was found to be eligible. Another area, east and west of the maintenance shop (Exhibit "2" to the Notice) was found to be ineligible. Red Top filed a Petition for Administrative Determination which was received by the Department on February 23, 1988. The Petition was subsequently referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and a Hearing Officer assigned. Facts Established at Hearing General Information About The Facility The subject facility also contains a parking area for approximately 95 buses, 40 to 45 vans, two dozen mini-buses, and 15 or 16 limousines and Lincoln towncars. There is also employee parking on the site. To the east of the Red Top office building there is a fuel island used for fueling Red Top's vehicles. The tanks associated with that fuel island have discharged diesel fuel. That petroleum contamination site is entirely separate from the one involved in this proceeding and has been found to be eligible for reimbursement. When the subject facility was constructed, Red Top employed an engineering company. It also employed a company named Service Station Aid. Service Station Aid is in the business of servicing tanks and other equipment used in connection with the handling of oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, and other similar products. Among other things, Service Station Aid installed underground waste oil tanks and tanks to hold automatic transmission fluid and new motor oil in the area of the maintenance facility. A drainage system servicing the asphalt parking areas and driveways surrounding the various buildings was also installed on the subject site. That system contained various grease traps which conformed to accepted practice at the time of their construction. Facts Regarding The East Side of the Maintenance Building Two underground waste oil tanks are on the east side of the maintenance building. The two waste oil tanks have been in operation since 1976, when the facility was built. Each of these two tanks has a capacity of 560 gallons. Employees of Red Top regularly pour used motor oil into the two waste oil tanks on the east side of the maintenance facility. The used oil is periodically removed by an EPA approved company. That company removes the waste oil to a fuel recycling facility in the Port Everglades area where it is made into recycled fuel. It is possible, even probable, that used oil has been spilled from time to time both while being poured into the waste oil tanks and while being removed from the waste oil tanks. However, there is no persuasive competent substantial evidence that any such spillage was a significant contribution to the contamination at the site. .1/ It is possible that one or both of the waste oil tanks has leaked. However, there is no persuasive competent substantial evidence that any such leakage was a significant contribution to the contamination at the site. In this regard it is noted that Red Top has not tested either of the waste oil tanks to determine whether they are leaking. Approximately 70 feet to the east of the maintenance building there are three storm drains. The storm drains are attached by way of a catch basin to soakage pits. Soakage pits are specifically designed to allow materials entering the soakage pit to be discharged directly to the earth. Storm drains are designed to catch stormwater runoff rather than large amounts of pollutants. The area to the east of the maintenance facility is paved with asphalt. That paved area is sloped so that any discharge of pollutants in that area of the site will flow to the storm drains. On numerous occasions waste oil has been observed in the storm drains. Instances of direct discharges of waste oil onto the ground or into the storm drains have been observed. Oil stains around the storm drains and observations by Dade County inspectors indicate that such direct discharges have been regular, if not frequent. Other sources of contamination at the Red Top facility include leaking drums of oil, oil leaking from stored or discarded equipment, oil discharged to the ground, disposal of contaminated waters from the maintenance building, and engine washing water discharged on the site. In the ground to the east of the maintenance building there is a large plume of dissolved oil and grease. This plume includes a plume of free product in the vicinity of the southernmost of the two waste oil tanks. Extending beyond the identified plume there are additional areas contaminated by constituents of waste oil. The primary cause of the contamination on the east side of the maintenance building is the direct discharge of contaminants. Discharge from the two waste oil tanks constitutes, at most, only a very minor cause of the overall contamination. .2/ Facts Regarding the West Side of the Maintenance Building On the west side of the maintenance building there are two underground tanks that are used to hold new motor oil and new transmission fluid. Motor oil and transmission fluid are lubricants used to lubricate engines and transmissions. They are not fuels. Pollutants which were discharged onto the floor of the maintenance building during maintenance work have been washed directly into the storm drains on the northwest side of the maintenance facility. There are two small areas of contamination on the west side of the maintenance facility. One such area is around a storm drain at the northwest side of the maintenance facility. The other is around the two tanks that contain new motor oil and transmission fluid. The contamination in the area of the storm drain includes lead, cadmium, and chromium. Motor oil and transmission fluid do not contain lead, nor do they contain levels of cadmium or chromium in amounts sufficient to be detected in groundwater. There is also an area of free product near the storm drain. There is no storage tank adjacent to the storm drain on the northwest side of the maintenance facility that could account for the lead, cadmium, and chromium contamination or that could account for the area of free product. The contamination at the storm drain on the west side of the maintenance facility resulted from direct discharges of contaminants to the storm drain and catch basin and was not a result of a discharge from a storage tank. The contamination in the area of the two tanks used for new motor oil and transmission fluid also contains lead, cadmium, and chromium. The metals contamination at this area is a result of discharge to the storm drain, and is not the result of discharge of new motor oil or transmission fluid from the two tanks. The groundwater in the area around these two tanks is also contaminated by dissolved oil and grease. The dissolved oil and grease plume is consistent in terms of substance and concentration with the dissolved waste oil to the east of the building. Within that plume of dissolved oil and grease there is also a small plume of free product. There is no waste oil tank on the west side of the maintenance facility that could account for waste oil contamination at that location. The dissolved oil and grease plume on the west side of the maintenance facility is most likely the result of waste oil discharge to the catch basin. The tanks containing new motor oil and transmission fluid may have contributed to the small free product plume in that area as a result of overfilling, but any such contribution was only a minor part of the overall contamination. In reviewing an application for eligibility for reimbursement, the Department looks at the relative importance of eligible and ineligible portions of a contaminated site. In cases where a potentially eligible source is minor in comparison to an overall otherwise ineligible contamination site, the Department's policy is to treat the entire site as ineligible. This policy is based on the fact that as a practical matter it is not possible to clean up one part of a contaminated site without affecting any adjacent contaminated areas. For the same reason, if the majority of a contaminated site is eligible, but it contains minor ineligible sources, the Department's policy is to treat the entire site as eligible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue a final order in this case concluding that the contamination area at issue in this proceeding is not eligible for reimbursement under Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of June 1989. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 15th day of June 1989.
The Issue The issues presented in the case are whether Respondents P & L Salvage and Marlene Ballard are liable for violations of state statutes and rules, as alleged in the amended NOV, and, if so, whether the proposed corrective action is appropriate, and whether the proposed civil penalties and costs should be paid by Respondents.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state agency charged with the power and duty to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated in Florida Administrative Code Title 62. Respondent P & L Salvage, Inc., is a Florida corporation. P & L Salvage owned and operated an automobile salvage yard at 4535 and 4537 West 45th Street in West Palm Beach, Florida (the “property,” “facility,” or “site”). The property comprises less than two acres. Respondent Marlene Ballard is a Florida resident and the president, treasurer, secretary, and director of P & L Salvage, Inc. Historical Use of the Site Beginning in the 1960s, the site was used as an auto salvage yard, first under the name Johnny’s Junkyard and later as General Truck Parts. In 1981, the owner of the salvage yard, Marie Arant, sold the facility. The record is not clear about the exact identity of the purchaser. The Alliance report, referred to later, states that the property was purchased by “the Ballard family.” The record evidence is insufficient to prove that Marlene Ballard ever owned the salvage yard. The parties agree that the salvage yard was operated for a time as P & L Salvage, which was unincorporated. Then, in January 1990, the site was purchased by Respondent P & L Salvage, Inc., which owned the site continuously until January 2007. Marlene Ballard lived in a house on the site from the 1980s until the property was sold in 2007. A separate building at the site was used as P & L Salvage’s office. The general operation of the salvage yard was to bring junk cars and trucks to the site, remove fluids from the vehicles, remove parts for sale, and then crush the dismantled vehicles in a hydraulic crusher to prepare them for transport and sale as scrap metal. The automotive fluids removed from the junked cars were stored on the site in 55-gallon drums for later disposal. Respondents presented evidence to show that the person who had the most knowledge of and managed the day-to-day operations in the salvage yard was an employee named John Boyd. When John Boyd ceased employment at the salvage yard, Marlene Ballard’s son, Thomas Ballard, took over the management of the yard. Respondents contend that no evidence was presented that Marlene Ballard conducted or participated in any activities that resulted in contamination, or that she had authority to prevent any potential contamination that might have occurred. However, Ms. Ballard was familiar with the activities in the yard, having worked and lived on the site for many years. She did the bookkeeping and signed payroll checks. All employees answered to Ms. Ballard. She contracted for environmental assessment and remediation work, and signed the hazardous waste manifests. She was acquainted with the contamination that could and did occur at the salvage yard. Eagle Sanitation, Inc., which operated a roll-off container business, leased the site from September 2005 until January 2007. Eagle Sanitation also obtained an option to purchase the property. At first, Eagle Sanitation only leased about a quarter of the site because there were many junk autos, tires, and other salvage debris still on the site in September 2005. For several months, Thomas Ballard continued to sell auto parts and scrap from the site, and to clear the site. Eagle Sanitation did not have complete use of the site until early in 2006. Eagle Sanitation’s business consisted of delivering roll-off containers for a fee to contractors and others for the disposal of construction debris and other solid waste, and then picking up the containers and arranging for disposal at the county landfill or, in some cases, recycling of the materials. Roll-off containers at the site were usually empty, but sometimes trucks with full containers would be parked at the site overnight or over the weekend. During its lease of the site, Eagle Sanitation did not collect used oil or gasoline and did not provide roll-off containers to automotive businesses. No claim was made that Eagle Sanitation caused any contamination found at the site. Contamination at the Site In 1989, Marlene Ballard contracted with Goldcoast Engineering & Testing Company (Goldcoast) to perform a “Phase II” environmental audit. Goldcoast collected and analyzed groundwater and soil samples and produced a report. Cadmium, chromium, and lead were found in the soil samples collected by Goldcoast. Some petroleum contamination was also detected in soils. These pollutants are all associated with automotive fluids. The Goldcoast report states that groundwater samples did not indicate the presence of pollutants in concentrations above any state standard. The Goldcoast report did not address the timing of discharges of contaminating substances that occurred at the site, except that such discharges had to have occurred before the report was issued in 1989. That is before the property was purchased by P & L Salvage, Inc. During an unannounced inspection of the salvage yard by two Department employees on August 15, 1997, oil and other automotive fluids were observed on the ground at the site in the “disassembly area” and around the crusher. There were also stains on the ground that appeared to have been made by automotive fluids. No samples of the fluids were taken or analyzed at the time of the inspection. The Department inspectors told Marlene Ballard to cease discharging fluids onto the ground, but no enforcement action was initiated by the Department. Ms. Ballard was also told that she should consider removing the soil where the discharged fluids and staining were observed. In early 1998, RS Environmental was hired to excavate and remove soils from the site. This evidence was presumably presented by Respondents to indicate that they remediated the contaminated soils observed by the Department inspectors, but no details were offered about the area excavated to make this clear. In 2004, in conjunction with a proposed sale of the site, another Phase II investigation of the site was done by Professional Services Industries, Inc. (PSI), and a report was issued by PSI in May 2004. The PSI report is hearsay and, as such, cannot support a finding of fact regarding the matters stated in the report. Presumably as a result of its knowledge of the PSI report, the Department issued a certified letter to Ms. Ballard on June 24, 2005, informing her that the Department was aware of methyl tert-butyl ethylene (MTBE) contamination at the facility. MTBE is an octane enhancer added to gasoline. The Department’s June 2005 letter advised Ms. Ballard that Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-780 required “responsible parties” to file a site assessment report (SAR) within 270 days of becoming aware of such contamination. The letter also informed Ms. Ballard of the proximity of the City of Riviera Beach’s wellfield and the threat that represented to public drinking water. The June 2005 letter was returned to the Department unsigned. In October 2005, the Department arranged to have the letter to Marlene Ballard served by the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office. The Department received a confirmation of service document that shows the letter was served by a deputy on October 14, 2005, but this document is hearsay and does not support a finding that Ms. Ballard had knowledge of the contents of the letter. The Department did not receive an SAR within 270 days, but no enforcement action was immediately initiated. On December 15, 2006, the Department issued a six- count NOV to P & L. Salvage, Inc. P & L Salvage requested a hearing and the matter was referred to DOAH. In January 2007, in conjunction with Eagle Sanitation’s proposed sale of its purchase option to Prime Realty Capital, LLC, Alliance Consulting & Environmental Services, Inc., (Alliance) conducted a site assessment at the site and produced an SAR in April 2007. At that time, as indicated above, P & L Salvage had ceased operations at the site and Eagle Sanitation was operating its roll-off container business there. The SAR states that in January 2007, “[a]pproximately 80 yards of black stained oily-solidified shallow sands were excavated [by Eagle Sanitation] from the central and northeastern portions of the site, where car crushing, fluid draining and battery removal were historically conducted.” The soil contained lead, iron, chromium, cadmium, and arsenic, but testing did not show the excavated soils constituted hazardous materials and, therefore, the soils were disposed at the county landfill. The area of soils where the Department inspectors in 1997 observed automotive fluids and staining appears to have been included in the soils that were excavated and removed in 2007. The Department presented no evidence to the contrary. Testing by Alliance of other soils at the site showed “no significant petroleum metals concentrations” and Alliance did not recommend the removal of other soils. The presence of an MTBE “plume” of approximately 30,000 square feet (horizontal dimension) was also described in the SAR. The plume is in the area where the crusher was located. Several groundwater samples from the site showed MTBE in concentrations above the target cleanup limit. The City of Riviera Beach operates a public water supply wellfield near the site. The closest water well is approximately 250 feet from the site. The SAR concludes that “the potential exists for the MTBE plume to be pulled downward” toward the well, and recommends that a risk assessment be performed. Alliance recommended in the SAR that the MTBE contamination be remediated with “in-situ bioremediation” with oxygen enhancement. No remediation has occurred on the site since the date of the Alliance report. The Alliance report did not address the timing of contaminating discharges that occurred at the site. To the extent that Alliance reported contamination in 2007 that was not reported in the 1989 Goldcoast report, that is not sufficient, standing alone, to meet the Department’s burden of proof to show that P & L Salvage, Inc., caused “new” contamination after 1989. Competent evidence was not presented that the Alliance report describes “new” contamination. The authors of the reports were not called as witnesses. No expert testimony was presented on whether the data in the reports can establish the timing of contaminating discharges. It is not the role of the Administrative Law Judge, nor does he have the requisite expertise, to compare the environmental assessments conducted by Goldcoast and Alliance and make judgments about whether some of the contamination reported by Alliance had to have occurred after 1989. Although the Department’s expert, Paul Wierzbicki, testified that it was his opinion that the contamination was attributable to the “operations of the P & L Salvage yard facility,” he was answering a question about “what caused the contamination” and, in context, his testimony only confirmed that the type of contamination shown in the photographs and reported in the site assessment reports was the type of contamination associated with auto salvage yards. Mr. Wiezbicki’s testimony is not evidence which can support a finding that the contamination at the site, other than the automotive fluids and stained soils observed by the Department inspectors in 1997, was caused by P & L Salvage, Inc.1 On June 12, 2007, after reviewing the Site Assessment Report, the Department issued a letter to Marlene Ballard, requesting additional data and analysis. At the hearing, the Department presented a responding letter from Alliance dated June 21, 2007. It was disputed whether the Alliance letter is evidence of Ms. Ballard’s receipt and knowledge of the Department’s June 12, letter. However, even if Ms. Ballard did not know about the Department’s letter in June 2007, she certainly became aware of the letter in the course of this proceeding. The amended NOV issued in January 2008 mentions the letter, and the letter was listed as an exhibit in the parties’ June 4, 2008 Pre-hearing Stipulation. On January 24, 2008, the Department issued an amended NOV which dropped three counts from the original NOV and added two new counts. Most significantly, the amended NOV added Marlene Ballard and Thomas Ballard as Respondents. P & L Salvage and Marlene Ballard responded to the amended NOV with petitions for hearing. Thomas Ballard did not respond. At the hearing, the Department presented testimony of employees that were involved in this enforcement action regarding the value of their time expended on various tasks associated with this case. Bridget Armstrong spent eight hours inspecting the site of the contamination, eight hours drafting the NOV and consent order, approximately 30 hours reviewing technical documents, and 15 hours corresponding with Respondents. Ms. Armstrong’s salary at the time was about $20.00 per hour. Paul Wierzbicki spent 16 hours investigating facilities in the area, reviewing the contamination assessment reports, and overseeing the enforcement activity of his subordinates. Mr. Wierzbicki was paid $33.00 per hour. Kathleen Winston spent 10 hours reviewing a site assessment report and drafting correspondence. Ms. Winston’s salary at the time was $23.56 per hour. Geetha Selvendren spent 4-to-5 hours reviewing the site assessment report. She was paid $19.00 per hour at the time. Finally, Joseph Lurix spent three hours reviewing documents. His salary at the time was $34.97 per hour.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Phillips Petroleum Company, is the owner and operator of two retail gasoline stations situated at 2675 Volusia Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida and 13987 Walsingham Road, Largo, Florida. On July 6, 1989, Respondent's inspector, Ralph Myrick, made a routine inspection of the "super clean unleaded" gasoline at Petitioner's company-owned station at 2675 Volusia Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida. A sample of the super clean unleaded fuel was taken by inspector Myrick and was analyzed by Respondent. The analysis revealed that the super clean unleaded gasoline was contaminated with diesel fuel. On June 20, 1989, Petitioner converted its 4,000 gallon diesel tank to a super clean unleaded gasoline tank. During the conversion, Petitioner used a transport carrier to drain the diesel from the tank to a transport carrier. Petitioner thereafter utilized a maintenance contractor to pump all residue from the bottom of the tank until it was dry. Petitioner thereafter flushed the lines with 100 gallons of new gasoline product before refilling the tank with 3,700 gallons of super clean unleaded gasoline. The diesel which was pumped out and the 100 gallons used for flushing was returned to Petitioner's Jacksonville terminal by a transport carrier. On July 3, 1989, Petitioner received another 1,300 gallons of super clean unleaded gasoline and stored it in the converted tank which had previously been used to store diesel fuel. At the time of Respondent's inspection of the Daytona Beach station on July 6, 1989, Petitioner had sold to the public, at retail, approximately 2,337 gallons of the contaminated fuel. At the time of inspector Myrick's inspection on July 6, 1989, Petitioner was advised of the contamination problem and a "stop order" was issued to correct the problem. In lieu of confiscation, Petitioner posted a refundable bond in the amount of $1,000 and retained the fuel. Petitioner had its transport carrier to again completely drain the converted tank and Petitioner returned 2,663 gallons to its Jacksonville terminal. Petitioner ordered 2,600 gallons of new product which was returned to the subject station for sale. On March 12, 1990, inspector Myrick made a routine inspection of Petitioner's retail station at 13987 Walsingham Road, Largo, Florida. A sample of the detroleum product was taken and analyzed. Respondent's analysis of the sample taken from Petitioner's Largo station revealed that the fuel was below standard. Petitioner's agent Switz admitted that more than 1,000 gallons of fuel had been sold to retail customers at a price at approximately $1.00 or more per gallon. Petitioner placed a $1,000 cash bond in lieu of confiscation to continue operating and to retain the fuel which was analyzed and found to be below standard at its Largo station.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: Petitioner enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for a refund of the bonds posted in the subject cases. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 August, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: R. H. Switz Phillips Petroleum Company 3021 Landing Way Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Clinton H. Coulter, Jr., Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services May Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 John C. Whitton, Chief Bureau of Petroleum Inspection 3125 Conner Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Mallory Horne, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's site located at 13292 N.W. 118th Avenue in Miami, Florida is eligible for reimbursement of the costs of petroleum contamination cleanup pursuant to Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Rinker Material Corporation ("Rinker") owns and operates a site known as the Rinker FEC Quarry located at 13292 N.W. 118th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33127 (the "site"). At the Site, Rinker operated three (3) one thousand (1,000) gallon tanks which stored waste oil, virgin oil and hydraulic fluid. The DER Facility ID Number for the Site is 138628827. On December 2, 1988, Petitioner, as part of a tank replacement program that it was attempting to conduct in compliance with the applicable state and county regulations, began excavating the three underground storage tanks at the Site. During the excavation, a visible sheen was discovered. At the time of the excavation on December 2, 1988, Alan Gillespie of the Dade County Environmental Resource Management (DERM) was present to conduct a closure inspection of the Site. The December 2, 1988 closure inspection was conducted for Dade County DERM in its own capacity and not as an agent for DER. The purpose of the December 2, 1988 visit by Alan Gillespie was to inspect the removal and closure of the three 1,000 gallon tanks containing, respectively, waste oil, new oil and hydraulic fluid. Mr. Gillespie's inspection indicated that, while there appeared to be no holes in the tanks, free product was visible. Mr. Gillespie noted in his inspection report, dated December 2, 1988, that the contamination was not caused by a tank leak, but, instead, by overspills caused by the pouring of waste oil into the tank, spilling locally around the riser and then contaminating the soil around the tank. Rinker took samples at the Site and submitted them to a laboratory for analysis. It is not clear when the laboratory report was returned, but it generally takes two (2) weeks to obtain the laboratory analysis. Upon receipt of the laboratory report, Rinker initiated its efforts to apply for participation in the Inland Protection Trust Fund for reimbursement or site rehabilitation. In order to participate in the Inland Protection Trust Fund, an applicant was required to submit an Early Detection Incentive Program Notice (the "EDI Form") to DER prior to midnight on December 31,. 1988. The back of the EDI Form states that the form must be filed with and received by DER during the 15 month grace period beginning July 1, 1986 and ending October 1, 1987. The EDI program was; originally scheduled to end on September 30, 1987. However, the deadline for filing was extended by the legislature to December 31, 1988. The EDI Notification Form was not amended to change the dates to reflect subsequent amendments to the reporting date made by the legislature. While the back of the EDI Application Form indicates that the notification form must be filed with and received by DER on or prior to the initial deadline, DER considered as timely all applications with a postmark on or before the extended deadline of December 31, 1988. Petitioner's EDI Form for the Site was prepared by William Voshell, environmental manager for Rinker. Mr. Voshell was out of the state during the last few days of December, 1988. Petitioner's EDI Form was reviewed and signed by William Payne as Vice President of Real Estate for Rinker, on Friday, December 30, 1988. William Payne was informed by Mr. Voshell that the EDI Forms needed to be sent out before the end of the year. A cover letter accompanying the EDI Form for the Site was signed for Mr. Voshell by his secretary, Linda Vasquez on December 30, 1988. After signing the EDI Form, William Payne returned the application to Linda Vasquez to "process to mail". He reminded her that it had to be mailed that day. Ms. Vasquez placed the EDI Form and the cover letter in the Petitioner's mail system on December 30, 1988. The Certified Mail Number P 533059801 appears on the envelope containing Petitioner's EDI Form. January 3, 1989 was the first business day of 1989. The envelope containing the EDI Form was postmarked January 3, 1989. A certified mail return receipt attached to the envelope containing the EDI Form and cover letter shows that the return was stamped by the post office on January 3, 1989. The postal receipt for the EDI Form and cover letter was returned to Rinker from the post office on January 3, 1989. DER received Petitioner's EDI Form for the Site on January 9, 1989. Petitioner's normal procedure is to internally meter regular mail and affix a postmark date. However, certified or registered mail is metered and taken to the post office for processing. Registered mail received in the Petitioner's mailroom on December 30, 1988 should have been metered and taken to the post office for processing the same day or at the latest the next business day (December 31st, a Saturday). After the EDI Form was filed but prior to the eligibility determination, Petitioner was required to submit Site characterization information and documentation of the Site conditions before the initiation of cleanup. The evidence did not establish the expense or costs incurred by Rinker in gathering this information. Prior to ruling on Petitioner's EDI application, DER, through DERM, conducted an eligibility inspection at the Site. Alan Gillespie of DERM conducted the EDI eligibility inspection on April 20, 1989. During an EDI inspection, the inspector examines and reports on the existing conditions of a facility including: recordkeeping, the age of the tanks and the conditions of the monitoring wells and whether there is any negligence involved with the contamination that has occurred. During the April 20, 1989 inspection, Alan Gillespie reported that the three 1,000 gallon underground tanks had been removed and replaced with a new aboveground petroleum storage system. On the EDI inspection report, Mr. Gillespie reported evidence of soil contamination and/or recent product loss and noted that such contamination was discovered at the time of tank removal. After completion of the April 20, 1989 inspection report, Mr. Gillespie's supervisor at DERM sent the report to DER in Tallahassee. In 1989, final Early Detection Incentive Program or Reimbursement Program eligibility determinations were made in Tallahassee by DER. At the time of the EDI eligibility inspection of the Site on April 20, 1989, the role of Dade County DERM was only to conduct an EDI inspection at the site and to forward the information to Tallahassee. Prior to making an eligibility determination on the Site, Patricia Dugan, Environmental Administrator of the DER Petroleum Cleanup Reimbursement Section, reviewed the EDI application, the inspections from DERM, documentation of the site conditions prior to initiation of cleanup and the envelope that the application came in. On November 23, 1989, DER issued an order finding the Site to be ineligible for participation in the Reimbursement Program. Initially, Petitioner's reimbursement application was deemed ineligible because of mixed contamination (i.e., the Site contained used oil) and because the application was deemed untimely. Subsequent to the date of the denial, certain legal decisions made it clear that, contrary to DER's position, sites containing used oil were eligible for participation in the Reimbursement Program. Thus, the only remaining predicate for DER's denial of Rinker's application is that the application was not timely filed. Because Petitioner's EDI application was postmarked on January 3, 1989, after the December 31, 1988 statutory deadline, the Petitioner's application was deemed untimely by DER. DER's policy of relying on the postmark date for purposes of determining timeliness was informally arrived at in 1987. DER has never promulgated a rule on this matter nor conveyed its interpretation to affected parties. Petitioner could have and would have internally placed a postmark date of December 30, 1988 on the envelope containing the EDI Form had it been aware of DER's policy.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order approving Petitioner's application for eligibility under the state's reimbursement program. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23rd day of July, 1990. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 23rd day of July, 1990. APPENDIX Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The following constitutes my rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3, 9 and 10. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 17 and 20. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 26. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 22, 36, 37 and 38. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 37 and 38. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 40. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 41. Rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. Rejected as argument rather than a finding of fact. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 2. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 25. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 22. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 21. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 16. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 18. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 19. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 23. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 24. Rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 22. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 15. 17. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 15. 18. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 37, 38 and 39. 19. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. 20. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. 21. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6. 22. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7. 23. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 8. 24. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 28. 25. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 29. 26. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 30. 27. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 31. 28. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 32. 29. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 33. 30. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 34. 31. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 36. 32. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 35. 33. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 37. 34. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 39. 35. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 15. 36. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 12. 37. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 14. 38. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 15. 39. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 36, 37 and 38. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard A. Pettigrew, Esquire Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33181 Janet E. Bowman Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale W. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 =================================================================
The Issue General Project Description 6 Economic Benefits and Cost Savings from Project 7 Fuel Cost Savings from Conversion to Orimulsion 7 Socioeconomic Impacts and Benefits of the Project 10 Project Site and Vicinity 13 Lan Use and Comprehensive Plan Consistency 14 Existing Plant and Facilities 16 Orimulsion Conversion Project; Modified and New Facilities 20 Fuels and Fuel Delivery, Storage and Transportation 20 Air Emission Controls 22 Water Uses and Treatment 24 By-Product Reuse and Disposal 24 Rail and Road Improvements 28 Surface Water Management Systems 29 Project Construction and Schedule 30 Transportation 31 Noise Impacts 34 Archaeological and Historic Sites 34 Air Emissions, Controls, and Impacts 34 Existing and Proposed Emissions 34 Best Available Control Technology for 36 Nox Air Quality Impact Analysis 45 Effect of Proposed NOx Emissions on Ozone Levels 46 Effect of Proposed NOx Emissions on Water Quality 51 Human Health Risks Associated with Proposed Air Emissions 57 Plant Water Supply and Use 59 Water Supply 59 Cooling Pond 62 Impacts of Groundwater Withdrawals and Discharges 64 Wetland Impacts and Mitigation 68 Impacts to Flora and Fauna Including Listed Species 70 Impacts of Water Withdrawals on Little Manatee River and Tampa Bay 71 Potential Impacts of Fuel Spills 75 Spill Prevention 76 Spill Mitigation 79 Ecological Effects of Orimulsion Released in Tampa Bay 87 COSAP's Comparative Ecological Risk Assessment (CERA) 90 COSAP CERA Conclusions 92 Peer Review of COSAP Research and Conclusions 92 Effects of Estrogenic Compounds Following a Spill 93 Summary of Comparative Spill Risks 95
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. Economic Benefits and Cost Savings from Project Fuel Cost Savings from Conversion to Orimulsion The conversion of the Plant to burn Orimulsion is the best way that FPL has found to reduce the cost of the electricity it produces and to reduce FPL's dependency on any single type of fuel. The conversion is projected to result in approximately $4.0 billion (or $1.5 billion net present value in 1998 dollars) of savings to FPL's customers over 20 years under FPL's base case, or most likely fuel price forecast. These savings represent the net amount by which FPL's savings in fuel costs ($4.4 billion) and SO2 emission allowance costs ($169 million) are projected to exceed FPL's revenue requirements for the Plant modifications over 20 years ($180 million) and increased operation and maintenance costs ($382 million). FPL sought advance approval from the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC) of the method for recovering the costs of the Project and the method of passing through to its customers the Project's net savings. In Order No. PSC-94-1106-FOF-EI, issued September 7, 1994, the FPSC found that "FPL's plan to convert its two Manatee units to burn Orimulsion is reasonable and prudent." Under that order, the net savings from the Project will be passed on directly to FPL's customers through reduced charges in the fuel cost recovery clause portion of customers' monthly bills. These fuel savings result because Orimulsion is priced by contract equivalent to the price of coal delivered to the St. Johns River Power Park plant in Jacksonville. The price of that coal is much lower than the price of oil or natural gas that FPL purchases, and coal prices are forecast to remain low and stable in the future. It is expected that the Plant's reduced fuel cost will cause the Plant to run more often under the principle of economic dispatch by which FPL operates its generating system. Orimulsion burned at the Plant will also displace the burning of higher- priced fuels elsewhere on FPL's system, to the extent not required as a result of population growth or changes in arrangements for the purchase of power, as other units using higher-priced fuels are operated less frequently. To determine whether the Project would provide savings under extreme conditions, FPL performed what it called an "acid test" analysis which assumed that future prices of oil and gas would not continue to diverge from the price of coal and Orimulsion. Under this conservative (though unlikely) scenario, the Project would still produce approximately $655 million ($261 million net present value in 1998 dollars) of savings to FPL's customers over 20 years. The Project is a continuation of the effort that FPL began in the late 1970's to obtain a balanced fuel mix, so that future volatility in the price of oil, and events such as the oil shocks of the 1970's, would not affect the cost of electricity to FPL's customers. FPL has reduced the amount of oil-fired generation in its fuel mix from 56 percent in 1981 to 31 percent in 1994 by the addition of nuclear and coal plants to its system, as well as by obtaining firm supplies of natural gas. With the conversion of the Plant to Orimulsion, oil generation would be reduced to 9 percent of FPL's energy mix by 1999. From an economic perspective, the Plant is the best site for an Orimulsion conversion. Because of economies of scale in converting a large plant to a new fuel, and because the Plant currently burns one of the most expensive grades of fuel oil on FPL's system, conversion of the Plant maximizes the Project savings. The Plant has port access and a pipeline which facilitates the safe and economic delivery of Orimulsion. As one of the newest plants in the FPL system, the Plant will have a long time in service following conversion. It is reasonable to expect that Orimulsion will be a stable fuel source. Bitor America Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bitor S.A., which in turn is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Petroleos de Venezuela, the national energy company of Venezuela and the fourth largest energy company in the world. Petroleos de Venezuela companies have an excellent record of contract performance. The recoverable reserves of bitumen from which Orimulsion is made exceed 40 billion metric tons, comparable to the amount of crude oil in Saudi Arabia. Fuel production facilities planned and in place in Venezuela are more than adequate to meet the needs of the Plant. The conversion of the Plant to natural gas is not a viable alternative. Such a conversion would not reduce electricity costs to FPL's customers, but instead would increase them by approximately $233 million over 20 years due to the relatively higher cost of natural gas compared to the No. 6 fuel oil currently used at the Plant. Socioeconomic Impacts and Benefits of the Project The Project will have a positive impact on the economy of Manatee and Hillsborough Counties. Construction employment will average 347 direct employees over the two-year construction period, for a direct payroll ranging from $12.5 to $17.5 million in 1996, $19.0 to $24 million in 1997, and over $2 million in the first quarter of 1998. An average of 333 indirect jobs also will be created during construction by increased expenditures of construction employees, for average indirect wages of $6.4 million a year. Operation of the Project will result in 190 new jobs with an annual payroll of about $4.5 million. This includes 40 direct permanent jobs at the Plant with an annual payroll of $1.5 to $2.0 million, and 69 additional indirect jobs with a $1.3 million annual payroll. Trucking of limestone, gypsum and fly- ash will create another 45 direct jobs and 36 indirect jobs, with a combined annual payroll of $1.5 million. FPL's property taxes paid to Manatee County government will increase by $700,000 per year and port charges paid by FPL to Port Manatee for fuel shipments through that port will more than triple, to about $2.2 million per year. Assuming that the new operations employees will be new residents to the area, the increased employment will result in approximately $203,000 of additional costs to Manatee County for community services. This compares to additional tax revenues to Manatee County from those families and the Plant of about $2,530,000 per year, for a net positive governmental revenue impact of about $2.3 million per year. Additional annual tax revenues of $108,000 to Hillsborough County are within 10 percent of the additional annual cost of services of about $119,000 per year for employees expected to reside in that County. Fuel savings from the Project will have a significant positive impact on economic activity in the state. The $4.0 billion in net savings over 20 years will generate an average of $136 million a year in increased sales or business activity in the state, $41 million a year in increased earnings, and an average of 2,056 new jobs, in addition to the local economic impacts of construction and operation of the Plant. Overall electric bill savings to tax-supported governmental customers of FPL will range from $1.75 million to $22.83 million a year, even assuming that these customers' electric consumption does not increase from 1994-95 levels. This money will be available either to fund additional governmental services, or to reduce or offset tax increases. The Project will enable FPL to be a more competitive electric utility by substantially reducing its fuel costs, which are about 99 percent of the variable costs of generation, about two-thirds of the total cost of generation, and about one-quarter of the retail price of electricity. Conversion will make the Plant cost competitive with coal-fired plants in adjacent and nearby states, with which FPL will have to compete if and when retail wheeling -- the ability of customers to choose their supplier of electric generation -- becomes a reality in Florida. In the long run, by allowing FPL to remain a low-cost provider of electricity, the Project will help keep electric generating business activity in Florida, with the associated jobs, tax revenues, and economic activity. This creates a win- win-win situation for FPL's customers, FPL's investors, and the citizens of Florida. 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. Principal access to the Plant site is provided from State Road 62 which intersects with U.S. Highway 301 to the west. The FPL-owned rail line that serves the site connects to the Palmetto area, southeast of the Plant. An existing FPL fuel pipeline connects the Plant site to Port Manatee, approximately 14 miles to the northwest. Existing electrical transmission lines run east and west from the Plant site. The Project will be undertaken within a 470-acre parcel which encompasses the existing Plant and other existing facilities, including two 500,000-barrel fuel storage tanks, wastewater treatment areas, switchyards, and other buildings. The Project site also includes areas that are currently used for agriculture that may be used for storage and disposal of by- products from the new pollution control equipment. The existing 9,500-acre site includes a 4,000-acre cooling pond which provides cooling water to the power plant. A makeup water pumping station located on the Little Manatee River provides makeup water to the cooling pond. A spillway structure for emergency releases during high water levels in the pond is also located along the Little Manatee River. Other on-site facilities include various maintenance buildings, an existing electrical switchyard and an on-site rail spur. The other areas of the Plant site are used for various agricultural, cattle or timber operations. Existing land uses within 5 miles of the Plant site consist mainly of agricultural and pasture lands, interspersed with low-density residential areas and undeveloped vegetative areas. Individual residences are located on one of the two outparcels that are located within the boundaries of the Plant site, as well as along State Road 62 at the southern perimeter of the site and along Saffold Road to the northeast. FPL also owns and operates an existing fuel terminal along the eastern edge of Tampa Bay as an associated facility for the Plant. The 55-acre fuel terminal is located at Port Manatee, approximately 14 miles northwest of the Plant in the unincorporated area of northwestern Manatee County. Light and heavy industrial uses are located in the immediate area surrounding the terminal. Land Use and Comprehensive Plan Consistency The site is an appropriate location for the Project from a land use planning perspective and will not cause any adverse impact on land use. The Project involves installation of pollution control equipment at an existing power plant site that has been used for power generation since the 1970s. The area in which the Project will be undertaken is located some distance from adjacent to surrounding properties. A 350-foot landscaped buffer will be established adjacent to the nearest property west of the Project area. A landscaped buffer will also be established to screen the site from residences located to the south along State Road 62. The Project also will comply with the development standards contained in the Manatee County Land Development Code, with the exception of one aspect of the landscape standards for which FPL is seeking a variance. The Manatee County Code, Section 715.6.5, allows the County Planning Director to approve relocation of up to 30 percent of the required landscaping to another portion of the site. The requested variance would allow 100 percent of the landscaping materials normally installed as foundation plantings for new buildings and parking lots to be placed instead within the designated landscape buffers near the boundaries of the site. The variance would allow landscaping to be done where it would benefit the most people. The Project will comply with all other applicable ordinances and regulations of Manatee County, including the County noise ordinance and building codes, if the 53 conditions recommended by Manatee County are included in the certification order. The Project, if approved with the conditions proposed by Manatee County, is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the adopted Manatee County Comprehensive Plan with one exception relating to the wetland mitigation ratios contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The site is designated for power plant use under the Manatee County Future Land Use Map under both the agricultural rural classification and the Public/Semi-Public I uses. Objective 3.2.1 of the County's plan is to maintain and enhance water quality and quantity of Lake Manatee; the Project is consistent with the septic tank use and other policies through which the objective is to be achieved under the plan. The Project will comply with Manatee County zoning standards. The Project site also is consistent with the goals and objectives of the State Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan of the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. 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. Cooling water is continuously pumped from the cooling pond through the Plant condensers and heat exchangers that absorb the rejected energy from the steam turbine. Heated water from the condensers is discharged back into the cooling pond where the energy is dissipated to the atmosphere through evaporation. Ultimately, the cooling water circulates through the pond back to the Plant intake structure and is recirculated through the Plant condensers and heat exchangers. Water loss is continually experienced in the cooling pond as a result of evaporation. Water losses from the pond also occur due to seepage through the pond embankment and bottom and as a result of other Plant water consumptive uses. Makeup water is therefore required to maintain the pond at its design operational level. Makeup water is currently provided through a combination of rainfall and water diverted from the Little Manatee River. A system of toe drains around the perimeter of the pond also captures the seepage through the embankments and returns that water to the pond. Service water, including process water for current operation of the Plant, is primarily obtained from the cooling pond, with three existing on-site wells used as a backup source. Service water is used for various processes in the Plant, such as soot blowing from boiler surfaces and for fire protection. The Plant process water system also provides ultra-pure water for the Plant, such as for makeup to the steam and water cycles in the power generating process. The existing wastewater treatment facility for the Plant includes two lined neutralization basins, two lined solids settling basins, a drying basin, and a lined stormwater basin for collection of runoff from equipment areas. Such stormwater runoff is stored in the stormwater basin, drained through an oil/water separator and recycled to the cooling pond. Industrial wastewaters are treated either in the neutralization basins or in the solid settling basins and recycled to the cooling pond. Collected solids are periodically transferred to a drying basin where they are stored and dried prior to off-site disposal in a licensed facility. FPL receives No. 6 fuel oil for the Plant at Port Manatee, to the northwest. Fuel is stored at the existing fuel terminal near Port Manatee, transferred to the Plant via a 14- mile-long buried pipeline, and then stored in storage facilities at the Plant. At Port Manatee, vessels are moored at the port berth and unloaded through dockside unloading hoses. Fuel unloading is monitored continuously by personnel at the dock as well as operators at the terminal. Fuel is transferred from the port berth to the FPL Port Manatee terminal via a 1.7-mile, 30-inch diameter pipeline which is cathodically protected against corrosion and hydrostatically tested annually to insure its continued integrity. At the Port Manatee terminal, fuel is stored in two 500,000-barrel fuel storage tanks that are contained within earthen berms to provide secondary containment in the event of an overfill or loss of a storage tank. The four fuel storage tanks at Port Manatee and at the Plant are equipped with safety shutdowns to prevent overfilling of the tanks. The four storage tanks are cathodically protected against corrosion. Fuel is transferred from the Port Manatee terminal to two 500,000-barrel fuel storage tanks at the Plant via a 14-mile- long, 16-inch-diameter steel pipeline. The pipeline is jacketed and coated to provide corrosion resistance and also is cathodically protected by an impressed electrical current to dampen corrosion of the pipeline. The pipeline is equipped with a midpoint block valve as well as valves at the terminal and at the Plant ends of the pipeline. Both pipeline facilities are patrolled at least 26 times a year by FPL and are enrolled in the State's "One-Call" locating system to advise FPL in the event that excavation occurs near the pipelines. During all transfers of fuel, continuous monitoring of the transfers is conducted by monitoring the volumes of fuel transferred across the pipeline. 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. Fuels and Fuel Delivery, Storage and Transportation 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. Orimulsion will be transported from Venezuela to Port Manatee by Bitor America Corporation. Ownership of the Orimulsion will transfer to FPL when the fuel passes the flange between the vessel and offloading hose at Port Manatee. Following the conversion of the Plant to Orimulsion, there will be approximately 100 vessels each year delivering Orimulsion to Port Manatee, which is approximately double the number of current No. 6 fuel oil deliveries to FPL. The system used currently for delivery of No. 6 fuel oil from Port Manatee to the Plant will be used in the future for deliveries of Orimulsion. Prior to the conversion of the Plant to Orimulsion, new unloading hoses will be installed at Port Manatee and pressure tested to insure their structural integrity. All four fuel oil storage tanks will be inspected and improved through the installation of internal fiberglass liners. The 14-mile fuel delivery pipeline will be electronically inspected using a "smart pig" that will survey the wall thickness of the entire circumference of the pipeline. Following conversion, a "smart pigging" inspection program will be implemented for the 14-mile pipeline with the first inspection within 30 months and then conducted every five years. The monitoring system for the 14- mile fuel pipeline will be upgraded to incorporate a computer- based monitoring system that will be tied into FPL's leak detection system for the pipeline. This new leak detection system will lower the detection limit for the pipeline down to 25 barrels. In addition, FPL will continue to perform tank-to-tank mass balances and end-of-batch inventory reconciliation to track fuel leaving the terminal and arriving at the Plant. These measures will allow FPL to detect a leak as small as 1/64th of an inch in the pipeline. These fuel storage and transportation facilities will continue to be operated in accordance with all applicable regulations. Over the past 17 years, FPL has experienced no leaks or breaks in these pipelines. In the event a future leak or break occurs, operation of the pipeline involved will be halted immediately upon detection and the pipeline will be surveyed to locate evidence of fuel outside the pipeline. FPL would then conduct appropriate cleanup and remediation, using techniques similar to those used to clean up fuel oil spills on land. Air Emission Controls 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. Water Uses and Treatment The conversion to Orimulsion will increase service and process water uses within the Plant. The principal increase in such water use will be for the new pollution control equipment. Water from the groundwater wells will be used directly in the scrubber with a membrane softener system added, if needed, to treat hardness in the well water. Additional process water treatment systems will be installed, consisting primarily of an upgrade of an existing reverse osmosis plant to provide up to 500 gallons per minute of process water for use in the boiler makeup water system and in soot blowing. The existing industrial wastewater treatment system will continue to handle wastewaters produced by the converted Plant with a new wastewater treatment plant added to treat rinse and wash waters from the existing solids settling basin. Treated wastewaters from both the wastewater treatment system and the water treatment systems will be recycled to the cooling pond to the maximum extent practicable. The existing potable water treatment system and domestic wastewater treatment system will not require any changes as a result of the conversion except to extend distribution lines and service lines, respectively, to the new buildings. By-Product Reuse and Disposal Gypsum recovered from the scrubber will be dewatered, filtered, and rinsed to produce high-quality gypsum usable as the primary ingredient in wallboard or dry wall. Pure Air of Manatee has a 20-year contract for National Gypsum to use the scrubber gypsum to produce wallboard at its Tampa production plant. Use of scrubber gypsum to manufacture wallboard has occurred for many years, including use by National Gypsum. In addition to this major off-site use of gypsum, Pure Air has contracts to supply local cement manufacturers with gypsum for use in the manufacture of Portland cement. The combined capacity of the contracts is greater than the converted Plant's annual gypsum production. Flyash will be collected in the ESPs and conveyed by pneumatic conveyor system to totally enclosed silos. The flyash will then be fed into a processing facility to make commercial by- products for shipment to off-site users. Pure Air has developed several potential commercial uses for flyash with the primary market expected to be the asphalt products industry. Pure Air is seeking to sell all of the flyash to that industry. In addition, flyash may be sold for use in Portland cement manufacturing. These environmentally sound uses of flyash would add value to the ultimate products produced. The volume of flyash to be produced at the Plant could be used entirely by three cement manufacturers within the Manatee County/Hillsborough County area. A 15-acre temporary storage area for the gypsum by- product will be constructed west of the existing Plant. The purpose of this temporary by-product storage area is to stockpile gypsum so that it can be supplied to the off-site users when the Plant is shut down for maintenance or to store it during periods when the wallboard manufacturer or cement plants may not be in operation. Normally, one to two months of gypsum will be stored in this area, which will have capacity for up to six months of gypsum production. Gypsum will be trucked to the on-site temporary by-product storage area over internal roads. It will be reclaimed as needed and transported to the various manufacturing facilities. While there are no specific agency regulations or design standards that apply to the design and operation of the temporary by-product storage area, FPL has committed that the storage area will be lined with a composite gypsum/synthetic liner designed in accordance with DEP's liner requirements for phosphogypsum management under Rule 62-673, F.A.C. The design of the storage area will comply with all of the design criteria of DEP Rule 62-673, F.A.C. Use of these design standards as a guide will insure that surface water and groundwater will be adequately protected from any impacts associated with the temporary by- product storage area. The temporary by-product storage area is outside the 100-year flood plain, is not located within 200 feet of any natural or artificial surface water body that might receive untreated surface discharges, and is not within 500 feet of an existing or approved drinking water supply. Any rainfall that contacts the stored gypsum will be collected and used as makeup water in the pollution control system and not discharged off-site. The storage area will be bermed to contain rainfall from a 100-year/24-hour storm event. Groundwater monitoring wells will be installed around the temporary by-product storage area and sampled semiannually to monitor for any possible groundwater contamination from the storage area. To insure long term operation of the converted Plant, the Project design has included a 158-acre on-site disposal area for gypsum and flyash. The long-term disposal area will only be constructed if it becomes infeasible, impracticable, or uneconomical to continue to sell the by- products or to use off- site disposal facilities. The backup by-product disposal area would be located west of the existing units and is sized to hold 100 percent of the by-products generated over a 20-year period. While no specific agency regulations or design standards apply to the backup by- product disposal area, it would be designed in accordance with the requirements of Rule 62-701, F.A.C., which establishes design standards for Class I landfills. The gypsum disposal area, designed for a full 20 years of by- product, would be approximately 100 acres with a maximum height of 115 feet above ground surface. The separate flyash disposal area would be approximately 20 acres with a maximum height of 45 feet. The other 38 acres would be used for stormwater and leachate ponds and perimeter berms and roads. The disposal areas would be divided into ten phases or cells, each holding approximately two years of ash or gypsum production from the Plant. This phasing would minimize the required construction which further minimizes environmental damage, including impacts to wetlands. A 350-foot-wide vegetated buffer would be maintained between the western edge of the disposal area and the FPL property line along the nearest outparcel. The by-product disposal area will be constructed with a double liner system to prevent impacts to groundwater. The bottom liner will be above the seasonal high groundwater table. The disposal area will have a primary leachate collection system above the upper liner and a secondary leachate collection system between the upper and lower liners. The leachate will drain to sumps in the leachate collection system and then will be pumped to two double-lined leachate ponds capable of containing a 25- year/24-hour storm event with three feet of freeboard. Any leachate collected in the ponds will be pumped for use in the pollution control equipment and not be discharged off-site. Once a disposal cell is filled, it will be closed and capped with a synthetic geomembrane and protected by about two feet of soil to prevent rainfall from leaching in and contacting the gypsum or flyash. The soil will be grassed to prevent erosion. Following closure of the disposal area, continuing maintenance and monitoring will be undertaken. Rail and Road Improvements FPL will construct new turn lanes and acceleration lanes at the intersection of the Plant entrance road and State Road 62. These roadway improvements will facilitate turning in and out of the Plant and reduce delays for through traffic on State Road 62. FPL will improve the existing rail line serving the Plant and install a new rail curve where the existing Plant spur intersects with the existing rail line north of the Plant. The existing rail line between the Plant and Palmetto will be repaired and maintained to American Railway Engineering Association Class I standards. This rail line will be used for delivery of materials during construction and maintenance of the existing units and in the future, if feasible opportunities or needs develop, to transport limestone to the site and remove gypsum and flyash from the site. Surface Water Management Systems Construction and operation of the Project will involve treatment, storage and management of surface water runoff resulting from rainfall on the Project site. A surface water management system and associated facilities, consisting of a series of swales, culverts, and treatment ponds, already exist within much of the Project site. During Project construction, the existing stormwater treatment areas will provide management of stormwater runoff and will meet the applicable regulations of SWFWMD, Manatee County and other agencies. During operation, rainfall that falls within areas that could potentially be contaminated by fuels are treated as industrial wastewater and treated in the Plant's industrial wastewater treatment system prior to discharge to the cooling pond. As part of the Project, new drainage areas with stormwater runoff that may potentially contact Orimulsion will be isolated from the existing runoff collection system and processed through a new, lined stormwater basin and a new bitumen/water separator. A new stormwater detention pond will be constructed south of the power block to capture and treat runoff from new roadways. A perimeter swale system will be constructed to serve the new railroad curve between the existing main rail line and the existing Plant spur. Rainfall within the area around the three new wells adjacent to the west bank of the cooling pond will be captured in a closed system designed to hold a 100- year/24-hour storm. At the Plant fuel terminal, the existing surface water management system will be modified to incorporate a new bitumen/water separator, in addition to the existing oil/water separator. The water will be discharged within the embankment area around the fuel storage tanks, which has the capacity to hold the rainfall from a 100-year/24-hour storm. For the 15-acre temporary gypsum storage area, a perimeter berm will contain a 100- year/24-hour rainfall within the storage area. This rainfall will be isolated from the watershed and pumped to the pollution control equipment for use as makeup water. For the 158-acre backup by- product disposal area for gypsum and flyash, rainfall that may come in contact with by-products in open cells will be pumped to a separate stormwater and leachate pond and recycled as makeup water to the pollution control equipment. Runoff from closed portions of the disposal area will be routed to new stormwater ponds, treated and pumped to the cooling pond. All of these stormwater management facilities will comply with the criteria for water quality treatment and water quantity retention prior to discharge, as established by the SWFWMD, Manatee County, the DEP and the Steam Electric Guidelines under 40 CFR Part 423. 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. Transportation FPL conducted traffic analyses to determine if the existing roadways in the area would operate within established levels of service based upon increased volumes of traffic associated both with construction and operation at the site. During construction, the magnitude of traffic impacts will be directly related to the number of construction employees. While peak construction employment is expected to reach 577 employees, for purposes of the traffic impact analysis it was assumed that construction employment would peak at 640 employees, representing a worst case assumption. During Plant operations, 40 new employees are expected to work at the Plant. In addition, trucks will be used to deliver limestone and remove gypsum and flyash from the site. The maximum number of trucks used for this purpose would represent 202 round trips per day, in and out of the Plant site. However, it is expected that the same trucks used to remove gypsum from the site will be used to backhaul limestone into the site. Backhauling would reduce the number of trucks for delivery of limestone and gypsum to about 60 percent of the maximum level. Existing roadways and intersections in the site vicinity are currently operating at acceptable levels of service as adopted by county and state transportation agencies. A traffic impact analysis, using conservative methodologies and assumptions, demonstrated that with the additional Project traffic, the area roadway network and intersections will continue to operate acceptably in accordance with agency standards and levels of service. All of the roadways in Manatee County and Hillsborough County that would be used for truck traffic are designated by functional classifications for truck traffic. All of these roadway segments are currently serving through traffic and truck traffic today. While Project-related traffic will comply with applicable agency standards, FPL has committed to several roadway improvements to enhance traffic-related movements in the area. FPL will construct a left-turn lane from State Road 62 into the Plant entrance, as well as a west-bound acceleration lane along State Road 62 leaving the site. These improvements will reduce delay for traffic travelling along State Road 62 past the FPL site. FPL will fund installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of State Road 62 and U.S. 301 west of the Plant site, if the Florida Department of Transportation decides that traffic signal is warranted. Project truck traffic for delivery of limestone and removal of gypsum will be limited during morning hours when school buses would be operating along the trucking haul route. In addition, FPL will install school bus stop signs and school bus shelters along the primary haul route. FPL will pay its fair share of the cost of any deterioration of area roadway surfaces caused by the Project's trucks. These improvements are beyond what would be required to comply with applicable agency standards as all of the roadway facilities are operating within agency standards. Rail delivery of limestone and removal of gypsum was considered during the original development of the Project. However, rail shipments of these products was deemed not to be feasible currently for several reasons. Investigations showed that both the gypsum that would be produced at the Plant and the limestone and limerock likely to be delivered to the Plant cannot be unloaded from conventional rail cars, based on testing of available rail car types. Several of the limestone quarries that may be used to supply limestone do not have rail access or rail facilities. Also, National Gypsum does not have rail facilities for unloading gypsum at its existing plant. Moreover, if use of rail shipments were feasible, trains hauling gypsum to the Tampa wallboard manufacturing plant would pass through 150 at-grade crossings in Manatee and Hillsborough counties and the rail route would go through downtown Tampa. Noise Impacts Noise impacts from the Project will not exceed applicable noise standards. Archaeological and Historic Sites The Project will not affect any known archaeological or historical sites. Appropriate Conditions of Certification have been proposed to protect such resources if discovered later. 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, deter- mines is achievable through application of pro- duction 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. Plant Water Supply and Use Water Supply FPL is currently withdrawing water from the Little Manatee River under a valid Permit Agreement entered with the SWFWMD in 1973 and amended in 1975. As part of the Project, FPL will significantly reduce the amount of water it is allowed to withdraw from the Little Manatee River. Maximum allowed withdrawals for the 16-year period 1978-1993 could have been up to an average of 28.4 million gallons per day (MGD) under the Permit Agreement. By way of comparison, if the stipulated Conditions of Certification had been in effect during the same 16-year period, withdrawals would have been approximately 9.4 MGD (average) if FPL had used the full 10 percent maximum allowable withdrawals. Following the conversion to Orimulsion, the Plant will have similar requirements for cooling and process water but at increased quantities over historical levels of use. The existing Permit Agreement between FPL and the SWFWMD would allow FPL to obtain sufficient water for all its Project needs under its currently authorized withdrawals from the Little Manatee River. Rather than obtaining all the needed water from the Little Manatee River, however, the additional 9.5 MGD of water needed for the Project above historical levels will be supplied through the use of 5 million gallons per day of reclaimed water from local wastewater treatment facilities, or equivalent sources of water, and 4.36 MGD of groundwater from existing permitted sources. The order of priority for meeting the Plant's water needs following conversion to Orimulsion will be: (1) 5 MGD of reclaimed treated wastewater delivered to the cooling pond; (2) existing permitted groundwater withdrawals of 4.36 MGD for use in either the cooling pond or directly in the plant's process water systems; and (3) the use of withdrawals from the Little Manatee River, up to 10 percent of the daily flow, to meet the remaining water needs of the plant. Predicted diversions from the Little Manatee River would average approximately 8.3 MGD. This is approximately the same as historical diversions from the River since 1974 (including the "big gulp" to fill the cooling pond initially), compared to the approximately 6.4 MGD withdrawn during the 16-year period 1978-1993. The stipulated Conditions of Certification provide for reclaimed water to be used following conversion to Orimulsion will be treated wastewater supplied by the Manatee Agricultural Reuse Supply (MARS) system or other reclaimed water source. (At the time of the final hearing, negotiation of the terms of FPL's use of MARS reuse water had not yet been completed.) FPL will be able to take this treated wastewater during periods of time when farmers will not need such water for agricultural uses. Thus, deliveries to FPL could range between 2 MGD and 14 MGD. FPL's use of reclaimed water from MARS would allow the County to expand that program by providing a baseload amount of water to be taken by FPL from that system. This would allow Manatee County to avoid having to build other storage facilities for treated wastewater. FPL will install three new groundwater wells west of the cooling pond to obtain 4.36 million gallons per day of groundwater from the Floridan aquifer for use in the Plant following conversion to Orimulsion. These new wells will be constructed to meet current SWFWMD well construction standards and replace older wells that do not meet current standards. The new wells would lessen the existing impacts on the upper aquifers by preventing the exchange of contaminants between the aquifers. This quantity of water represents amounts already permitted for use both at the Plant site for plant use and on-site agricultural operations and at adjacent agricultural operations. An additional 2.7 MGD of reclaimed water will be supplied to the adjacent agricultural operations to replace the existing, permitted, off-site groundwater withdrawals that are being transferred to FPL's use. Withdrawals from the Little Manatee River will be made using the computerized withdrawal system operated by FPL under a diversion schedule that allows increased withdrawals as river flow increases. This system is controlled by using river stage height as an indicator of river flow rate. This system allows FPL to respond quickly to changes in river elevation when making withdrawals. This system will be reprogrammed to the new diversion curves to prevent withdrawals above 10 percent of the river flow on a daily basis. Withdrawals from the Little Manatee River under the proposed Conditions of Certification would not occur when the flow in the Little Manatee River is below 40 cubic feet per second (cfs). Forty (40) cfs is the minimum flow level established by the SWFWMD to protect the ecology of the Little Manatee River. The pumps can withdraw no more than 190 cfs. If the water level in the cooling pond falls below 62 feet above mean sea level (msl), FPL is authorized by the proposed Conditions of Certification to request approval from SWFWMD to increase withdrawals above 10 percent of stream flow from the Little Manatee River to restore the pond water level to 63 feet above msl. Such withdrawals would be made in accordance with three "emergency diversion curves" that limit withdrawals from the River on a seasonal basis with higher withdrawals during the wet season. The three sources of water to be used by the Plant following conversion to Orimulsion represent the lowest overall quality of water suitable for operation of the Plant. Withdrawals of groundwater and surface water from the Little Manatee River are regulated by Chapter 373, F.S., and Chapter 40D-2, F.A.C. The proposed withdrawals do not interfere with existing legal users, are reasonable-beneficial uses, are in the public interest, and otherwise comply with all applicable requirements of those chapters. Cooling Pond FPL performed analyses of the cooling pond's thermal performance and predictions of future water quality in the cooling pond, following conversion to Orimulsion and increased utilization of the Plant. A computer-based energy balance model demonstrated that the pond would operate within the desired temperature limits, and maximum water levels. Water quality in the cooling pond following 20 years of operation was also predicted using several computer models. Water quality concentrations after 20 years were predicted with a mass balance model simulating various water inflows to the pond and evaporation rates from the pond. These results were then evaluated using a metal speciation model called MINTEQ which predicted precipitation of various chemical constituents and predicted final water quality in the pond. These results were used to evaluate impacts to groundwaters. Currently, the Plant site has three existing, permitted surface water discharges to the Little Manatee River: cooling pond discharges resulting from excessive rain events; discharges which occur during spillway gate tests performed as part of FPL's cooling pond embankment safety program; and (3) overflows which may occur during loss of power or malfunction in the sump pumps in the toe drain system of the pond. Following conversion to Orimulsion, several of these permitted discharges to the Little Manatee River will be eliminated. First, the cooling pond will be operated to contain significant rain events up to a 100-year/24-hour storm event. To accomplish this, the cooling pond level will be maintained at a lower elevation below the spillway crest to allow sufficient freeboard to hold such a storm. While FPL will continue to conduct annual spillway gate tests as part of its safety program for the cooling pond, the gate tests will be conducted in a manner to insure that there will be no discharges to the Little Manatee River. New power sources will be provided to the sump pumps in the toe drain system to increase the reliability of power and to minimize overflows from those sumps. Impacts of Groundwater Withdrawals and Discharges The Project may result in impacts to groundwater resources as a result of discharges from the cooling pond and from groundwater withdrawals. FPL evaluated the potential impacts of these activities on groundwater levels and quality. To serve the Project, FPL proposes to install three new groundwater wells to replace existing permitted wells that serve adjacent agricultural operations. The 4.36 MGD of authorized withdrawals from the existing agricultural wells will be reallocated to the new FPL wells, and the agricultural water use will be met using treated wastewater. FPL conducted modeling of the withdrawals from the three proposed wells to identify the drawdown of groundwater levels in the area. FPL utilized a computer model known as MODFLO to evaluate withdrawals for a period of 20 years. Water levels in the three aquifers underlying the Plant site and in nearby existing wells will not be significantly impacted by the relocation of the withdrawals, effects on surface water bodies such as wetlands that are in and connected to the surficial aquifer will be insignificant, and the proposed pumping will not cause a drawdown of more than one foot below any wetland at or near the Plant site. Although it is not clear exactly how much of permitted capacity is being withdrawn from the existing wells that would be replaced by the three new wells proposed by FPL, FPL gave reasonable assurances that the net impact of the three replacement wells will be negligible and will not cause movement of the saltwater interface in the area around the Project. Groundwater at the site is classified as G-II groundwater. Based on the water quality modeling of the cooling pond, six constituents present in the cooling pond and in the seepage from the pond in the surficial aquifer would be above FDEP's groundwater standards. Only one of these constituents - sodium - would exceed primary drinking water standards; the other five constituents are all secondary standards. The cooling pond is an "existing installation" for purposes of groundwater discharges under Rule 62-522.200, F.A.C., because FPL had a completed application for a discharge permit on file with DEP as of January 1, 1983, and because the cooling pond was reasonably expected to release contaminants into the groundwater on or before July 1, 1982. Groundwater discharges from the cooling pond and other existing installations must meet primary drinking water standards at the boundary of the zone of discharge (ZOD) and are exempt from meeting secondary groundwater standards. (Rule 62-520.520, F.A.C.) Under Rule 62-520.200(23), F.A.C., ZODs are allowed to provide an "opportunity for the treatment, mixture or dispersion of wastes into groundwaters" both vertically and horizontally under the installation. Under the stipulated Conditions of Certification, the existing cooling pond will have a ZOD "horizontally to FPL's property line, and vertically to the bottom of an aquifer within the Arcadia Formation, the top of which aquifer is not higher than 50 feet below the surficial aquifer, and not lower than the top of the Tampa Member of the Hawthorne Group as defined in [Florida Geological Series] Bulletin No. 59" (which is a point vertically within the confining unit underlying the surficial aquifer and above the intermediate aquifer). The final compliance point for the vertical depth of the ZOD will be determined during the DEP's review of the groundwater monitoring plan submitted following certification. This ZOD represents a vertical expansion of the ZOD granted under current FDEP permits. The current ZOD extends to the base of the surficial aquifer; the expanded ZOD would extend into, but not through, the confining unit below the surficial aquifer. The reason for the expanded ZOD is the change in water quality in the cooling pond resulting from the use of reclaimed water as a source of makeup water for the cooling pond. The expanded ZOD will not extend beyond FPL's property boundaries. ZOD's normally are not set within a confining layer. However, some confining layers contain aquifer units that are large enough for ground water monitoring purposes. Properly located and installed, a groundwater monitoring well tapping a suitable aquifer unit within a confining layer will not constitute a risk of contamination of the underlying aquifer units. FPL analyzed impacts of groundwater discharges from the cooling pond on groundwater in the vicinity of the Plant site laterally and vertically. Based on these evaluations, there will be no exceedance of either primary or secondary groundwater quality standards at the lateral edge of the ZOD at FPL's property line for the 20-year life of the Project. There also will be no violation of groundwater quality standards at the bottom edge of the ZOD. The groundwater discharge will not significantly impair any designated use of receiving groundwater or any surface water nor will it result in a violation of any applicable groundwater standard outside the ZOD. At the edge of the Little Manatee River, there will be no exceedance of either primary or secondary maximum contaminant levels. Discharges to groundwater from the cooling pond will comply with Class G-II groundwater standards and with applicable surface water standards at the edge of the proposed ZOD. The ZODs for other existing on-site facilities, including the solids settling basin, the neutralization basin, and the sanitary drainfield, will extend horizontally to FPL's property line and vertically to the base of the surficial aquifer underlying those facilities. Other sources of potential discharge to groundwater are two former locations of underground fuel tanks, since removed, that are currently in the process of assessment and clean up. The contamination is not migrating and does not represent a threat to groundwater resources at, or beyond the boundaries of, the Plant site. Wetland Impacts and Mitigation Jurisdictional wetlands in the Project area, rail curve construction area and the by- product storage and disposal areas were delineated under a binding jurisdictional declaratory statement issued by the DEP on May 10, 1995. For the total Project, approximately 18.18 acres of State jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted, of which approximately 16.5 are jurisdictional to SWFWMD. Construction at the Plant site, temporary by-product storage area and the rail curve will impact approximately 0.68 acre of jurisdictional wetlands, which are primarily ditches. Construction of the backup by-product disposal area will impact approximately 17.5 acres of mostly highly disturbed, low-quality wetlands located in tomato fields adjacent to the Plant site. The Project has been designed and sited to avoid and minimize wetland impacts. Proposed wetland activities will have minimal adverse ecological or other effects. Using an ecosystems approach to mitigation, FPL has proposed the preservation, enhancement and restoration of a 129.6-acre area located on the northern site boundary. The mitigation area contains seven high-quality upland and wetland ecological communities, including over one-third mile of the Little Manatee River. The mitigation area is located within an extensive corridor of lands considered to have important ecological resource values and targeted by SWFWMD and Hillsborough County for potential acquisition. FPL's activities within the mitigation area will include, among other things, removal of exotic species, planting of native species in disturbed and eroded areas, and protection and management of the site as a wildlife habitat area. Based on a habitat function evaluation, the estimated value of the mitigation area compared to the impacted wetlands is 15 to 1. The proposed mitigation will provide environmental benefits beyond required mitigation and will be more than sufficient to offset all adverse effects caused by the wetland activities. Although the backup by-product disposal area is unlikely to be constructed, the stipulated Conditions of Certification require FPL to provide mitigation for the impacts at that site regardless of whether the backup by-product disposal area is ever constructed. In addition to the 129.6-acre area provided as mitigation for wetland and other impacts, FPL will preserve an environmentally sensitive area near Tampa Bay and 30-foot upland buffers adjacent to the Little Manatee River. FPL has also offered to convey to SWFWMD additional lands along the Little Manatee River within the Save Our Rivers Program area. The Project complies with all applicable requirements for permitting wetlands impacts, including sufficient mitigation for such impacts, provided in Chapters 403 and 373, F.S., and Chapters 62-312, 62-340, and 40D-4, F.A.C. Wetland activities are in compliance with the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code, so long as the County's recommended variance from strict replacement mitigation required in the Plan and Code is included in the certification. The variance would allow the quality of the existing wetlands and uplands to be enhanced, and there would be assured preservation of wetlands to a greater degree than would normally be required. Creation of wetlands to replace impacted wetlands on strict numerical ratios and exact type-for-type basis may not always be successful. FPL's proposed enhancement and preservation of a large portion of riverine and uplands ecosystem is the preferred approach. Impacts to Flora and Fauna including Listed Species There will be no significant impacts to wildlife or plants, including listed species, from the Project. The mitigation proposed by FPL will more than compensate for any minimal effects on wildlife and plants, including listed species. Extensive ecological surveys were conducted on foot from early 1994 until September 1995 to determine wildlife and plant usage. Ninety percent of FPL's entire property was surveyed and the Project area was surveyed in detail along transects. In addition, scientific literature was reviewed to determine the likelihood of occurrence of species listed by the GFC and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Only one listed wildlife species, the American alligator, which occasionally uses portions of the site, was observed. The alligator is given the lowest protection level, that of species of special concern, by the GFC and is listed as threatened by USFWS because of similarity to another protected species. Given the low habitat value resulting from the agricultural and industrial uses in the Project area, no other listed wildlife species was determined to have a high probability of occurrence. As requested by the GFC, prior to construction FPL will again conduct wildlife surveys for listed species and provide the results to the GFC. Impacts of Water Withdrawals on Little Manatee River and Tampa Bay The Little Manatee River is one of the most studied rivers in Florida, and extensive scientific literature is available on the River. The River is subject to tidal influence and is an estuarine system for approximately 10 miles from its mouth. In addition, the River is very responsive to rainfall and its freshwater flows vary greatly during the year and between years, ranging from very low flow to flows of thousands of cubic feet per second (cfs). This flow pattern results in extreme fluctuations in salinity in the estuary. The flora and fauna of the estuarine zone of the River are well adapted to the fluctuations in flow and salinity. In fact, many saltwater animal species rely on their tolerance to extreme conditions to use the low salinity estuarine habitat of the River, which is rich in food sources and low in predators, as a nursery. The Plant's existing withdrawals from the Little Manatee River have not caused adverse impacts to the ecology of the Little Manatee River or Tampa Bay. SWFWMD permitting requirements contain a presumption that withdrawals of up to 10 percent of daily flow from a stream will not cause unacceptable environmental impacts. See Chapter 40D-2, F.A.C., Part B, Basis of Review for Water Use Permit Applications, 4.2.C.2. FPL and SWFWMD provided unrebutted expert testimony and evidence that the proposed withdrawals of water from the Little Manatee River, including the emergency withdrawals which may exceed 10 percent of flow, will have no adverse impacts on the flora and fauna and water quality of the River and Tampa Bay. Using extensive environmental data collected by SWFWMD and other agencies, salinity in the River was modeled and extensively analyzed for three withdrawal scenarios for the 16- year period, 1978-1993: historical (existing) FPL withdrawals; proposed withdrawals following conversion; and river flows as if no withdrawals had ever taken place. For the three withdrawal scenarios, these analyses included the frequency of occurrence and the duration, of various salinity concentrations for a number of locations along the River. Following the conversion of the Plant to Orimulsion, minimal, temporary changes in salinity will occur only in areas which naturally experience extreme fluctuations in salinity. Because withdrawals will be prohibited when River flow is below 40 cfs, when salinity moves farthest upstream, the withdrawals of freshwater will not cause saltwater to move upstream into areas of the River which have always been fresh. Estuarine organisms thrive within two interrelated habitats: (1) a dynamic salinity- concentration habitat which shifts up- and downstream with tides and freshwater flows; and (2) a static physical habitat containing vegetation preferred by estuarine organisms. Productivity is highest for organisms during periods when their preferred dynamic salinity habitat overlaps their preferred vegetative habitat. Salinity of ten parts per thousand (10 ppt) is generally considered to be a significant boundary of the estuarine low salinity nursery habitat; it includes the part of the river where salinity is sometimes but not always less than 10 ppt. The proposed withdrawals will not affect the location of the dynamic salinity habitat. In fact, salinity areas of less than the 10 ppt salinity boundary of concern will be affected less under the proposed withdrawals than they have been under the historical withdrawals. Static vegetative habitats in the estuarine portions of the Little Manatee River generally fall into three zones comprised of plants whose success depends upon prevailing salinity concentrations. The first, most-saline zone, nearest the River's mouth, is dominated by mangroves. The second zone, which generally comprises the low-salinity nursery, is dominated by juncus (black needlerush) and the third is dominated by tidal freshwater species. Because the durations of salinity concentrations in the River will not be significantly altered by the proposed withdrawals, the boundaries of these static vegetative habitats will not be affected. Modelling and analyses were also undertaken to predict the relationship between salinity and location of maximum population abundance ("AMAX") for four representative fish species found in the Little Manatee River. Results showed that the minimal changes in salinity caused by the proposed withdrawals, including emergency withdrawals, may cause minimal, temporary population shifts but will not result in movement of fishes outside the ranges where they presently commonly occur. Moreover, since the fisheries within the River are not affected, the withdrawals will not affect the productivity of the regional fisheries in the River or Tampa Bay. The Little Manatee River contributes a small fraction (10.7 percent) of total annual freshwater flows into Tampa Bay. These annual average freshwater flows may be reduced by .003 percent by the proposed withdrawals, based on analysis of data for the 20-year period 1973-1993. The proposed withdrawals will have an insignificant effect on freshwater inputs to Tampa Bay. Moreover, any impacts on salinity levels in Tampa Bay from the proposed withdrawals will be limited to the area around the mouth of the River and will not affect biological resources in Cockroach Bay or the rest of Tampa Bay. FPL also analyzed the potential effect on riverine vegetation from any lowering of water levels in the Little Manatee River due to the proposed withdrawals. Vegetation and its water sources and needs were analyzed at representative cross sections of the upper and lower River. Results showed that the proposed withdrawals will have no effect on riverine vegetation due to changes in water levels. Riverine plants in the upper, narrow channelized freshwater portion of the River, where the withdrawals are made, are very tolerant of extremes in water availability, from drought to floods. As an example of the most extreme predicted effect from the proposed withdrawals, the water in the vicinity of the USGA gauging station at U.S. Highway 301 near the Manatee Plant would not reach the lowest river bank level (scarp), on average, five more days during the year (i.e., 91.34 percent of the days in the year) than without any withdrawals (when it would be below the first scarp 89.9 percent of the days in the year), difference of just 1.44 percent. Differences would be only 0.48 percent for the next scarp and even less for the remaining three scarps. This difference in water level would have no effect on riverine plants because they are naturally adapted to endure many weeks of drought. Similarly, there will be no impacts on vegetation in the lower portion of the River. This area is tidally influenced and the cross section analyzed was 700 feet wide compared to the 90-foot-wide channelized upper River cross section. Thus, given the huge volume of water in the lower River, the impact of the proposed withdrawals on water levels in this area would be too small to measure and too insignificant to have any effect on the vegetation. Due to their high tolerance, the estuarine flora and fauna in the River will not be affected by minimal additional fluctuations in salinity and flow. The proposed withdrawals from the Little Manatee River will result in flow and salinity fluctuations which are within existing natural ranges. Potential Impacts of Fuel Spills FPL adopted a three-pronged approach in addressing the potential for Orimulsion spills in Tampa Bay, i.e., spill prevention, spill mitigation, and understanding the ecological effects of any Orimulsion which may be released into the environment. Spill Prevention FPL and Bitor America Corporation, the fuel supplier, have put significant effort into preventing an Orimulsion spill. In the United States, there is presently a risk of a 1,000-barrel or larger fuel spill for every 10,000 port calls. The two major causes of major spills are groundings and collisions. Bitor America Corporation has committed to numerous management practices which constitute safety measures in excess of regulatory requirements to minimize the potential for spills. These additional safety measures include: All vessels and vessel owners used to transport Orimulsion from Venezuela to Port Manatee will be screened using a vetting system to eliminate the possibility of substandard ships and crews being used to transport Orimulsion into Port Manatee. Criteria to be used in screening vessels and vessel owners include limiting vessel age to no more than 10 years, requiring pumps and equipment on board to be specifically designed for Orimulsion, requiring vessels to be classified and crews to be licensed by the best classification societies, ensuring the vessels have in excess of $500 million insurance to cover accidents with a financially capable insurance company (this is in addition to the $250 million insurance Bitor America carries on the fuel for spills), limiting the crew to two languages, and requiring the vessel to have a proven safety record and adequate operational and safety management procedures. All vessels will be required to have double hulls with average compartment sizes no larger than 40,000 barrels. Use of double-hulled vessels will reduce the risk of a spill from a grounding by about 90 percent and from a collision by about 29 percent. Use of compartmentalized vessels will prevent the entire cargo from being released to the environment in the event of a rupture. All vessels will be required to have 20,000 barrels of empty cargo capacity on board. This would allow the transfer of Orimulsion from one compartment to another in case of an accident. Each vessel will have on board a Vessel Information Positioning System (VIPS) for Tampa Bay which will show where the vessel is in relation to other vessels and to the shipping channel during its transit of Tampa Bay. While VIPS is not yet in place, it is expected to be in operation by 1998. VIPS will be funded by users, and Bitor America Corporation has committed to being a user of the system once it is in place. All vessels will be required to maintain a course at least 10 miles off the Florida coast prior to turning into Tampa Bay, rather than the 3-mile clearance required by the U.S. Coast Guard. This requirement will keep vessels away from shallow water, thus reducing the risk of groundings. Prior to turning into the Egmont Key Channel and entering Tampa Bay, the vessels will be required to have at least three miles of visibility. Just west of Egmont Key, the vessel's emergency tow lines will be deployed for use by a tugboat, if necessary. Each vessel's entrance into the channel will be timed so it reaches the Turning Point into the Port Manatee channel at high tide and slack water. This requirement will provide maximum water depth and minimum current influence for the vessel when making the turn from the Tampa Bay channel into the Port Manatee channel. From Mullet Key to Port Manatee, a floating safety zone will be observed for all vessels carrying Orimulsion to the Plant. The floating safety zone, which will be enforced by the U. S. Coast Guard, will prevent other vessels from being within 1,000 yards of the front or rear of the vessel carrying Orimulsion and from being within 200 yards on either side of the vessel. This will effectively make the shipping channel a one- way channel for Orimulsion-carrying vessels. As vessels pass Egmont Key, they will take on two 4,000 horsepower escort tractor-type tugs which will escort the vessel through the channel using the floating safety zone. The U. S. Coast Guard has determined that escort tugs are an effective means of minimizing the chance of a grounding as a result of the vessel's loss of steering or power. At the Turning Point from the Tampa Bay channel to the Port Manatee channel, the vessel will become attached to the escort tugs through its deployed tow lines and will be assisted into the docking area. A weakness of FPL's SCA is that it is not clear to what extent Bitor's commitments are enforceable by the Siting Board. Bitor is not a co-applicant. None of Bitor's commitments are made part of the conditions of certification, and many of them are neither in the SCA nor in the sufficiency responses. To be made enforceable at least against FPL, they should be made part of the conditions of certification. FPL will also exceed regulatory requirements during offloading of Orimulsion by utilizing a secondary hose containment sleeve, or its equivalent, for its offloading hoses to minimize the probability and volume of any spills during offloading at Port Manatee. This secondary containment should effectively contain any Orimulsion that may be released as a result of a leak from connections in the offloading hose or a burst offloading hose. With the management practices to which Bitor America Corporation and FPL have committed for the transport and offloading of Orimulsion, the risk of a 1,000-barrel or larger spill occurring has been reduced to once every 77,000 port calls. Although the number of port calls for fuel delivery to the Plant will approximately double after the conversion to Orimulsion, the risk of a spill occurring in any given year will nevertheless be reduced to about one-fourth the present risk. Spill Mitigation While offloading Orimulsion from vessels at Port Manatee, FPL will comply with all applicable federal, state and local regulatory requirements. For example, FPL will provide booming at the dock on either side of the offloading hose, either in the form of a booming gate system or a deep-skirted boom between the dock and the vessel. The transport of Orimulsion from Venezuela to Port Manatee will also comply with all applicable requirements of the U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA '90). Bitor America Corporation and its sister company, PDV Marina-Venfleet, have prepared a spill contingency plan which will be used by vessels carrying Orimulsion into Tampa Bay. This plan has been approved by the U. S. Coast Guard. Bitor America Corporation also has adopted a corporate spill response plan which offers technical information on Orimulsion spills to assist its customers or vessel owners in the event of an accident. An atlas of sensitive environments in Tampa Bay has also been assembled by contractors to Bitor America Corporation which identifies strategies for responding to an Orimulsion spill in the area of each sensitive habitat in Tampa Bay. While Bitor America is satisfied with the equipment for responding to Orimulsion spills which it has identified in its spill response plans, it is constantly looking for new equipment. As new equipment is identified and demonstrated to be effective in responding to an Orimulsion spill, Bitor America Corporation will modify its plans to include the new equipment. FPL has three spill response plans which would potentially have application to a spill of Orimulsion -- the FPL Port Manatee Terminal Oil Spill Response Plan, the Manatee Plant Oil Spill Response Plan, and FPL's Corporate Oil Spill Response Plan. Each of these plans has received all necessary regulatory approvals, and FPL could lawfully bring Orimulsion into Port Manatee under the current version of these plans. Nevertheless, FPL will expand its plans to include the recently developed Orimulsion-specific spill response tools and strategies before Orimulsion is delivered to Port Manatee for the Plant. Those updates will be reviewed and approved by the Coast Guard, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U. S. Department of Transportation to ensure the revisions meet applicable regulatory requirements. The FPL Port Manatee Terminal Oil Spill Response Plan applies to the offloading hose, the transfer piping from the dock to the terminal, the on-site storage tanks at the terminal, and the transfer and piping system to the Plant. The Manatee Plant Oil Spill Response Plan applies to the on-site storage of fuel at the Plant and the piping to the Plant's boilers. FPL's Corporate Spill Response Plan is supported by a corporate response team that has been established to respond to spills that are beyond the capabilities of the local on-site team. FPL has developed a 2-volume oil spill contingency planning system. Volume 1 consists of the appropriate facility's oil spill response plan, e.g., the plans for the FPL Port Manatee Terminal or the Plant; Volume 2 consists of the corporate response plan. FPL's corporate response team includes approximately 40 positions, typically with two individuals trained for each position at all times. The team members participate in annual training exercises and are on-call 24 hours a day, every day of the year. In the event of a spill, response is directed utilizing a unified command concept, in which decisions to guide response operations are jointly made by the FPL incident commander, the U.S. Coast Guard on-scene coordinator, and the Florida on-scene coordinator. Typically, the U. S. Coast Guard on-scene coordinator is the Captain of the Port, and the Florida on-scene coordinator is the manager for emergency response from the Department of Environmental Protection. The U. S. Coast Guard on-scene coordinator has the authority to take over the spill and direct all response operations if deemed necessary. FPL's spill response methodologies which would be followed in the event of an Orimulsion spill have been successfully employed historically by FPL and the oil industry. In the event of an Orimulsion spill in the Tampa Bay area, FPL should be able to assemble its crews and equipment and begin recovery activities within four hours. This response time is achieved in FPL's annual spill response drills. Orimulsion and No. 6 fuel oil react differently when released in seawater such as that found in Tampa Bay. When No. 6 fuel oil is released in seawater, a very large fraction of the mass almost immediately forms a slick and float to the surface. Underneath the slick, a relatively low fraction of the mass dissolves in the water. By contrast, when Orimulsion is released in seawater, its components disperse in the water column almost immediately. In a shallow, dynamic system such as Tampa Bay, even at low salinity levels, Orimulsion components would be well- mixed throughout the water column. Other processes which affect the fate of Orimulsion and No. 6 fuel oil in seawater such as Tampa Bay include vertical motion (buoyancy), dispersion (both lateral and vertical), dissolution, sedimentation (absorption of fuel particles onto sediments), biodegradation (including chemical and photolytic degradation), entrainment, coalescence and evaporation. All of these processes were incorporated as parameters into a 3- dimensional fates model, known as SIMAP, to predict the movement of Orimulsion and No. 6 fuel oil released in Tampa Bay. SIMAP, which stands for "Spill Impact Mapping," includes a series of 2- and 3- dimensional fates models which evaluate trajectories, transport and weathering of the constituents of spilled fuels. One SIMAP model runs multiple times to provide a probable distribution of fate. SIMAP has been enhanced based on the results of peer- reviewed scientific research to include algorithms for the fates processes affecting the constituents of Orimulsion so that it now has the capability of evaluating the fate of Orimulsion spills. SIMAP is capable of accurately predicting the fate of Orimulsion accidentally spilled in the Tampa Bay environment, including the concentrations of its constituents in 3- dimensional space and time. Several Orimulsion-specific spill response tools and strategies have also been developed and would be used in the event a spill of Orimulsion were ever to occur in Tampa Bay, including Port Manatee. The Ori-Boom, a boom with a 10-foot-deep skirt, has been developed and tested for use in responding to spills of Orimulsion. The 10-foot skirt on Ori-Boom is five layers thick, and includes an outer covering of ballistic material for strength, inner layers of geotextile, and an inner core filter which allows water but not bitumen to pass through. The ability of water, but not bitumen particles, to pass through the skirt of the Ori-Boom has been demonstrated in tests. The Grizzly skimmer has also been developed and tested for use in responding to spills of Orimulsion. The ability of the Grizzly skimmer to remove coalesced bitumen from the surface of the water has been successfully demonstrated. The tests of the capability of the Ori-Boom, the Grizzly skimmer, and other equipment useful in the recovery of Orimulsion were observed by numerous government officials, including representatives of the U. S. Coast Guard and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Conventional absorbents, such as oil snares, pom-poms, or filament absorbents, have proven to be very effective in recovery of bitumen particles. These materials are typically used to "polish up" the water by removing fugitive particles after a skimmer, such as the Grizzly skimmer, has removed the bulk of the bitumen. Five thousand feet of Ori-Boom and two Grizzly skimmers will be staged at Port Manatee for use in responding to spills of Orimulsion. Additionally, conventional oil spill equipment which can be used in responding to an Orimulsion spill will be staged at Port Manatee, such as 8,700 feet of conventional 18-inch skirted boom, 200 feet of 36-inch skirted boom, absorbent materials, and 3 shallow-draft boats. FPL also has a stockpile of oil spill response equipment, including approximately 6,100 feet of 36-inch skirted boom, loaded in six semi-trailers in West Palm Beach which can be delivered to any of FPL's facilities. Altogether, FPL has approximately 40,000 feet of conventional skirted boom which could be used to keep bitumen out of the sensitive habitats in Tampa Bay. There is also a stockpile of oil spill response materials at each of FPL's power plants and fuel terminals. Moreover, the Coast Guard, various contractors and cooperatives, and other terminal operators have conventional booms located in the Tampa Bay area which would be effective in responding to an Orimulsion spill in shallow waters. All of the materials staged for use in response to fuel spills is periodically inspected and maintained in good operating condition to ensure its availability in the event of a spill, as required by OPA '90. SIMAP will be incorporated into FPL's spill response plans. In the event Orimulsion is ever spilled in Tampa Bay, the 3-dimensional fates model in SIMAP would be an effective tool to assist in response efforts by predicting the direction and movement of the spill plume. This information would aid the spill response managers in time-critical decisions on where it is most appropriate to deploy a containment boom around the bitumen plume and exclusion boom to protect sensitive habitats. To obtain predictive results quickly for use in developing spill response strategies, the user of SIMAP can control several model parameters, such as the number of Lagrangian particles tracking the various fuel components, the length of the time-step between calculations, and the length of the model run. In a spill event, SIMAP would be run initially using data files on hand which most closely resemble the actual environmental conditions at the scene of the spill. Such a model run could be accomplished in a few minutes. As realtime information becomes available following a spill, SIMAP would be rerun to provide more refined output on spill movement and direction. As a spill response tool, SIMAP can be used to predict the movement of Orimulsion to allow the response teams to deploy protective equipment around sensitive habitats. SIMAP can also be used to direct water column sampling efforts to locate the largest concentration of the spill plume prior to deployment of the containment boom. Since currents are more predictive than winds, SIMAP is more capable of predicting the movement of Orimulsion in the water column than the movement of No. 6 fuel oil as a surface slick. In the event of an Orimulsion spill, deep-skirted boom (with the skirt in a furled position) could be towed to the site by two boats and placed in the path of the spill plume. The two ends of the boom would then be connected and the skirt unfurled to create a cylinder around the largest portion of the bitumen plume. Once the Ori- Boom has encircled the bitumen, it will be allowed to float and drift with the current along with the bitumen, thus keeping the large concentration of bitumen surrounded by the boom. Then shear pumps would be operated inside the cylinder to force coalescence and surfacing of the bitumen. As the bitumen surfaces, Grizzly skimmers would be used to remove the bitumen from the water. Sensitive habitats which are expected to be in the path of the spill plume would be protected by placing exclusion boom in front of the habitats. It is an accepted spill response strategy to identify sensitive habitats, prioritize those habitats as to their sensitivity, and protect the most sensitive habitats first. To facilitate the protection of sensitive habitats, FPL and Bitor America Corporation would use the atlas of sensitive environments in Tampa Bay which identifies the location and type of sensitive habitats, prioritizes those habitats as to their sensitivity, and specifies the most appropriate response strategies to protect each particular sensitive habitat. This atlas of sensitive environments in Tampa Bay will be incorporated into FPL's spill response plans. Since Orimulsion spilled in Tampa Bay would move back and forth with tidal currents, rather than rapidly moving with the wind to shore as does a No. 6 fuel oil surface slick, more time would be available in the event of an Orimulsion spill to plan response strategies. The spill response technologies, strategies and plans FPL and Bitor America have identified for responding to any Orimulsion spill that might occur in Tampa Bay are comparable to those which would apply to a spill of No. 6 fuel oil, the current fuel used at the Plant and brought into Port Manatee. Ecological Effects of Orimulsion Released in Tampa Bay Tampa Bay is the largest estuary system in the State of Florida. It is roughly 60 kilometers long and the typical width is on the order of 10 kilometers. Tampa Bay is a relatively shallow system, with a mean depth of about 3.7 meters. The shipping channel which traverses Tampa Bay is approximately 15 meters deep and 122 meters wide. Prior to the early 1900's, Tampa Bay was dominated in its marine productivity by seagrass. Because of human activities since that time, however, the current spatial extent of seagrasses is about 15 percent of the overall Bay. Changes in bathymetry and erosional losses in Tampa Bay preclude the reestablishment of seagrasses in some of their former range absent extraordinary measures to restore former bay bottom. Tampa Bay's primary productivity now comes from phytoplankton in the system. Notwithstanding the loss of seagrass, Tampa Bay is an extremely diverse estuarine system, providing habitat to approximately 250 species of fish, 1200 species of invertebrates, and 200 species of macro-algae. The mangrove systems and marsh grasses on the shoreline area, as well as the remaining seagrasses, provide part of the energetic base for the Tampa Bay system and structurally provide habitat critical as nursery grounds for many species of fish and invertebrates. To gain an understanding of the ecological effects of an Orimulsion spill in Tampa Bay, FPL commissioned the University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, to coordinate a study of the comparative ecological effects from a release into the environment of Orimulsion and No. 6 fuel oil, the fuel currently used at the Plant. The study was called the "Comparative Oil/Orimulsion Spill Assessment Program" (COSAP). COSAP involved independent, peer-reviewed scientific research conducted by scientists at several institutions, including the University of Miami, Florida International University, University of Massachusetts, University of North Texas and the University of South Florida. FPL provided the sponsorship and defined the nature of the problem on which study was desired, but had no role in conducting the research or in the conclusions drawn from that research. COSAP included research on fuel characterization, chemical and physical weathering, and toxicological studies for selected flora and fauna indigenous to Tampa Bay for both Orimulsion and No. 6 fuel oil. COSAP also included the identification of resources and ecosystems at risk, hydrodynamic modeling, and fate and transport modeling for Tampa Bay. The COSAP research was integrated into a comparative ecological risk assessment (CERA) in which the existing ecological risk of No. 6 fuel oil being released in the Tampa Bay environment was compared to the ecological risk which would exist from a similar-sized spill of Orimulsion in that environment. The different reactions of Orimulsion and No. 6 fuel oil in seawater were significant in assessing the comparative ecological risks because with No. 6 fuel oil, the slick effects and the movement of the slick by wind forces had to be considered. With Orimulsion and the dissolved component of No. 6 fuel oil, the tide and currents within the waterbody largely control the movement of the components. Under COSAP, toxicity tests were conducted on mangroves, seagrasses, and important fish and invertebrate species actually found in Tampa Bay, in addition to the typically- utilized surrogate laboratory species. This is a significant advancement beyond what is normally done in an ecological risk assessment. Historically, fuel oil spills have had varying degrees of impact on seagrasses and mangroves. Chronic toxicity tests demonstrated that Orimulsion would not cause widespread mortality of the seagrass beds or mangrove components of Tampa Bay. Toxicologically, the aromatics from No. 6 fuel oil were found to be a thousandfold more toxic to fish and invertebrate species than the components of Orimulsion at similar concentrations. In the event of a spill, however, the concentration of Orimulsion components in the water column would be approximately a thousandfold greater than the concentration of No. 6 fuel oil aromatics. To evaluate the comparative risk of No. 6 fuel oil and Orimulsion released in Tampa Bay, one must consider both the concentrations to which organisms would be exposed and the relative toxicities. COSAP's Comparative Ecological Risk Assessment (CERA) To incorporate both exposure concentrations and relative toxicities in the COSAP CERA, the researchers used a scenario-consequence analysis. That is, hypothetical sets of conditions were defined to identify a range of conditions that might occur under different types of spill conditions in Tampa Bay. Then the fate, transport, exposure and ecological effects of both a No. 6 fuel oil spill and an Orimulsion spill for these scenarios were evaluated and compared. The scenarios developed for the CERA included four locations: (1) Egmont Key, the location of a major fuel oil spill in 1993; (2) the Skyway Bridge, the location of a collision which caused a portion of the former bridge to collapse; (3) the Turning Point, the 90 degree turn from the main shipping channel into the shipping channel which leads into Port Manatee; and (4) the Port Manatee facility where offloading occurs. The volume of the spills in the scenario-consequence analysis was 10,000 barrels, except for the Port Manatee facility scenarios for which the spill volume was presumed to be 1,000 barrels. Scenarios covered both wet and dry seasons. For the summer scenarios (the wet season), a relatively wet year and a relatively dry year were included. For each season and location, scenarios were chosen at four different start times to represent the range of combinations of wind and tidal events. Altogether, the CERA analysis included 96 scenarios. Each scenario was modeled using a hydrodynamic model developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Ocean Survey and further calibrated by the University of Miami researchers to the Tampa Bay system. Output from this hydrodynamic model was input to the 3-dimensional fate and transport model, SIMAP. For each scenario, movement of the various components of No. 6 fuel oil or Orimulsion was simulated for five different layers within Tampa Bay. Hourly concentrations were output and transferred to a Datagraphic Information System. The outputs were then integrated over time until concentrations were below the level where significant ecological effects would occur. Exposures (a combination of concentration, time, and component) were then graphically displayed using a scaling methodology and overlaid on the distribution of species in Tampa Bay, allowing for a direct comparison of toxicological effects. In assessing the comparative ecological risks of Orimulsion and No.6 fuel oil, numerous conservative design parameters and assumptions were used for the CERA. For example, the most sensitive life stages of the most sensitive species were utilized, maximum exposure times were assumed even for organisms which could swim out of the affected area after a spill, and a large spill volume was assumed. COSAP CERA Conclusions While an Orimulsion spill would have greater water column effects than a similar- sized spill of No. 6 fuel oil, the No. 6 fuel oil spill would have the added oil slick formation and associated shoreline impacts which are not anticipated from an Orimulsion spill. Overall, the risk to the Tampa Bay ecosystem from a spill of Orimulsion is essentially comparable to the existing risk of a No. 6 fuel oil spill of similar size. The risks from a spill of Orimulsion would not be significantly greater than, nor significantly less than, the risks to the Tampa Bay ecosystem from a similar-sized spill of No. 6 fuel oil. Peer Review of COSAP Research and Conclusions A Science Advisory Panel provided independent scientific peer review of the COSAP research and conclusions. The Panel included leading scientists in the fields of ecological risk assessments, spills of oil in the marine environment, coastal systems, and several representatives of state and federal regulatory agencies. The Science Advisory Panel was involved in a meeting at the inception of COSAP to discuss the overall research goals and objectives, the structure of the research program, and the specific protocols for the toxicological experiments. The Panel also examined the models and statistical approaches to be used for the study. The Panel specifically addressed the issue of the applicability and appropriateness of the ecological risk assessment paradigm, and participated in the development of the scenarios used in the CERA. The Panel reviewed an interim technical support document and provided detailed comments on all components of the research at that time prior to development of the CERA report. The Science Advisory Panel approved the use of the ecological risk assessment framework, the experimental components, the experimental design, the statistical analyses, the scaling methodology, and the conclusions reached in the CERA. Effects of Estrogenic Compounds Following a Spill The Orimulsion to be used at the Plant will include no more than .22 percent nonylphenol polyethoxylate surfactant. The surfactant allows the bitumen particles to remain emulsified in the water, forming a stable emulsion. Hundreds of millions of pounds of nonylphenol polyethoxylate surfactants are used annually in the United States in domestic and industrial products, such as soaps and detergents. Globally, more than a half billion pounds of nonylphenol polyethoxylate surfactants are used annually. Nonylphenol polyethoxylates released in an aquatic environment are broken down by actions of bacteria and sunlight. The final degradation products would be carbon dioxide and water. The warm temperature, intense sunlight and seawater in Tampa Bay would increase the speed of the surfactant's degradation process. Neither the surfactant in Orimulsion nor its intermediate degradation products are expected to persist for more than 30 to 45 days in Tampa Bay, if a spill occurs. Both No. 6 fuel oil and Orimulsion may result in compounds which mimic estrogen being released in the environment following a spill. The polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in No. 6 fuel oil are suspected to have such estrogenic properties. Similarly, some of the intermediate breakdown products of the nonylphenol polyethoxylate surfactant in Orimulsion are suspected to have estrogenic effects. Whether there are ecological consequences of such estrogenic compounds when released in the environment has not been established. To the extent marine organisms are exposed to any of the intermediate degradation products of Orimulsion's surfactant during the 30 to 45 days they may persist in Tampa Bay, once the exposure is removed the organisms are able to purge their systems of those compounds. Consequently, no long-term bioaccumulation of these compounds is expected. The surfactant and any effects it may have when released in the environment should not persist for long periods of time due to rapid degradation and the ability of marine organisms to purge their systems of the degradation products after the exposure is removed. Summary of Comparative Spill Risks Given the comparable ecological risks to Tampa Bay of Orimulsion and No. 6 fuel oil, the comparable spill response capabilities for the two fuels, and the substantially lower risk of a spill of Orimulsion than that for No. 6 fuel oil being delivered to the Plant, overall the risk to Tampa Bay will be significantly reduced after the conversion of the Plant to Orimulsion from that which currently exists from the transport of No. 6 fuel oil. Moreover, the conversion of the Plant to Orimulsion will reduce the risk of transfer- related fuel spills statewide. Every time there is a transfer of fuel from one fuel-holding tank to another, whether that holding tank is on a ship or barge, or is part of a terminal or refinery, there is a risk of a transfer- related spill. Deliveries of fuel oil to FPL's plants require from one to three transfers in Florida, depending on whether the terminal at the receiving port is connected directly to the electrical generating plant by pipeline (as at the Plant) or whether fuel must be transferred from the terminal to the plant by barge. Because the conversion to Orimulsion will increase the utilization of the Plant, and reduce the utilization of other FPL plants that burn higher cost oil, it will reduce the number of deliveries and transfers of fuel oil to other FPL plants within the State. This will reduce the number of FPL's annual fuel transfer operations in Florida by 14 percent, from 635 before the conversion to 548 following the conversion. This translates directly into a reduced probability of fuel spills. In addition, over 80 percent of the No. 6 fuel oil burned in Florida is refined at Gulf Coast plants. There are opportunities for transfer spills when fuel ultimately destined for FPL is delivered to and shipped from those refineries. These opportunities for Gulf Coast spills are eliminated with Orimulsion, which is transferred only once, off the coast of Venezuela, before it reaches the receiving terminal at Port Manatee.
Conclusions Burden of Proof 97 Summary of Conclusions 98 Inapplicable Surface Water Quality Permitting Criteria 102 Statues and Rules on Surface Water Discharges 103 Rejection of Similar Arguments in NYDEC Case 105 Outstanding Florida Waters 107 Federal Certification 110 Ecosystem Management 111 Legal and Permit Agreement Covers Surface Water Withdrawals from the Little Manatee River 112 Cooling Pond Groundwater Discharges 117 Secondary Impacts 118 Air emissions (nitrogen and ozone) 120 Salt Water intrusion and associated groundwater "pollution" 122 Groundwater discharges from cooling pond 123 Impacts to residents from truck traffic 123 Cumulative Impacts 124 Ground Water Quality Standards 127 Vertical Extension of ZOD is Consistent with DEP Rules 127 FPL Retains Exemption from Secondary Groundwater Standard 132 BACT Review 133 Availability of Variances 135 RECOMMENDATION 137 APPENDIX 138 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA SITING BOARD IN RE: FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, MANATEE ORIMULSION DOAH Case No. 94-5675EPP PROJECT, APPLICATION NO. 94-35. /
Recommendation Based on the entire record of this proceeding and the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Siting Board enter a final order that: Grants Florida Power & Light Company certification pursuant to Chapter 403, Part II, F.S., for the construction and operation of the Manatee Orimulsion Conversion Project subject to the Conditions of Certification filed on January 17, 1996, modified to add Bitor's commitments set out in Finding of Fact 189; and Grants variances from the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code for wetland mitigation ratios and from the Manatee County Land Development Code for location of required landscaping. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th 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 19th day of February, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-5675EPP 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/SWFWMD Proposed Findings of Fact. All of the proposed findings of fact proposed by these parties have been reviewed. This review has included consideration of the response to the proposed findings filed by Manasota-88 and MCSOBA. 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. 12. First sentence, rejected as only proof of a reasonable expectation is possible; otherwise, accepted. 75. Last sentence, "significantly" rejected as argument; otherwise, accepted. 82. Last sentence rejected as irrelevant; otherwise, accepted. 84.-85. In part, conclusions of law; otherwise, accepted. 86. 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. 106. 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. 108. "Will not," in first two sentences, rejected as not proven; otherwise, accepted and accepted that reasonable assurances were provided. 110. "Demonstrated," in second sentence, rejected as not proven; otherwise, accepted and accepted that reasonable assurances were provided. 126. "Will not cause," in second sentence, rejected as not proven; otherwise, accepted and accepted that reasonable assurances were provided. 128.-130. In part, conclusions of law; otherwise, accepted. In part, conclusions of law; otherwise, accepted. 154. "1.44 percent of the time" clarified; otherwise, accepted. 159. Rejected in part in that Bitor's commitments are not part of the stipulated Conditions of Certification; otherwise, accepted. 161. Rejected in part in that Bitor's commitments are not part of the stipulated Conditions of Certification; otherwise, accepted. 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. 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. Subpara. b., rejected as not supported by any evidence; rest, conclusions of law. Rejected as not supported by any evidence. 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/mmBtuM 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/mmBtum.) 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/mmBtum. 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. Manatee County Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-10. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the evidence and to proposed finding 12 that it is the only required variance. Accepted. To the extent that accepted proposed findings are not contained in the Findings of Fact, there were considered to be subordinate, irrelevant or otherwise unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: 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 H. Hamilton Rice, Esquire Mark P. Barnebey, Esquire Jeffrey N. Steinsnyder, Esquire Richard Tschantz, Esquire 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 2951 61st Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 Roger S. Tucker, Esquire General Counsel Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 9455 Koger Boulevard St. Petersburg, Florida 33702-2491 Preston T. Robertson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Bridgett A. Ffolkes, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The question presented here concerns the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services' Stop Sale Notice placed against Respondent, Pinner Oil Company under the alleged authority of Section 525.06, Florida Statutes (1980), by the process of requiring a refundable bond in the amount of $471.34, pending the outcome of this dispute in which it is contended that the Respondent supplied gasoline for sale which failed to comply with Rule Subsection 5F-2.01(1)(j), Florida Administrative Code, dealing with the allowed lead content in gasoline.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is an agency of government which has, among other responsibilities, the requirement to establish and enforce standards related to maximum allowable lead content in unleaded gasoline offered for sale to the general public. This regulation is designed to avoid the destruction of catalytic devices found in the exhaust systems of certain cars, in which the destruction of a catalyst would bring about problems, with the exhaust system causing its replacement and more importantly, lead to adverse effects on the environment due to an increase in undesired emission from the exhaust system. The Respondent, Pinner Oil Company of Cross City, Florida, is a jobber which supplies gasoline to retail outlets who in turn sales the gasoline to members of the motoring public. The facts reveal that on October 6, 1980, an official with the Petitioner made a routine inspection of the unleaded gasoline reservoir at the B. F. Goodrich-Texaco at 210 Rogers Boulevard, Chiefland, Florida, a customer of Pinner Oil Company. This gasoline was subsequently analyzed and on October 7, 1989, a Stop Sale Notice was served based upon a determination that the unleaded gasoline found in the reservoir at that station contained more than 0.05 grams of lead per U.S. gallon. The gasoline in question was provided to the B. F. Goodrich outlet by an employee of Pinner Oil Company as a part of his duties with the Respondent. In lieu of the total confiscation of the gasoline found in the reservoir tank at the station In question, the Respondent was allowed to post a refundable bond in the amount of $471.34 which represented the price for the number of gallons sold at a retail price since the time of the prior delivery to that station. (By Stipulation entered into between the parties, it was agreed that a finding of fact would be made to the effect that the Respondent, during the course of the last two years, had not been cited for a violation of the Florida Statutes pertaining to contaminated fuels.)
Findings Of Fact Friends of Lloyd, Inc. is a Florida non-profit corporation formed for the purpose of protecting Jefferson County from harmful development. The Council of Neighborhood Associations of Tallahassee/Leon County (CONA) is a non- profit Florida corporation whose members are the neighborhood associations in Leon county; members of those associations reside in 42 Leon County neighborhoods dispersed throughout Leon County. CONA's purposes and goals include protection of the quality of life and environment in Leon County. The Thomasville Road Association's members are principally residents of Leon County. The Association was formed to promote responsible growth management in northern Leon County. None of the Petitioners are owners or "developers" of a Development of Regional Impact within the terms or scope of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Rather, Petitioners are members of non-profit organizations interested in the environment and growth management of Leon County. The Department of Community Affairs (the "Department") is the state land planning agency with the power and duty to administer and enforce Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. Sections 380.031(18), and 380.032(1), Florida Statutes (1987). Texaco is a business entity that proposes to develop a "tank farm" near the community of Lloyd in Jefferson County, Florida. The Texaco tank farm is a "petroleum storage facility" as that term is used in Rule 28-24.021, F.A.C. Colonial is a business entity that proposes to develop a petroleum pipeline that will connect to the Texaco tank farm. The pipeline is designed to carry and contain petroleum products For purposes of standing, the parties have stipulated that certain environmental hazards can reasonably be expected to occur as a result of the existence of the pipeline/tank farm. No competent evidence was submitted regarding those hazards. As a result of the stipulation, Petitioners have each established injury-in-fact so that they are "adversely affected" by the challenged rule to an extent sufficient to confer upon them standing to maintain this action under Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. On September 7, 1989, one of the Petitioners sent Respondent a letter suggesting that the proposed tank farm development to be built in Jefferson County should be required to undergo review as a DRI. Enclosed with the letter was a proposed circuit court complaint pursuant to Section 403.412(2)(c), Florida Statutes. Petitioner expressed its intention of filing this circuit court action, but first provided Respondent a copy of the proposed complaint in accordance with the provisions of Section 403.412, Florida Statutes. In two letters dated September 8 and 25, 1989, Petitioner supplied additional information to Respondent concerning the tank farm project and contended that in making its determination as to whether the development must undergo DRI review, Respondent should consider the storage capacity of both the tank farm and the pipeline. On October 9, 1989, Respondent answered Petitioner's first letter, and stated that the proposed project was not required to undergo DRI review because the total storage capacity of the tanks was only seventy-eight percent (78%) of the threshold set out in Chapter 28-24, F.A.C. On October 13, 1989, Respondent answered Petitioner's second and third letters, stating that with respect to the pipeline, it has been long standing departmental policy to interpret "storage facilities" as meaning only the tanks, not the pipeline, when determining whether petroleum storage facilities meet the DRI thresholds set out in Chapter 28-24. The proposed tank farm would have nine tanks with a total capacity of 155,964 barrels, which is, as Respondent determined in its letters, approximately seventy-eight percent (78%) of the applicable DRI threshold for "petroleum storage facilities" set forth in Chapter 28-24, F.A.C. The proposed pipeline's capacity over its approximate forty-five mile length from Bainbridge, Georgia to the tank farm is approximately 34,000 barrels. The proposed pipeline's volume flow capacity from the Florida/Georgia state line to the site of the prosed tank farm is approximately 13,500 barrels over approximately 18 miles. If the pipeline's volume capacity from Bainbridge, Georgia is added to the tank farm's volume capacity, the resulting project would be approximately ninety-five percent (95%) of the applicable DRI threshold in Chapter 28-24. If the pipeline's volume capacity from the state line is added to the tank farm's volume capacity, the resulting project would be approximately eighty-five percent (85%) of the threshold. In either instance, the project would exceed the eighty percent (80%) threshold that may require it to undergo DRI review although the project would be Presumed not to be a DRI under the Statute. The Department does not require developments outside Chapter 28-24's enumeration to undergo DRI review. The Department has never treated petroleum Pipelines as "petroleum storage facilities," or as otherwise subject to DRI review. On Several occasions, the Department has applied the petroleum storage facility guideline and standard to petroleum tank farms without determining whether a pipeline was attached to the tank farm. On one prior occasion, the Department has explicitly stated that Petroleum Pipelines are not subject to DRI review. The Petitioners contend that Department's Position that pipelines are not "petroleum storage facilities" is an invalid policy because it has not been adopted as a rule. There is no dispute the Department's Position on this issue has not been promulgated as a rule. If a facility were represented to be a Petroleum pipeline, but was actually designed as and operating as a petroleum storage facility, the Department would apply the Petroleum storage facility DRI guideline and standard to that facility.
