The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.300(6) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because the rule is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, or vests unbridled discretion in the agency.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state agency authorized under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, to regulate discharges of industrial wastewater to waters of the state. Under a delegation from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Department administers the National Pollution Discharge Elimination (NPDES) permitting program in Florida. The Department promulgated the rules in Florida Administrative Code Title 62 that are applicable to the permitting of wastewater discharges. FOPB is a non-profit Alabama corporation established in 1988 whose members are interested in protecting the water quality and natural resources of Perdido Bay. FOPB has approximately 450 members. About 90 percent of the members own property adjacent to Perdido Bay. James Lane is the president of FOPB. Jacqueline Lane and James Lane live on property adjacent to Perdido Bay. IP owns and operates a paper mill in Cantonment, Escambia County, Florida. IP is the applicant for the Department authorizations that are the subject of DOAH Case Nos. 08-3922 and 08-3923. Background When this rule challenge was filed, DOAH Cases Nos. 08-3922 and 08-3923 (the permit cases) involved challenges by these same Petitioners to four Department authorizations for IP: an NPDES permit, a Consent Order, an approved exemption for the experimental use of wetlands pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-660.300, and a waiver related to the experimental use of wetlands. IP later withdrew its request for the experimental use of wetlands exemption and the related waiver. Petitioners were ordered to show cause why their claim regarding the invalidity of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 660.300 was not rendered moot by IP’s withdrawal of its request for the exemption. Subsequently, the challenge to the validity of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-660.300 was dismissed as moot. At the commencement of the final hearing on June 22, 2009, FOPB and James Lane announced that they were withdrawing their rule challenges except with respect to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.300(6), and that the only legal ground being asserted for the invalidity of the rule is that it is vague and vests unbridled authority in the Department. Petitioners’Standing Jacqueline Lane, James Lane and a substantial number of the members of FOPB swim, boat, and make other uses of Perdido Bay. Perdido Bay would be affected by IP's wastewater effluent. The challenged rule was applied by the Department to determine that IP's proposed industrial wastewater discharge was in the public interest. The Challenged Rule Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.300, is entitled "Findings, Intent, and Antidegradation Policy for Surface Water Quality." Subsection (6) of the rule states: Public interest shall not be construed to mean only those activities conducted solely to provide facilities or benefits to the general public. Private activities conducted for private purposes may also be in the public interest. Most of the permits that are issued by the Department are issued to private entities whose primary purposes are personal uses or the production of private incomes and profits, rather than solely to provide facilities or benefits to the general public.
The Issue Whether the costs incurred by the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Emergency Response (Department) in connection with its response to Incident Number 95-SE-0248 may be recovered from Petitioners pursuant to Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Department is a state regulatory agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes. Spill Response, Inc. (Spill Response) is a corporation which was formed in approximately 1986 or 1987, and is presently inactive and without any assets. At all times material to the instant case, George Gordon has been the sole owner, president and director of Spill Response, and, as such, has directed the operations of the corporation. Spill Response was previously in the oil spill response business, as its name suggests. At such time, it had an office in Port Everglades and stored its equipment on fenced and gated property located at 3211 Southwest 50th Avenue, Davie, Florida, on which approximately a dozen large aboveground petroleum storage tanks (surrounded by concrete containment areas) also were situated. At all times material to the instant case, the property located at 3211 Southwest 50th Avenue, Davie, Florida (FPR site) has been owned by Florida Petroleum Reprocessors, Inc. (FPR), an inactive corporation that previously was in the waste oil recovery business. The FPR site, which is presently FPR's only asset, is the subject of a pending foreclosure action initiated by Charles Green, who, at all times material to the instant case, has held a first mortgage on the property. At all times material to the instant case, George Gordon has been the president and director of FPR, and, as such, has directed the operations of the corporation. In the latter part of 1994, the storage tanks on the FPR site were no longer in commercial use. At that time, Gordon, on behalf of FPR, hired Fred Rice to clean and maintain the site in preparation for its closure. Rice was instructed to remove the petroleum residue and sludge from the tanks and from the containment areas. Rice engaged in these petroleum and sludge-removal activities on a part-time basis until the spring of 1995, when he stopped working on the project after not having received timely payment for work he had performed. Rice placed the petroleum residue and sludge that he had removed, as well the rags and other materials that he had used in the removal process, in 55-gallon drums. He filled approximately six or seven such drums. A number of other 55-gallon drums containing petroleum residue and sludge (that some person or persons other than Rice had filled) were already on the FPR site. Rice put the six or seven drums that he had filled on a truck that was parked on the site and had “Spill Response, Inc.” and “Florida Petroleum Reprocessors, Inc.” markings on its sides. The truck was owned by Spill Response and had been on the site for some time. It had no battery and was inoperable. Rice told Gordon that he had put the drums he had filled with petroleum residue and sludge on the Spill Response truck. The next time Gordon went the FPR site, in late May of 1995, he discovered that the locks on the gates had been changed and that there were vehicles and equipment on the property that did not belong there. Gordon telephoned the Davie Police Department to complain about the unauthorized use of the FPR site. A police officer was dispatched to the site to investigate. When the officer arrived on the scene, he encountered Gordon outside one of the gates. Although the gate was locked, Gordon and the officer gained access to the site by squeezing through an opening in the gate. Upon entering the site, they looked around. Based upon what they saw, they correctly "figured out" that Certified Crane and Rigging, Inc., d/b/a Certified Equipment Management Company (Certified) was storing its crane equipment and trucks on the site. At all times material to the instant case, Certified has been owned and operated by William "Skip" Walton. Walton is an acquaintance of the aforementioned Charles Green, the holder of the first mortgage on the FPR site. Certified's telephone number was painted on the equipment and vehicles it was storing on the FPR site. The police officer called the number and spoke with Walton. Following his telephone conversation with Walton, the officer informed Gordon that Walton had indicated, during the conversation, that he was leasing the FPR site from Green. Gordon advised the officer that he did not want to press criminal charges (for trespassing) against either Certified or Walton. Gordon subsequently telephoned Green. Green told Gordon that it was true that he had leased the FPR site to Walton. Green explained to Gordon that he "needed to earn some money from the property." (It had been some time since Green had received any mortgage payments from FPR or Gordon.) Gordon contacted his attorney to discuss with her what legal action, if any, he could take to regain possession of the FPR site and be compensated for the unauthorized use of the property. Gordon's attorney advised him that he "would have recourse if [he] wished to pursu[e] the matter in court," but that it might not be cost-effective for him to do so. Gordon took no action, "in court" or otherwise, to regain possession and control of the FPR site; nor did he take any action to retake possession and control of the Spill Response truck or the filled drums that were in the truck and elsewhere on the site. Furthermore, he made no effort to make sure that the drums and their contents were stored and disposed of properly, believing that the proper storage and disposal of these items were now the responsibility of the new occupant of the site. He did not return to the FPR site for over a year. On or about June 6, 1995, the Department was notified (after its regular business hours) that the Spill Response truck had been discovered abandoned on the side of the road a few blocks from the FPR site. The following day,1 Ann Meador, an Environmental Specialist III with the Department, went to the location where the truck had been abandoned and served as the Department's on- scene coordinator. The truck was in poor condition and still inoperable. It had been brought (not driven) to the location by someone other than Gordon. The truck contained 37 sealed 55-gallon drums, which were in poor condition (but not yet leaking) and had oil residue on the outside. It could not be reliably determined exactly what was in the drums without removing them from the truck and examining and analyzing their contents. Meador made arrangements for OHM Remediation Services Corporation (OHM), with whom the Department had a contract to perform such services on an emergency basis, to assist in the removal of the drums from the truck. OHM personnel (with "Level B" protective clothing and equipment) responded to the scene and removed all 37 drums from the Spill Response truck. After the drums were unsealed, their contents were examined and sampled to the extent possible2 (as were the contents of three additional drums which were filled with the "Level B" protective clothing and equipment that OHM personnel had used during the cleanup operation and then discarded). Each of the drums was assigned a number for identification purposes. To save time and money, samples from some of the drums were composited. The drums were then overpacked and taken to the Department’s hazardous waste storage facility in West Palm Beach, Florida. The Department paid OHM $7,046.93 from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund for the services OHM performed. In requesting OHM to perform these services and in paying OHM $7,046.93 for having done so, the Department acted reasonably and prudently. The amount it paid OHM was not excessive. The Department hired Laidlaw Environmental Services (Laidlaw) to analyze the samples that OHM had collected and to then properly dispose of the drums and their contents. Laidlaw's analysis revealed the following: drums numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 38 contained oily sludges, oil, oil mixed with water, or oily residues; drum numbered 6 contained benzene and had a flash point between 73 and 140 degrees Fahrenheit; drum numbered 29 contained benzene and lead and had a flash point of less than 73 degrees Fahrenheit; drums numbered 10 and 11 contained benzene and lead; drums numbered 7, 8, 31, 32, 33 and 39 contained benzene, lead, and cadmium. Laidlaw properly disposed of the drums based upon the results of its analysis. The Department paid Laidlaw $21,163.90 from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund for the services it performed. In requesting Laidlaw to perform these services and in paying Laidlaw $21,163.90 for having done so, the Department acted reasonably and prudently. The amount it paid Laidlaw was not excessive. The Department reasonably incurred other expenses (also paid from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund) totaling $129.82 in connection with its response to the report it had received concerning the abandonment of the Spill Response truck. The total amount the Department paid from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund to have the drums on the truck properly removed and disposed of was $28,340.65. It was not until Gordon received a letter from the Department advising him of the costs the Department had incurred and requesting that Spill Response and he reimburse the Department for these costs that Gordon became aware of the fact that the truck and the drums had been moved from the FPR site.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department finding that it is entitled to recover from Petitioners, pursuant to Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes, the $28,340.65 in costs the Department reasonably incurred in connection with its response to Incident Number 95-SE-0248. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 1998.
The Issue Whether Bay North Corporation should be issued a permit to construct a domestic wastewater treatment and disposal system at Camp Weed, Franklin County, Florida, pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On February 27, 1978, Lomax Smith, a builder and developer in Tallahassee, Florida, entered into an agreement with the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Florida to purchase some 42 acres of real property and the improvements thereon known as "Camp Weed" which is located in Franklin County, Florida. The purchase price of the property was $725,000, with an earnest money deposit of $20,000, and closing of the transaction to be on or before July 1, 1978. At the time of purchase, eight dormitory and several accessory buildings were located on the property which utilized septic tanks for sewage disposal. An existing deep well is in the northwest portion of the property for a water supply. Smith proposed to develop the property by the sale of lots, remodel some of the existing buildings, and construct new housing units. He employed the engineering firm of Broward Davis and Associates, Inc., Tallahassee, Florida, to prepare the necessary design plans and a state environmental permit application for a proposed domestic wastewater treatment plant to be located on the site. (Testimony of L. Smith, N. Smith, Exhibits 12, 13) On September 6, 1978, Smith filed an application with Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) for a permit to construct the sewage treatment plant (STP) at Camp Weed. He signed the application as owner of the property although he had not closed the purchase transaction nor acquired legal title at that time. The application and supporting plans were reviewed in the Northwest District Office of the Department of Environmental Regulation after site investigation, and it was determined that construction of the facility would be in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. A construction permit was issued to Smith for the STP on October 10, 1978, subject to certain specified conditions attached to the permit. Notification of the permit issuance was not preceded by a notice of intent to grant the permit, nor were any third parties advised of its issuance. Petitioners St. Teresa Dock Association, Inc. (then St. Teresa Dock Association) and H.S. Oven first learned of the permit issuance when their counsel was informed by Smith's counsel on November 3, 1978, that the permit had been issued. Petitioners thereafter on November 17 filed a petition for hearing with DER. (Testimony of L. Smith, Huff, Exhibits 1, 4-5, 8) Camp Weed is bounded on the north by U.S. Highway 98 and on the south by the Gulf of Mexico. The planned site for the STP is in the northeast corner of the tract which is some twelve feet above mean sea level and approximately 950 feet from the shoreline. The elevation of the property on the northwestern side is about 24 feet and is five feet in the middle. The land slopes generally toward the middle area and drains in a southerly direction to the gulf. The subdivision of St. Teresa where Petitioners' members own summer homes is located immediately west of Camp Weed. The members of the St. Teresa Dock Association, Inc., and Petitioner Hamilton S. Oven use the beach and gulf waters for boating, fishing, and other recreational purposes. About a dozen shallow wells in the St. Teresa subdivision provide drinking water for the residents. They are located over 1700 feet southwest from the site of the proposed STP. There are two ponds north of the St. Teresa area adjacent to U.S. Highway 98. An artesian well is located in the gulf about 25 feet south of the Camp Weed property. (Testimony of Huff, N. Smith, Oven, Sensabaugh, Exhibits 2,7, 9-11, 22, 24) The proposed plant is designed to provide sewage treatment for 132 housing units containing an estimated population of 3 persons per unit. A gravity flow collection system to a pumping station will produce a peak influent rate of 29,700 gallons per day with an estimated biological oxygen demand (BOD) loading of 49.6 pounds per day. A basket strainer on the influent line will remove trash. Plant operation will involve the use of aeration tanks, clarifier, chlorination, sand filter and clear well for discharge to a percolation pond. A polishing pond was originally planned, but was deleted at the suggestion of the DER because it performs the same function as the proposed sand filter. Two percolation ponds for alternate use will be construed so that the pond bottom is twelve feet above sea level. A soil test revealed that a sand layer extends under the shallow surface top soil to a depth of approximately 10 feet before reaching the shallow ground water table and that the effluent will percolate through the sand at the rate of one inch per minute. A five foot soil boring by DER failed to encounter ground water at that level and show that rate of percolation through the sand would be acceptable. The ground water table is subject to an unknown variance indepth during the wet and dry seasons of the year depending on the amount of rainfall. Although tide fluctuations may also have some effect on depth of the ground water table, the tide most likely will be of minimum influence due to the distance of the plant site from the gulf. Percolation of at least three feet through sand before reaching ground water is sufficient to meet DER policy requirements. (Testimony of Huff, N. Smith, Bishop, Exhibits 1, 3, 16-17). Based on the design of the STP, it is predicted by applicant's design engineer that there will be at least 90 percent removal of pollutants after chlorination and prior to passage of the effluent through the sand filter. The engineer predicts that after such filtration, there will be approximately 95 percent removal prior to percolation and that the effluent will then be pure enough to use as drinking water. Further purification will take place during the percolation process. The DER District Supervisor of Domestic Wastewater Permitting, who also is a professional engineer, substantially agrees with those predictions. Actual results of the treatment process can be determined, however, only after tests from monitoring wells are made during actual trial operations of the plant. It is further agreed by those experts that the average chlorine residual content in the effluent will be 0.5 parts per million. The DER supervisor therefore is of the opinion that, if the STP is properly operated, the processed effluent will not degrade ground waters, not adversely affect the wells in the St. Teresa Community or the waters of the gulf. After percolation, there is further dilution and ultimately the ground water which reaches the gulf in eight to ten days will be in a purer form than prior to introduction of the effluent. Although a twenty-year storm criterion was applied in the design of the percolation ponds, a catastrophic storm such as a hurricane was not taken into consideration since it would not be economically feasible to design for such an effect and, in any event, super dilution caused by such a storm would negate the possibility of water quality degradation. (Testimony of Huff, N. Smith, Exhibit 1) The buildup of sludge in the plant's holding tank will require removal about once a year when the plant is in full operation. The applicant will employ a certified individual to operate the plant and to remove sludge periodically to an appropriate place for disposal in an authorized manner. DER regards sludge disposal to be a matter for determination at the time application is made for an operating permit. (Testimony of Huff, L. Smith, McNeill, N. Smith, Exhibit 1) The applicant estimates that the construction of the plant and collection system will cost approximately $1,000 per housing unit for a total of $132,000. It is planned to recover this cost on the sale of lots. A condition of such purchases will be that the sewage system and treatment plant will be operated by a home owners association which is to be activated in the near future. Maintenance cost of the sewage plant will be shared by the individual members. Approximately twenty or twenty-five members are required for economical operation of the plant. (Testimony of N. Smith, L. Smith) The county zoning classification for the Camp Weed area is currently the subject of litigation by the applicant in the Franklin County Circuit Court and the result of that litigation as to permitted density of housing will determine the amount of units to be constructed by the applicant. In any event, if the applicant does not secure a county building permit, any DER construction permit would expire at the termination of the time granted therefor. (Testimony of L. Smith, Huff, Exhibit 24) At the time Intervenor Lomax Smith signed the permit application, Bay North Corporation had not been formed. It was incorporated in November, 1978, in order that Smith could obtain financing to complete the property purchase. The transaction was closed November 6, 1978, and a warranty deed to the property was issued to Bay North Corporation by the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Florida, Inc. The deed was recorded in the public records of Franklin County on November 7, 1978. Lomax Smith is the president and principal stockholder of Bay North Corporation. Promissory notes secured by mortgages to the Southern Bank of Tallahassee and the Episcopal Diocese of Florida in the amounts of $350,000 and $362,500 respectively, were executed by Bay North Corporation on the same date. Pursuant to a request to DER from Lomax Smith on May 15, 1979, the Northwest District DER Office, on June 29, 1979, purported to transfer the permit to Bay North Corporation and extend the expiration date to September 30, 1980. (Testimony of L. Smith, Huff, Exhibits 6, 14-15, 21) The construction permit issued in October, 1978, was subject to standard and special conditions, including the requirement that the permit holder comply with county and municipal regulations prior to construction. They provided that monthly reports be furnished to the DER prior to issuance of an operation permit setting forth wastewater characteristics during a trial period of plant operation. They also required that the facility meet the treatment requirements contained in Chapter 17-3, F.A.C., including a 90 percent reduction in BOD and suspended solids based on concentration of the influent entering the plant. The conditions further provide that at the time of application for an operation permit, it must be shown that a certified operator under Chapter 17- 16, F.A.C., is retained, together with a copy of any contract for contract operation of the facility. Additionally, the conditions require that two monitoring wells be established upstream and downstream of the ponds and that quarterly ground water samples be analyzed and reported to DER. A further condition provides that a three-foot buffer zone must be maintained between the bottom of the percolation ponds and the maximum elevation of the ground water. (Exhibit 8)
Recommendation That the Department of Environmental Regulation issue the requested permit to Bay North Corporation, subject to the conditions attached to the permit issued on October 10, 1978. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of November, 1979. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: George E. Lewis, II, Esq. 316 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32303 William L. Hyde, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 Ben H. Wilkinson, Esq. Pennington, Wilkinson, Gary and Dunlap Post Office Box 3875 Tallahassee, FL 32303 Alfred O. Shuler, Esq. Post Office Box 850 Apalachicola, FL 32320
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's Construction and Demolition Debris Disposal Facility Permit No. 003397-013-SO (the Permit) should be revoked and the facility closed for the reasons stated in the Department of Environmental Protection's (Department's) Notice of Revocation (Notice) issued on July 31, 2014.
Findings Of Fact A. The Parties, the Property, and the Dispute The Department administers and enforces the provisions of chapter 403 and the rules promulgated thereunder, including those applicable to construction and demolition debris (C & D) disposal facilities. Respondent is a Florida limited liability corporation that owns real property located at 6990 Rolling Hills Road, Pensacola, Escambia County (County), Florida. The large, odd- shaped parcel (whose exact size is unknown) is south-southwest of the intersection of Interstate 10 and Pensacola Boulevard (U.S. Highway 29) and has Class III fresh surface waters running in a northeast-southwest direction through the middle of the property. See Resp. Ex. 28. The entire site is surrounded by a six-foot tall fence or is separated from adjoining properties by natural barriers. A railroad track borders on the eastern side of the parcel; the western boundary fronts on Rolling Hills Road; and the northern boundary appears to be just south of West Pinestead Road. Id. The area immediately south of the parcel appears to be largely undeveloped. See Dept. Ex. 40. The Emerald Coast Utilities Authority (ECUA), a local government body, has an easement that runs along the eastern side of the property adjacent to the railroad track on which a 48-inch sewer pipe is located. An older residential area, known as Wedgewood, is located northeast of the facility on the north side of West Pinestead Road. Id. The closest Wedgewood homes appear to be around 400 or 500 feet from the edge of Respondent's property. A community and recreational center, the Marie K. Young Center, also known as the Wedgewood Center, serves the Wedgewood community, is northwest of the facility, and lies around 500 feet from the edge of the property. Established in 2012 where a school once stood, it has more than 200 members. Although non- parties, it is fair to say that the Wedgewood community and County strongly support the Department's efforts to revoke Respondent's permit. Respondent acquired the property in 2007. At that time, an existing C & D disposal facility (the facility) was located on the property operating under a permit issued by the Department. The Permit was renewed in February 2013 and will expire in early 2018. Besides the general and specific conditions, the renewed Permit incorporates the terms and conditions of a Consent Order executed in November 2012, as well as detailed requirements relating to the operation of the facility, water quality monitoring, an odor remediation plan, financial assurance and cost estimates, and closure of the facility. The latter requirements are found in four Appendices attached to the Permit. The facility operates under the name of Rolling Hills Construction and Demolition Recycling Center. All material received by the facility is disposed of in an active disposal pile known as cell 2, located in the middle of the northern section of the parcel. Cell 1, southwest of cell 2 and just east of Rolling Hills Road, was closed a number of years ago by the prior operator. Respondent operates the only C & D facility in the County.1/ It currently serves around 50 to 60 active customers, employs 16 persons, and operates between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The former manager, Charles Davidson, who had overseen operations since 2010, was replaced in June 2014, and Respondent blames him for ignoring or failing to address most of the problems encountered during the last three years. Since June, the managing partner of the LLC, Scott C. Miller, has overseen the operations. Unlike Class I or III landfills, a C & D landfill may accept only construction and demolition debris. Construction and demolition debris is defined as "discarded materials generally considered to be not water soluble and non-hazardous in nature." § 403.703(6), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 701.200(24). Debris includes not only items such as steel, glass, brick, concrete, asphalt material, pipe, gypsum wallboard, and lumber that are typically associated with construction or demolition projects, but also rocks, soils, tree remains, trees, and other vegetative matter that normally result from land clearing or land development operations. Id. No solid waste other than construction and demolition debris may be disposed of at the facility. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 701.730(4)(d). To address and resolve certain violations that predated the renewal of the Permit, the Department and Respondent entered into a Consent Order on November 14, 2012. See Dept. Ex. 2. These violations occurred in 2011 and included the storage and/or disposal of non-C & D debris, and a failure to timely submit an appropriate Remedial Action Plan (RAP). Id. Among other things, the Consent Order required that within a time certain Respondent submit for Department review and approval an RAP; and after its approval to "continue to follow the time frames and requirements of Chapter 62-780, F.A.C." Id. Those requirements included the initiation of an active remediation system and site rehabilitation within a time certain, and the continued monitoring and related corrective action for any water quality violations or impacts. Id. To ensure that it has the financial ability to undertake any required corrective action, the Permit requires Respondent to provide proof of financial assurance for the corrective action program cost estimates. See Fla. Admin. Code 62-701.730(11)(d); § 2, Spec. Cond. F.1. This can be done through a number of mechanisms, such as a performance bond, letter of credit, or cash escrow. The Permit also requires Respondent to provide proof of financial assurance to demonstrate that it has the financial ability to close the facility and otherwise provide for the long-term care cost estimates of the facility. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.630; § 2, Spec. Cond. F.2. Rather than using a cash escrow or letter of credit, Respondent has chosen to use a performance bond for both requirements. These bonds must be updated annually to include an inflation adjustment. Given the many requirements imposed by the Permit and Consent Order, in 2013 and 2014 several follow-up site inspections of the facility were conducted by the Department, and a review of the operations was made to determine if the various deadlines had been met. Also, in 2014, the Department received complaints from the County and neighboring property owners, almost exclusively by those residing in the Wedgewood community, regarding offensive odors emanating from the facility. Based on field observations, the review of operations, and odor complaints, on July 31, 2014, the Department issued a Notice containing eight counts of wrongdoing. The Notice was issued under section 403.087(7)(b), which authorizes the Department to revoke a permit when it finds the permit holder has "[v]iolated law, department orders, rules, or regulations, or permit conditions." To Respondent's consternation, the Department opted to use that enforcement mechanism rather than initiating an enforcement action under section 403.121 or executing another consent order, both of which would likely result in a sanction less severe than permit revocation.2/ The Notice contains the following charges: exceeding surface water quality standards in rules 62-302.500 and 62- 302.530 (Count I); failing to implement an RAP as required by the Consent Order and Permit (Count II); failing to provide adequate financial assurances for facility closure costs (Count III); failing to provide financial assurances for the corrective action required by the RAP (Count IV); failing to reduce on-site and off-site objectionable odors and to implement a routine odor monitoring program (Count V); disposing non-C & D waste on site (Count VI); failing to remove unauthorized waste (Count VII); and disposing solid waste outside of its permitted (vertical) dimension of 130 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) (Count VIII). These allegations are discussed separately below. Although the Notice is based on violations that occurred on or before July 31, 2014, the undersigned denied the Department's motion in limine that would preclude Respondent from presenting mitigating evidence concerning circumstances surrounding the violations and efforts to remediate them after July 31, 2014. Given that ruling, the Department was allowed to present evidence to show that Respondent's remediation efforts have not been successful and that some violations still existed as of the date of final hearing. Respondent disputes the allegations and contends that most, if not all, are either untrue, inaccurate, have been remedied, or are in the process of being remedied. As noted above, Respondent considers the revocation of its permit too harsh a penalty in light of its continued efforts to comply with Department rules and enforcement guidelines. It contends that the Department is acting at the behest of the County, which desires to close the facility to satisfy the odor complaints of the Wedgewood residents, and to ultimately use the property for a new road that it intends to build in the future. Count I - Water Quality Violations The Notice alleges that two water quality monitoring reports filed by Respondent reflect that it exceeded surface water quality standards at two monitoring locations (MW-2 and SW-6) sampled on August 26, 2013, and at one monitoring location (MW-2) sampled on March 4, 2014. The Notice alleges that these exceedances constitute a failure to comply with Class III fresh surface water quality standards in rules 62-302.500 and 62- 302.530 and therefore violate conditions in the Permit. These standards apply in areas beyond the edge of the discharge area (or zone of discharge) established by the Permit. To ensure compliance with water quality standards, when the Permit was renewed in 2013, a Water Quality Monitoring Report (Appendix 3) was attached to the Permit. It required Respondent to monitor surface water for contamination, identify the locations at which samples must be collected, and specify the testing parameters. All of these conditions were accepted by Respondent and its consultant(s). The monitoring network, already in place when Respondent purchased the facility, consists of six ground water monitoring wells and three surface water monitoring stations. The surface water stations, which must be sampled to determine compliance with water quality criteria, are SW-5, a background location, and SW-6 and MW-2, both compliance locations located outside the zone of discharge. A background location is placed upstream of an activity in order to determine the quality of the water before any impacts by the activity. A compliance location is placed downstream of an activity to determine any impacts of the facility on surface water. The Water Quality Monitoring Plan and Permit require Respondent to submit semi-annual water quality reports. To conduct the preparation and filing of the reports, Respondent used an outside consulting firm, Enviro Pro Tech, Inc. (EPT). On November 5, 2013, EPT submitted a Second Semi-Annual 2013 report. See Dept. Ex. 5. According to Mr. Miller, who now oversees operations at the facility, EPT did not provide Respondent a copy of the report, or even discuss its findings, before filing it with the Department. A Department engineer reviewed the report and noted that surface water samples exceeded the Class III Fresh Water Quality Standards for iron, copper, lead, zinc, nickel, and mercury at SW-6 and for iron at MW-2. See Dept. Ex. 6. A copy of the Department's report was provided to Respondent and EPT. Notably, the report indicated that background levels were lower than the down-gradient results. Under Department protocol, if the samples at the compliance locations exceed both the regulatory levels and the background, there is a violation of water quality standards. This accepted protocol differs from Respondent's suggested protocol that the background level should be added to the regulatory standard before a comparison with the sample results is made. In sum, except for the reported nickel value at SW-6, a violation which the Department now says it will not pursue, all exceedances shown on Department Exhibits 5 and 6 are violations of the standards. On April 1, 2014, EPT submitted a First Semi-Annual 2014 report. See Dept. Ex. 7. A Department engineer reviewed the report and noted that the surface water samples at one monitoring location, MW-2, did not meet water quality standards for iron; however, background levels for iron were much higher than downstream. See Dept. Ex. 8. No other exceedances were shown. Although the Department engineer considered the higher background level for iron to be an "inconsistency" since it varied from the prior reports, the reported iron value was treated as a violation when the Notice was drafted. In its PRO, however, the Department concedes that it did not establish a violation of standards for iron, as alleged in paragraph 7 of the Notice. While having no concerns with sampling taken at MW-2, Respondent's expert contends that the reported values for SW-6 are unreliable because the samples taken from that location were turbid and filled with large amounts of suspended solid matter. He noted that the well is located in a wetland area that is "clogged with vegetation." The expert estimated the turbidity at the site to be in the range of 480 to 500 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTUs) and believes the sample was taken in a "high turbid sediment laden area," thus rendering it unreliable. However, at the time of the sample collection, turbidity was measured at 164 NTUs, or much less than the amount estimated by the expert. See Dept. Ex. 5, p. 147. There is no rule or procedure that disallows the use of turbid samples. In fact, they can be representative of actual water quality. Also, rule 62-302.500(2)(d) provides that if an applicant for a C & D permit believes that turbid samples are not representative of water quality, it may use filtered samples by establishing a "translator" during the permitting process. Respondent did not request a translator during the permitting process, nor is any such translator provision found in the Permit. The expert also criticized EPT for holding the 2013 sample for iron for 22 days after collection before reanalyzing it without providing any explanation for this delay. A reasonable inference to draw from the data, however, is that iron was present in the original sample at levels that required dilution and reanalysis. Respondent's expert testified that even though off- site stormwater is discharged onto the property, no offsite monitoring locations exist, and therefore any offsite exceedances would not be reported. He also criticized the sampling locations that were selected by EPT. In fairness to Respondent, a repositioning of the monitoring network and retesting of the samples might have produced more favorable results. But these are measures that should have been addressed long before this proceeding was initiated. Finally, Respondent's expert testified that the implementation of its RAP, now partially completed, will cure all of the reported exceedances. Assuming this unrefuted testimony is true, it should be taken into account in determining an appropriate penalty. Count II - Failure to Implement an RAP In this Count, the Department alleges that after the issuance of an RAP Approval Order on July 3, 2013, Respondent was required to implement the RAP within 120 days. The Notice alleges that as of July 31, 2014, the RAP had not been implemented. An RAP was first filed by Respondent on November 15, 2010. See Dept. Ex. 3. When the Department determined that changes to the RAP were necessary, the Consent Order imposed a requirement that an RAP addendum be filed within 150 days. The date on which the addendum was filed is not known. However, an RAP Approval Order was issued on July 3, 2013. See Dept. Ex. 4. The terms and conditions in the RAP were incorporated into the renewed Permit. The work required by the RAP consists of two phases, with all work to be completed within 365 days, or by early July 2014. Phase I related to the initiation of an active remediation system within 120 days, or by October 31, 2013. This phase requires Respondent to install a pump and treat system at the facility, which will withdraw contaminated groundwater through recovery wells, pump the water to aeration basins to treat the water, and then re-infiltrate the treated water back into the ground. As noted below, the system was not operational until the second week in December 2014. Respondent's failure to implement the approved RAP by the established deadline constitutes a violation of rules 62- 780.700(11) and 62-780.790 and Permit conditions, as charged in the Notice. While Respondent concedes that it did not comply with the deadline for implementing the RAP, it points out that work on Phase I was begun in a timely manner. However, on October 16, 2013, or just before the 120 days had run, a Notice of Violation was issued by the County. See Resp. Ex. 2. The effect of the Notice of Violation was to halt much of the work on Phase I until Respondent obtained a County stormwater permit. Respondent asserts that this was responsible for all, or most, of the delay. The record shows that the EPT consultant did not apply for the County permit until September 10, 2014, or almost one year after the Notice of Violation was issued. Additional information was required by the County, which was supplied on October 23, 2014, but final sealed documents were not filed by the consultant until around Thanksgiving. The permit was issued by the County "a week or so" before the final hearing. Respondent attributes the delay in applying for a County permit to its former manager and his failure to coordinate with the EPT engineers assigned to the project. It also claims that the County failed to process the application in an expeditious fashion. However, the facts suggest otherwise. Once the permit was issued, Phase I was completed on December 8, 2014, and it was operational at the time of the final hearing. Respondent's expert, hired in August 2014, has proposed a modification to the RAP that would avoid impacting the existing stormwater pond. However, the modification must be reviewed and approved by the Department, and as of the date of the hearing, it had not been formally submitted. The Department asserts that the only reason the modification is being sought is to reduce the cost of a performance bond. In any event, in its PRO, Respondent does not argue that the proposed modification excuses its 13-month delay in completing the requirements of Phase I, or the second phase of the project, which should have been completed by early July 2014. Count III - Failure to Provide Financial Assurance This Count alleges that Respondent failed to provide the required annual 2014 financial assurance mechanism that demonstrates proof of financial assurance for closure and long- term cost estimates of the facility. At the beginning of 2014, Respondent had an $836,000.00 financial performance bond in place for closure and long-term costs. The Permit requires that on or before March 1 of each year Respondent revise the closure cost estimates to account for inflation in accordance with rule 62-701.630(4). See § 2, Spec. Cond. F.2. Once the estimates are approved, the performance bond must be updated within 60 days. In this case, an increase of around $18,000.00 was required. The annual inflation adjustment estimate was not submitted until April 15, 2014. The Department approved the cost estimates the following day and established a due date of June 16, 2014, for submitting a revised financial assurance. Respondent did not have a revised performance bond in place until a "week or two" before the hearing. Other than Respondent's manager indicating that he had a new bonding agent, no evidence was presented to mitigate this violation. The failure to timely update its financial assurance for closure and long-term costs constitutes a violation of rule 62-701.630, as charged in the Notice. Count IV - Financial Assurances for Corrective Action In the same vein as Count III, the Notice alleges that Respondent failed to maintain a financial assurance mechanism to demonstrate proof that it can undertake the corrective action program required under the RAP. Respondent was required to submit proof of financial assurance for corrective actions within 120 days after the corrective action remedy was selected. On July 3, 2013, the RAP Approval Order selected the appropriate remedy. On August 8, 2013, the Department approved Respondent's corrective action program cost estimates of $566,325.85 and established a deadline of October 31, 2013, for Respondent to submit this proof. When the Notice was issued, a corrective action bond had not been secured, and none was in place at the time of the final hearing. This constitutes a violation of rule 62-701.730(11)(d) and applicable Permit conditions. Respondent's manager, Mr. Miller, concedes that this requirement has not been met. He testified that he was not aware a new bond was required until he took over management of the facility and met with Department staff on June 17, 2014. Due to the Notice, Mr. Miller says he has had significant difficulty in securing a bond. He explained that the bonding company is extremely reluctant to issue a bond to an entity faced with possible revocation of its permit, especially if such revocation might occur within a matter of months. Mr. Miller says the bonding company wants 100 percent collateralization to put a bond in place. Nonetheless, he is confident that a bond can be secured if only because its cost will dramatically drop when the RAP project is completed. However, even at hearing, he gave no timeline on when this requirement will be fulfilled. Count V - Objectionable Odors One of the driving forces behind the issuance of the Notice is the complaint about off-site objectionable odors. A considerable amount of testimony was devoted to this issue by witnesses representing the Department, County, Wedgewood community, and Respondent. The Notice alleges that during routine inspections in April, May, and July 2014, mainly in response to citizen complaints, Department inspectors detected objectionable odors both at the facility and off-site. The Notice further alleges that Respondent failed to immediately take steps to reduce the odors, submit an odor remediation plan, and implement that plan in violation of rules 62-296.320(2) and 62-701.730(7)(e) and section 2, Specific Condition E of the Permit. Notably, the Department has never revoked a landfill permit due solely to objectionable odors. Several Department rules apply to this Count. First, objectionable odors are defined in rule 62-210.200(200). Second, a C & D facility must control objectionable odors in accordance with rule 62-296.320(2). Finally, if odors are detected off-site, the facility must comply with the requirements of rule 62-701.530(3)(b). That rule provides that once off-site odors have been confirmed, as they were here, the facility must "immediately take steps to reduce the objectionable odors," "submit to the Department for approval an odor remediation plan," and "implement a routine odor monitoring program to determine the timing and extent of any off-site odors, and to evaluate the effectiveness of the odor remediation plan." These same regulatory requirements are embodied in the Permit conditions. See § 2, Spec. Cond. E. At least occasionally, every landfill has objectionable odors emanating from the facility. As one expert noted, "The trick is, how can you treat it." The technical witnesses who addressed this issue agree that the breakdown of drywall, wall board, and gypsum board, all commonly recycled at C & D facilities, will produce hydrogen sulfide, which has a very strong "rotten egg" type smell. The most effective techniques for reducing or eliminating these odors are to spray reactant on the affected areas, place more cover, such as dirt or hydrated lime, on the pile, and have employees routinely patrol the perimeters of the property and the active cell to report any odors that they smell. Although the facility has been accepting waste products for a number of years, the last seven by Respondent, there is no evidence that the Department was aware of any odor complaints before April 2014. While not an active participant in the operations until recently, Mr. Miller also testified that he was unaware of any citizen complaints being reported to the facility prior to that date. However, in response to citizen complaints that more than likely were directed initially to the County, on April 14, 21, and 24, 2014, the Department conducted routine inspections of the facility. During at least one of the visits, objectionable odors were detected both on-site, emanating from cell 2, and off-site on West Pinestead Road, just north of the facility. See Dept. Ex. 14. Because the inspector created a single report for all three visits, he was unsure whether odors were detected on more than one visit. After the inspection report was generated, Department practice was to send a copy by email to the facility's former manager, Mr. Davidson. A Department engineer who accompanied the inspector on at least one visit in April 2014 testified that she has visited the site on several occasions, and on two of those visits, the odor was strong enough to make her physically ill. On a follow-up inspection by the Department on May 22, 2014, the inspector did not detect any objectionable odors. See Dept. Ex. 17. In June 2014, however, a County inspector visited the Wedgewood Center area in response to a complaint that dust was coming from the facility. He testified that he detected a rotten egg type smell on the Wedgewood Center property. At a meeting attended by Mr. Miller and County and Department representatives on June 17, 2014, the Department advised Respondent of its findings and provided Mr. Miller with copies of the inspection reports. On July 1, 2014, the Department conducted a follow-up inspection of the facility. The inspector noted a hydrogen sulfide odor on the north, south, and west sides of the disposal area of the facility, and on the top of the disposal pile at the facility. See Dept. Ex. 18. Another inspection conducted on July 9, 2014, did not find any objectionable odors. See Dept. Ex. 19. On July 18, 2014, the Department conducted a follow-up inspection of the facility. The inspector again noted objectionable odors at the facility but none off-site. Id. On July 24, 2014, Department inspectors noted objectionable odors on top of the pile, the toe of the north slopes, and off-site on West Pinestead Road. See Dept. Ex. 20. An inspection performed the following day noted objectionable odors on top of the pile and the toe of the north slopes, but none off-site. Id. The Notice, which was already being drafted in mid-July, was issued a week later. In response to the meeting on June 17, 2014, Respondent prepared a draft odor remediation plan, made certain changes suggested by the Department, and then submitted a revised odor remediation plan prior to July 31, 2014. A Department engineer agrees that "in the strict sense it meets the requirements of the rule" and "could work," but there are "two or three things that still needed . . . to be submitted in order for it to be completely approvable." For example, she was uncertain as to how and when dirt cover would be applied, and how erosion would be controlled. Although the plan was filed, it was never formally approved or rejected, and the "two or three things" that the witness says still needed to be done were never disclosed to Respondent. Under these circumstances, it is reasonable to accept Respondent's assertion that it assumed the plan was satisfactory and complied with the rule. After the Notice was issued, Respondent set up a hotline for community members to call and report odors. A sign on the property gives a telephone number to call in the event of odors. At an undisclosed point in time, Respondent began requiring employees to walk the perimeter of the facility each day to monitor for odors; spreading and mixing hydrated lime to reduce the odors around the facility; and increasing the amount of cover applied to the working face of the facility. The parties agree that these measures are the best available practices to monitor and eliminate objectionable odors at a C & D facility. Despite these good faith measures, Mr. Miller acknowledged that he visited the facility during the evening a few days before the final hearing in December 2014 and smelled hydrogen sulfide around the ECUA sewer pipe and "a very mild level" by the debris pile. Respondent does not deny that odors were emanating from the facility during the months leading up to the issuance of the Notice. But in April 2014, the County experienced a 500- year storm event which caused significant flooding and damaged a number of homes. Because Respondent operates the only C & D facility in the County and charges less than the County landfill, it received an abnormal amount of soaked and damaged C & D debris, which it contends could have generated some, if not all, of the odors that month. Given the magnitude of the storm, this is a reasonable explanation for the source of the odors at that time. Respondent also presented evidence that an underground ECUA sewer pipe that runs on the eastern side of the property was damaged during the storm, causing it to rupture and be exposed. Although ECUA eventually repaired the damaged pipe at a later date, the pipe is still exposed above ground. Until the pipe was repaired, Respondent's assumption that it likely contributed to some of the odors detected by the Department appears to be valid. Finally, Respondent's expert attributes some of the odors to biological degradation from other sources both on-site and off-site, including a large wetland area running through the middle of the property. To a small degree, County testing later that fall confirms this assertion. The County has also been an active participant in the odor complaint issue. In response to complaints received from residents of Wedgewood, in July 2014 it began collecting hydrogen sulfide data using a device known as the Jerome 631X Hydrogen Sulfur Detector. This equipment is used to monitor for the presence of hydrogen sulfur. On July 21 and 22, 2014, samples were taken documenting that hydrogen sulfide was coming from the facility. In early September the County set up a fixed station at the Wedgewood Center, around 500 feet from the edge of Respondent's property, to continuously and automatically collect the data. During September and October 2014 the detector reported the presence of hydrogen sulfide at that location 64 percent of the days in those months, and this continued into the month of November. Seventy-five percent of the exceedances occurred when wind was blowing from the south, or when winds were calm. The data also reflected that when the wind was blowing from the meter to the facility, or to the south, hydrogen sulfide was still detected on some occasions. A resident of the Wedgewood community testified that on multiple occasions she has smelled objectionable odors in her home and yard and at the Wedgewood Center, and that these odors have been emanating from the facility for a number of years. Because of the odors, she says fewer citizens are participating in programs hosted by the Wedgewood Center.3/ The evidence establishes that before the Notice was issued, Respondent filed an odor remediation plan that was never rejected; therefore, the allegation that a plan was not submitted has not been proven. However, objectionable odors were detected off-site in June and July 2014, or after the April inspection reports were provided to the facility, and they continued throughout much of the fall. Therefore, the Department has established that the plan was not properly implemented. These same findings sustain the allegation that steps were not immediately taken to reduce the objectionable odors. Counts VI and VII - Disposal and Failure to Remove Unauthorized Waste Counts VI and VII allege that on April 14, 2014, the Department documented the disposal of prohibited or unauthorized waste, including waste tires; and that on July 18, 2014, the Department conducted a follow-up inspection that documented the disposal of unauthorized waste, including waste tires, clothing, shoes, and Class I waste, including one electronic item and a grill, in violation of rule 62-701.730(4)(d). The Permit specifies that the facility can only accept for disposal C & D debris. See § 2, Spec. Cond. C.2. Another condition provides that if unauthorized debris is spotted after a load is received, the unpermitted waste should be removed and placed in temporary storage in a bin at the sorting area. See § 2, Spec. Cond. C.3. The Operations Plan spells out these procedures in great detail. Photographs received in evidence show that during the inspection on April 14, 2014, the following unauthorized items were observed at the facility: tires, a basketball goal, Quiklube material, chromated copper arsenate treated wood, a toy, and a crushed electronic item. See Dept. Ex. 22. Photographs received in evidence show that during an inspection on July 18, 2014, the following unauthorized items were observed at the facility: blanket or clothing, a shoe, a bag of Class I garbage, several bags of household garbage, furniture, an electronic item and garbage, drilling mud, a suitcase, and tires. See Dept. Ex. 23. Respondent's expert, who has trained numerous spotters, including a current Department inspector, established that a de minimis amount of unpermitted waste, which is easily hidden in the debris, is not unusual and would not constitute a violation of the rule. For example, when a building is torn down, numerous thermostats containing mercury vile will be in a C & D container but very difficult to see. Also, workers at construction sites may throw small amounts of leftover food in the pile of debris that goes to the facility. However, he agrees that most, if not all, of the items observed during the two inspections would not be considered de minimis. Respondent does not deny that the unauthorized waste was present on two occasions. However, it contends that one would expect to find some of the items in a C & D dumpster. It also argues that the amount of unauthorized waste was minimal and not so serious as to warrant revocation of its Permit. The evidence supports a finding that on two occasions Respondent violated two conditions in its Permit by accepting non-C & D waste and failing to remove it. Therefore, the charges in Counts VI and VII have been proven. Count VIII - Facility Outside of Permitted Dimensions This Count alleges that on May 22, 2014, the Department conducted an inspection of the facility in response to a complaint that Respondent had disposed of solid waste outside its permitted (vertical) limit of 130 NGVD; that on July 25, 2014, the Department had a survey performed at the facility that confirmed this violation; and that this activity violated section 2.3 of the facility's Operation Plan and Specific Condition C.10 in the Permit. Section 2.3 provides that "the proposed upper elevation of waste at the [facility] will range up to 130-feet, NGVD, which is slightly above original grade[,]" while Specific Condition C.10 provides that "[t]he final (maximum) elevation of the disposal facility shall not exceed 130 feet NGVD as shown on Attachment 3 - Cell 2 Closure Grading Plan." Respondent admits that on July 25, 2014, the maximum height of the disposal pile exceeded 130 feet NGVD. However, it argues that, pursuant to Specific Condition C.10, which in turn refers to the Permit's Cell 2 Closure Grading Plan, the 130-foot height limitation comes into play only when cell 2 is being closed and is no longer active. This interpretation of the conditions is rejected for at least two reasons. First, a disposal pile in excess of the established height would trigger concerns about the integrity of the foundation of the facility. When the 130-foot ceiling was established by the Department at the permitting stage, it was based on calculations that the ground could support the weight of the waste. Second, the facility's financial assurance calculations are based on a set dimension of the site; these calculations would likely be impacted if there were no height restrictions. The Department's interpretation is more reasonable and limits the height of the pile to no more than 130 feet NVGD at any time when the cell is active. The Department has established that Respondent violated Permit conditions by disposing of waste outside its maximum permitted height of 130 feet NVGD. To Respondent's credit, its new consultant, Charles Miller, completed preparation of a height reduction plan on September 3, 2014. See Resp. Ex. 4. Although Mr. Miller says the plan was being implemented at the time of final hearing, it has never been formally submitted to the Department for approval. Under the plan, Respondent proposes to extract all of the existing waste from the pile in the next two years. To reduce the volume of new waste being accepted, Respondent recently purchased a Caterpillar bulldozer, low-speed grinder, and Trommel screener. New waste will be shredded, screened to separate sand and dirt from the material, and then ground and compacted. Mr. Miller anticipates that the facility can achieve up to an eight to one (or at a minimum a five to one) reduction in the size of the waste. This will dramatically reduce the height of the pile and bring it well below 130 feet at closure. But whether cell 2 is now below 130 feet NGVD is unknown. In any event, these proposed remediation steps should be taken into account in assessing an appropriate penalty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order revoking Respondent's C & D Permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 2nd day of March, 2015.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondents should have an administrative penalty imposed, take corrective action, and pay investigative costs for allegedly maintaining a solid waste management facility without a permit and disposing of solid waste in an area subject to periodic or frequent flooding.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background DDD is a corporation registered to do business in the State of Florida. Its president and sole director is William H. Stanton, Jr. The corporation is engaged in the business of "mobil recycling activities" (reduction recycling services for customers). Mr. Stanton owns a two-acre tract of property located in Section 26, Township 28S, Range 24B, on the northwest corner of Mustang Road and Longhorn Drive, Lakeland, Florida. The property is zoned for heavy industrial uses and was formerly used in some form of phosphate mining operations. The Department is the agency charged with the duty of administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder. Based upon a complaint made by a Polk County Health Department employee, on October 8, 2001, a Department enforcement coordinator, Steven G. Morgan, inspected Mr. Stanton's property and observed that Respondents had filled and compacted an approximate 150 foot by 300 foot area of the site with 3 to 5 feet of "wallboard type material," which consisted of "both ground up and large pieces of wallboard." In the middle of the filled area was an additional pile of the same material around 20 to 25 feet high. Petitioner's Exhibits A, D, and E are photographs which provide an accurate representation of the site on the date of the inspection. Based on a visual inspection, but without having the benefit of his own laboratory analysis,2 Mr. Morgan concluded that the material was a solid waste made up of discarded industrial products. Under Department rules, the deposit of solid waste on such a site requires a waste facility management permit from the Department. A check of Department records indicated that Respondents do not hold a permit to operate a solid waste management facility. (DDD does hold a valid air pollution permit for grinding concrete.) During his inspection, Mr. Morgan also observed that the land adjacent to the filled area was wet, had a lower elevation than the compacted area, and contained small pockets of standing water. This was confirmed by photographs received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibits D and E. A DDD employee who was present on the site during the inspection indicated that approximately 900 truck loads of the material had been transported to the site from Plant City after Mr. Stanton had "lost" a lease on the property on which the material had previously been placed. This was confirmed by Mr. Stanton who arrived at the site shortly after the inspection began, and who indicated that he intended to use the compacted wallboard as a sub-base (or foundation) for a wallboard recycling facility. A second site inspection by Mr. Morgan conducted on February 5, 2002, confirmed that the conditions (regarding the piles of fill material but not the standing water) at the site were unchanged from those found on October 8, 2001. On that visit, Mr. Morgan observed the site from his automobile but did not walk the property. Two other site visits were made, one on June 19, 2002, by other Department personnel. Except for a photograph (Petitioner's Exhibit C) dated June 19, 2002, which indicates the piles of material were still intact and had not been removed, the results of those inspections are not of record. Shortly after the initial inspection, the Department's Tampa District Office issued a warning letter to Mr. Stanton describing Mr. Morgan's observations and outlining the potential violations. The letter also invited Mr. Stanton to resolve the matter informally and to present a corrective action plan to mitigate the site. When the matter could not be resolved informally, the Department issued its Notice on October 10, 2002, alleging that Respondents had operated a solid waste facility without a permit and had deposited solid waste in an area prone to flooding. Even though the matter was not informally resolved, Mr. Stanton has cooperated with the Department in good faith throughout the regulatory process. The Material on the Site Invoices received in evidence reflect that the source of the deposited material was James Hardie Building Products in Plant City, Florida, and that the material was described on the invoices as "Dry Waste Material," Wet Waste Material," and "Foreign Material." James Hardie Building Products manufactures HardieBoard, which is a one-half to one-inch thick concrete formulated product used in the construction of homes and other buildings, and HardiePipe, which is used in road and bridge construction, culverts, storm sewers, and concrete pipes. The material being deposited was material used in the manufacture of HardieBoard. Mr. Stanton's long-range plans are to grind up, or recycle, the material (after all necessary permits, if any, are obtained) and then sell it to other persons, including cement manufacturing plants in the area, who will then use it for a variety of purposes, including subbase and base material, cement and concrete re-additive, and cement production. HardieBoard (as well as HardiePipe) is a variable mixture of Portland cement, water, fine silica sand, less than 10 percent cellulose (a non-toxic organic material commonly added to such products as ice cream, shampoo, baby diapers, and rayon clothing), and less than 10 percent of inert materials. The cellulose fibers are added to the concrete to avoid cracking and shrinkage and to reduce the weight of the product. Unlike concrete used for driveways and the like, HardiBoard does not have any large aggregate. Disposal of Solid Waste and Clean Debris Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.300(1)(a) prohibits the storing, processing, or disposing of solid waste except at a permitted solid waste management facility. In addition, no solid waste may be stored or disposed of "[i]n an area subject to frequent and periodic flooding unless flood protection measures are in place[,]" or "[i]n any natural or artificial body of water including ground water." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.300(2)(d) and (e). These requirements form the basis for the charges in the Notice. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(113) defines solid waste in relevant part as "discarded material, including solid, liquid, semi-solid, or contained gaseous material resulting from domestic, industrial, commercial, mining, agricultural, or governmental operations." Section 403.707(2)(f), Florida Statutes (2003), provides, however, that a permit is not required for "[t]he use of clean debris as fill material in any area." See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.220(2)(f). "Clean debris" is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(15) as: any solid waste which is virtually inert, which is not a pollution threat to ground water or surface waters, is not a fire hazard, and is likely to retain its physical and chemical structure under expected conditions of disposal or use. The term includes brick, glass, ceramics, and uncontaminated concrete including embedded pipe or steel. The term "virtually inert" is not defined by statute or rule. However, the parties agree that in order for a material to be "virtually inert," it must have no potential for leaking contaminants into the groundwater. In addition, if a deposited material releases contaminants into the groundwater thereby posing a threat to human health, it is considered a "threat to [groundwater]" within the meaning of the rule. The rule also provides that the material must not be a fire hazard. Finally, if a material decomposes over time after being used as fill, and releases contaminants into the groundwater, it is not "likely to retain its physical and chemical structure under expected conditions of disposal or use." Therefore, if a material has no potential for leaking contaminants into the groundwater, is not a threat to groundwater, is not a fire hazard, and is not likely to decompose over time, it constitutes clean debris and is exempt from the waste management facility permitting requirements. As noted above, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 701.200(15) identifies four materials that are considered to be clean debris: brick, glass, ceramics, and uncontaminated concrete. If a waste product is classified as uncontaminated concrete, it constitutes clean debris and may be used as fill without a permit from the Department. Further, clean debris may be deposited in an area subject to frequent or periodic flooding so long as flood protection measures are taken, or in a natural or artificial body of water so long as other appropriate permits (such as an Environmental Resource Permit) are obtained. Here, the central issue is whether the material deposited on Mr. Stanton's property is solid waste or clean debris. This issue turns on whether the material is virtually inert, is not a pollution threat to groundwater or surface waters, is not a fire hazard, and is likely to retain its physical and chemical structure under expected conditions of disposal or use. Assuming these criteria are satisfied, the material is exempt from Department permitting requirements for solid wastes. On this issue, the Department contends that the material is not virtually inert and is unlikely to retain its physical and chemical structure. Conversely, Respondents assert that the material is clean debris and falls within the category of uncontaminated concrete. Is the Deposited Material Clean Debris? In determining whether a material is virtually inert, or is a pollution threat to ground or surface waters, two extraction procedures have been sanctioned by the United States Environmental Protection Agency to assist in the measurement of the amount of contaminants that will leak from a material: the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP). Under both procedures, the material being tested is ground up into small sand-size particles, mixed with an extraction fluid, and tumbled for 18 hours in a rotary agitator while the liquid solution extracts various metals that are found in the solids. The extracted liquid solution is then filtered and analyzed to determine the concentration of metals actually leached from the solids. Under state water drinking standards found in Table 1 of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-550, the maximum contaminant levels for chromium and barium (stated in milligrams per liter (mg/L)) are 0.1 mg/L and 2 mg/L, respectively. In reaching its conclusion that the fill material is a solid waste, the Department relied principally on certain tests of the material run by various laboratories between 1998 and 2000, which showed that the amount of chromium and barium leaking out of the product exceeded the State drinking water standards. See Petitioner's Exhibits K, L, M, and O. However, in every one of those tests, the laboratories used the TCLP, rather than the SPLC, which produced a worst case scenario. For the reasons stated below, the TCLP is not the appropriate procedure to be used for this purpose. The TCLP is the more aggressive of the two procedures, uses a much harsher solution than the SPLC, and generally leaches higher concentrations of metals. However, its principal purpose is to determine whether a material should be classified as a hazardous waste based on its leaching properties or characteristics. Using it to predict whether a material will leach into ground water is inappropriate because it will "leach things out in the laboratory that will never leach in the field." This is because it does not mimic conditions in the field and is "just not supposed to be used for this purpose." Therefore, TCLP leachate values should not be applied to drinking water standards. Conversely, the SPLC uses a less harsh solution during the preparation process, evaluates the potential for leaching metals into ground and surface waters, and is designed to provide a more realistic assessment of metal mobility under actual field conditions. In other words, the SPLC simulates what would happen if the sample were exposed to groundwater and rain to determine if under those conditions metals might leach into the water system below. Therefore, the SPLC is the more appropriate procedure to use here to determine whether the HardieBoard material will leach certain metals into the groundwater at levels that exceed State drinking water standards. Even various Department guidance documents provide that the SPLC (rather than the TCLP) should be used to determine if a material will leach metals into the ground water. See Respondents' Exhibits M, N, and O. Respondents' witness Foster collected three samples of HardieBoard deposited by Respondents at another site and submitted them to PPB Environmental Laboratories, Inc., in Gainesville, Florida, for a clinical analysis using the SPLC test. Those results, which have been accepted as being reliable,3 indicate that none of the leachate concentrations for arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver exceed (or even approach) the drinking water standards. Therefore, the material is virtually inert, and the groundwater quality will not be adversely impacted by use of this material as fill. The parties agree that the material is not a fire hazard. Prior to depositing the material, Mr. Stanton used a commercial waste reduction machine (a Smorcazy Bandit Beast 3680 Horizontal Trough Grinder) to grind or pulverize some of the material into fine particles. As noted earlier, a small amount of cellulose fibers are added to the product during the manufacturing process. The Department contends that after the grinding process occurs, these fibers will separate from the remaining fine particles and dissolve into the ground water. Because of this separation, the Department asserts that the material does not retain its physical or chemical structure after being deposited onto the property. Although cellulose fibers are added to the product during its preparation to strengthen the material (and have been added by cement manufacturers since the 1920s), they are distributed throughout the matrix in the material. This means that the fibers become "part and parcel of the mixture" and will not deteriorate, fall out, or leach out of the material even after routine grinding processes, such as that done by Respondents. As such, the cellulose is not biodegradable, and there is no concern that the cellulose will dissolve into the groundwater. Indeed, HardiePipe, which is used in the construction of culverts, storm sewers, and drainage pipes and has essentially the same constituents as HardieBoard, was approved by the Florida Department of Transportation in 2001 for use on State road and bridge projects. Therefore, it is found that the fill material will retain its physical and chemical structure after being deposited onto the ground. Expert testimony by Dr. McClellan established that the material meets the general definition of concrete, and because it is uncontaminated, it should properly be classified as uncontaminated concrete. As such, the material is clean debris and is not subject to the Department's solid waste management permitting requirements. Finally, the Department points out that the compressive strength (measured in pounds per square inch (PSI)) is much greater for concrete used in driveways than for HardiBoard (2500 PSI versus 20 to 30 PSI), and therefore Hardiboard is not a true concrete product. While the PSI values are indeed substantially different, the load bearing ratio or compressive strength of the material does not determine whether a material falls within the generic category of concrete. Water Issues As noted above, if a material is classified as clean debris, it may be deposited into an area prone to flooding or in a natural or artificial body of water, including groundwater (subject, of course, to other unrelated requirements or safeguards). There is no evidence that the filling occurred in a "natural or artificial water body," or directly into the groundwater. In addition, the evidence demonstrates that in October 2001, the ground next to the filled area had small pockets of standing water measuring no more than a few inches deep. However, when the inspection was made, and the photographs taken, Polk County was experiencing rather heavy rainfall, presumably due to the El Nino phenomenon. Whether these conditions (pockets of standing water) exist on the property only during the rainy season is not of record. Further, prior to the filling, Mr. Stanton contacted both the Southwest Florida Water Management District and the United States Geodetic Survey and he asserted, without contradiction, that neither agency indicated that his property was prone to flooding. In any event, even assuming that the area is subject to "frequent and periodic flooding," the permit requirements or other necessary safeguards, if any, associated with filling clean debris in such an area are not the subject of this proceeding. Investigative Costs A Department representative spent 66 hours investigating this matter for the Department. At a then-hourly rate of $18.54, this totals $1,223.64 in investigative costs. The reasonableness of this amount was not disputed by Respondents.
Findings Of Fact Kearney is engaged in the development of real property in and around Hillsborough County, Florida, and is located in Tampa, Florida. Corrugated is a Louisiana Corporation which maintains a local headquarters in Tampa, Florida, and is presently seeking a business outlet in Hillsborough County for the assembly and distribution of metal buildings. At all times material hereto, Kearney and Corrugated have been parties to a real estate transaction concerning certain real property located at 1920 U.S. Highway 301 in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. The subject property consists of .82 acres of undeveloped land which is located in an area of rapid commercial and industrial growth. Under the Hillsborough County Zoning Code, the subject property is designated M-1, which authorizes commercial and industrial uses. Corrugated is the purchaser of the subject property, and proposes to establish an assembly and distribution center for pre-painted sheet metal buildings. Corrugated does not propose to engage in any activity which will generate industrial wastewaters of any kind, and in particular, will not generate wastes or wastewaters of a "hazardous" or "toxic" nature. No centralized public wastewater service has been available to this property, and septic tanks with drainfields are utilized by both adjacent properties for their domestic and other wastewater needs. Kearney and Corrugated have determined that the property in question is suitable for the intended uses in all other respects, including water, electricity, and transportation. In September, 1988, Kearney and corrugated sought approval from Respondent of a permit to install an onsite sewage disposal system (septic tank and drainfield) for the sole purpcse of providing toilet services to employees of the company. The site plan and preliminary construction drawings for the on- site system were reviewed by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) to determine whether the project posed unusual wastewater problems or relied upon inadequately designed facilities. The DER had no objection to the installation of the septic tank and drainfield to serve the proposed system because of the non-hazardous character of the business, and the absence of floor drains in the proposed work areas. The Hillsborough County Health Department, however, gave immediate verbal denial of a septic tank permit based solely upon the industrial zoning of the property, and set forth its denial, in writing, on October 14, 1988. Following the County Health Departnent's denial, Kearney and Corrugated, based upon consultation with Respondent's officials in Tallahassee, assembled additional information to provide further assurance that the site would not generate industrial or hazardous wastes which could be disposed of via the septic tank. They provided detailed descriptions of each process to be performed by Corrugated, in substantiation of its claim that no wastewaters would be generated at the site. They also obtained the agreement of the Hillsborough County Building Department to subject any future building permit applications at the site to particular wastewater scrutiny, in addition to formal deed restrictions which they proposed for the subject property. Notwithstanding these additional representations, the Environmental Health Director of the Hillsborough County Health Department continued to reject the application on the sole ground that the property was zoned for industrial uses. On October 14, 1988, Petitioners submitted an application for a variance to the Hillsborough County Health Department and the Respondent, accompanied by supporting material setting forth the regulatory history referred to above, as well as the written representations and assurances, including proposed deed restrictions, which they had previously tendered to the County Environmental Health Director. They appeared before the Variance Advisory Review Board on November 3, 1988, to substantiate the specific measures which they proposed in order to ensure that no toxic or hazardous substances would be introduced into the septic tank system. These proposals were received by the Advisory Board without objection, and members observed that Petitioners had done everything they could do to provide the comfort margin which the agency sought. However, denial of the variance was recommended based upon the failure of Hi1sborough County to adopt a local ordinance providing for future inspections or controls by local officials to prevent future toxic or hazardous wastes from being disposed into the on- site sewage disposal system. Without such a local ordinance, the Advisory Board members expressed the view that it did not matter what the applicant presented to the Board. On December 2, 1988, the Respondent formally informed the Petitioners, in writing, that their application for a variance had been disapproved. This denial had the effect of formally denying Petitioners' permit application. Thereupon, Petitioners timely sought review of this decision by filing a petition for formal administrative hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent issue a permit for an onsite sewage disposal system to the Petitioners. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Stephens, Esquire Bayport Plaza - Suite 460 6200 Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, Florida 33607 Raymond Deckert, Esguire W. T. Edwards Facility 4000 W. Buffalo 5th Floor, Room 500 Tampa, Florida 33614 John Miller, General Counsel 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory Coler, Secretary 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Solite is a light weight aggregate mining and manufacturing facility located in Clay County, Florida. The mining operation extracts clay from quarries on site. That clay is then stored on site for use in the manufacturing. The Solite facility began its operations in Clay County in 1959. To convert the clay into a product, it is introduced into a rotary light weight aggregate kiln. There it is heated to a temperature of 1,900 to 2,100 degrees Fahrenheit. Once the raw feed has been subjected to the heat in the rotary kiln, it becomes light weight aggregate, a product that is used in the construction industry. Before being introduced into the kiln the raw feed clay is stored in a covered shed. When the kiln is operating clay is taken from the shed by front end loader and transported to a pug mill. The clay exits the pug mill onto a conveyor which has a weigh scale. From there, the raw feed clay is introduced into the kiln, at what is referred to as the cold end of the kiln. When a kiln is in operation the clay rolls from the cold end of the kiln through the other end during which transport the raw clay is heated. The clay is discharged from the kiln into a product cooler. From the product cooler it is transferred by a front end loader to a crushing, screening and storage area. Solite has three (3) kilns at the facility. They are kilns 1, 1A and 5. The kilns at the Solite facility are eight to nine feet in diameter and 130 to 160 feet long. When the kilns are in operation, they rotate at a speed of one to two revolutions per minute in producing the product. The fuel sources for heating the kilns on site are constituted of coal, number (2) fuel oil, propane or liquid burnable material (LBM). The LBM fuel source contains a variety of combustible waste materials. Among those waste materials are certain hazardous wastes. In 1973 Solite began to burn material which is now classified as hazardous waste. The combustion process that occurs in manufacturing the light weight aggregate creates gases that run countercurrent to the raw clay feed. The combustion gases are discharged at the same end of the kiln in which the raw clay had been introduced. In managing the hazardous waste used at the facility, Solite has installed two systems to treat the combustion gases before those gases are released into the atmosphere. Kiln No. 5 employs baghouse technology for air pollution control, a treatment system consisting of two compartments with approximately 960 bags. By contrast, the air pollution control devises for kilns 1 and 1A are individual wet scrubber systems for each kiln. As stated, the proposed permit would allow Solite to add an additional baghouse. Under this arrangement two of the existing kilns could be used simultaneously, with the existing baghouse No. 5 and the proposed baghouse No. 1 serving as air pollution control devices. The existing baghouse associated with kiln 5 has a lime injection system as part of the air pollution control system. The proposed permit contemplates a lime injection system as part of the air pollution control to be employed with the additional baghouse. The wet scrubbers associated with kilns 1 and 1A are designed to control particulate matter in emissions. The scrubbers are not designed to respond to other pollutants. To that end the wet scrubber with kiln 1A could meet applicable standards for particulate matter. The wet scrubber for kiln 1 could possibly meet the applicable standard for particulate matter if more spray nozzles were added to the scrubber. The present inability for kiln 1 to meet the applicable standard for particulate matter control is not significant because Solite may only operate kiln 1 or 1A separately. The water that is employed in the wet scrubbers becomes hazardous waste once it has been utilized in the attempt to respond to the pollutants in the air emissions generated by the respective kiln. In the past that water containing hazardous waste was introduced into a settling pond. Solite may no longer discharge that water into the settling pond in accordance with a regulatory decision that is not the subject for consideration in this case. Solite has made no other arrangements for disposing of the waste water. The proposed permit in this case would allow Solite to use the existing scrubbers to control emissions from kilns 1 and 1A in the instance where fuels were used in the manufacturing that were other than LBM with hazardous waste. At present kilns 1 and 1A have necessary permits for their use with the wet scrubber air pollution control devices, subject to the limitations that have been described. Under the terms set forth in the proposed permit the future use of LBM with hazardous waste in the manufacturing in kilns 1 and 1A would be only allowed when baghouse technology was employed as an air pollution control device. The baghouse air pollution control technology does not use water. Therefore it does not create a circumstance in which the treatment water contains hazardous waste. In that respect, kiln 1A ceased burning LBM with hazardous waste on December 1, 1990. That practice was concluded at kiln 1 on June 6, 1991. Kiln 5 ceased burning LBM with hazardous waste on August 19, 1991, but resumed burning LBM with hazardous waste on December 14, 1993 after the baghouse for that kiln was installed with its lime injection system. The baghouse proposed to be installed under the terms of the permit application is almost identical to the baghouse and associated equipment that were recently installed to operate with kiln 5. The baghouse and associated equipment with kiln 5 has achieved full compliance with all applicable state and federal air regulations as evidenced through compliance tests. As noted, with the baghouse at kiln 5 and the proposed baghouse for kilns 1 and 1A, the combustion gases are subject to treatment by lime. In that process the lime is introduced into the air emissions by pneumatic transfer. An alternative means for lime injection is established. That alternative would allow the lime to be introduced at the point where the fuel is fired at the kiln. Lime injection is used to control acid gases, either sulfur dioxide or hydrogen chloride. The combustion gases are also cooled by passing them through a heat exchanger that brings the temperature down from the exit temperature from the kiln temperature of 900 degrees Fahrenheit to approximately 400 degrees Fahrenheit. The cooled gases then enter the baghouse which is designed to control the particulate matter in the emissions. From there the remaining gases are discharged into the atmosphere. It takes four to five seconds for the combustion gases to go from the kiln through the heat exchanger proposed by this project. The particulate matter is in the form of dust that is collected in the baghouse. That dust is removed through a screw conveyor and pneumatically transferred to a kiln storage bin. The air involved in that pneumatic transfer is discharged through a small baghouse. The clay fines in the kilns bin are reintroduced into the pug mill, conveyed and mixed with raw clay before the clay fines are reintroduced into the manufacturing process in the kiln. The clay fines may also be transported from the kiln storage bin to the crusher and introduced into the finishing process for the product. On November 30, 1992, Solite made application for the permit at issue. Solite sought permission to modify the existing facility by constructing duct work that would connect kilns 1 and 1A to the kiln 5 baghouse, to construct and temporarily operate the additional baghouse and to connect kilns 1 and 1A to the existing pug mill filter receiver and clinker hopper filter (the filter receiver associated with the crusher). The connection of kilns 1 and 1A to the existing pug mill filter receiver and clinker hopper filter is to control the particulate matter that is captured in the baghouses. The existing pug mill filter receiver and clinker hopper filter presently serve kiln 5. If allowed the opportunity to construct a second baghouse, Solite contemplates using the second baghouse with kiln 1 or 1A. The arrangement contemplated by the proposed permit would allow kiln 1 or 1A to operate simultaneously with kiln 5. The bags in the proposed baghouse would be about six inches in diameter and twelve feet long. As the particulate matter in the air emissions enters the top of the baghouse it passes through these bags. That particulate or dust is collected on the surface of the bags, while the air that has gone through the filtration process exits through the stack to the baghouse and into the atmosphere. The dust that collects on the bags forms a "filter cake." Once a certain atmospheric pressure is achieved in the baghouse a predetermined jet of air is blasted down the bags blowing the filter cakes away from the bags. This allows the cakes to fall down into the bottom of the baghouse where a screw-auger moves that material to one end of the baghouse hopper. From there it is removed through an air lock and pneumatically transferred to the clay fines bin. The proposed baghouse would utilize a continuous monitor that is installed with the baghouse to measure the particulate matter concentration in the clean air section of the baghouse. Should a hole appear in one of the bags, that would cause a increase in the particulate concentration. Then a signal is generated by a broken bag detector which alerts the operator that a problem exists and the bag needs to be replaced. There are access doors into the baghouse that allow the operator to enter the baghouse to inspect the bags and replace them as needed. When the Department reviewed the permit application, it issued a notice of intent to grant a permit and a proposed permit. Petitioner's timely protested the intent to grant. Before hearing the Department issued two amendments to the proposed permit. It is the second amendment which forms the basis for proposed agency action. Solite does not oppose the terms set forth in the second amendment. Petitioners do oppose the grant of the second amended permit. By the actions which the parties have taken in this case, it would appear that they have conceded the standing for Petitioners to bring the challenge to the grant of a permit. The proposed project would not increase the capacity for the manufacture of light weight aggregate products. The amount of fuel used in that manufacturing and the hours of operation when compared to opportunities presently permitted would not be increased. The maximum rate of feed of authorized LBM that could be incinerated in kilns 1 and 1A does not increase when comparing the application to the existing permits for kilns 1 and 1A with wet scrubbers. The removal efficiencies with the proposed baghouse exceed or are equal to those with the wet scrubber systems when examining control of emissions of air pollutants that must be addressed. Clay County is an attainment area for all air pollutants. In considering the application, the Department determined this to be a construction request with a right to temporarily operate the equipment to check its performance. The Department considered the permit request to be one related to a stationary installation which will reasonably be expected to be a source of air pollution. See Section 403.087(1), Florida Statutes. In the proposed permit for baghouse No. 1 the Department intends to impose certain restrictions on emissions that were specified in the permit issued for the baghouse No. 5. The Department in its proposed permit employs a process similar to that set forth in the January 23, 1993 settlement agreement related to kiln No. 5. In determining the acceptability of the proposal the Department looked to Rule 62-730.181, Florida Administrative Code which speaks to standards for the management of specific hazardous wastes and specific types of hazardous waste management facilities. In particular the Department utilized that rule in its terms wherein the rule incorporates by reference 40 C.F.R. Part 266, Subpart H, as it is designed to regulate hazardous waste burned in a boiler or industrial furnace. The regulations in 40 C.F.R. 266, Subpart H, are referred to as the Boiler and Industrial Furnaces regulations (BIF). The Solite kilns are industrial furnaces within the meaning as defined in 40 C.F.R. 266, Subpart H. The Department in its proposed permit would impose the terms set forth in 40 C.F.R. 266, Subpart H, related to the maximum concentrations of certain constituents in the LBM with hazardous wastes and the air emissions produced by their destruction. By imposing those requirements the Department is operating independently. It is not through this permit review administering the BIF regulations as set forth in 40 C.F.R. 266, Subpart H under authority from the United Stated Environmental Protection Agency and for the benefit of that federal regulatory agency. The Department has required that Solite address the combined emissions from metals and other air pollutants for all sources at the facility. By this requirement the Department intends to assure that those emissions do not result in ambient air concentrations that would harm or injure human health or welfare, animal, plant, or aquatic life or property. To demonstrate those assurances Solite was expected to conduct modeling of the emissions of metals and chlorine which could be emitted from the facility. That modeling was properly done. The requirement for modeling was in accordance with Section 403.161, Florida Statutes. In association with this requirement the Department referred to the BIF regulations at 40 C.F.R. 261. The proposed permit is considered in accordance with Rule 62-296.320, Florida Administrative Code, related to the control of air pollutants which cause or contribute to an objectionable odor. The requirements within the proposed permit include the necessity for Solite to establish reasonable precautions to minimize unconfined emissions of particulate matter as described in Rule 62-196.310(3), Florida Administrative Code. As stated in the proposed permit, if kiln 1 or 1A were in operation using the wet scrubbers they must conform to existing permits associated with kilns 1 and 1A, but those opportunities would only pertain to the instance in which the fuel sources are other than LBM with hazardous waste. For Solite to use wet scrubbers as pollution control devices for kilns 1 and 1A in an instance in which LBM with hazardous waste was used for fuel, the treatment efficiency for kiln 1 would have to be improved in the manner described and the treatment water that contained hazardous waste must be disposed of other than by placement in the settling pond. The existing wet scrubber systems for kilns 1 and 1A are not closed systems which continue to re-circulate the scrub water (a closed scrub water containment system). There is no proposal to install a scrubber water re-circulation system. If such a system were installed an arrangement would be necessary for periodically taking the scrubber water and disposing of that water off-site. Without a system for containing and re-circulating the scrubber water which contained hazardous waste, and periodic disposal of that scrubber water, Solite may not use kilns 1 and 1A with a scrubber when burning LBM with hazardous waste. This is true even though the Solite air emissions control device for kiln 1A using the wet scrubber does meet applicable air emissions standards and the scrubber system permitted with kiln 1 has the possibility to meet air emissions standards. Therefore, if kilns 1 or 1A were used with a baghouse this would create a net increase in air emissions when using LBM with hazardous waste as a fuel source. Such an arrangement would not exceed the theoretical air emissions associated with the wet scrubbers for kilns 1 or 1A when using LBM with hazardous waste that are presently set forth in the existing permits for those kilns. But the proposed permit recognizes the problem with the scrubber systems by limiting the use of the scrubber systems to those occasions in which LBM with hazardous waste is not used as a fuel. The proposed permit specifically prohibits the use of kiln 1 and 1A simultaneously. A baghouse or scrubber may only control the emissions from one kiln at a time in accordance with the proposed permit. The Oldover Corporation or another facility permitted to manage hazardous wastes under various provisions at 40 C.F.R. shall be the supplier of LBM with hazardous wastes. Under the terms of the proposed permit Solite is responsible for the LBM with hazardous wastes meeting all the requirements in any applicable state, federal and local regulations. The proposed permit limits the constituents in the LBM with hazardous waste. It does not allow any hazardous waste that is listed for dioxin or derived from the dioxin-listed waste. As set forth in the proposed permit, organic cyanides, sulfide, mercaptans, insecticides, pesticides, herbicides, electroplating waste or radioactive material regulated by the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services are not allowed to be part of the LBM. Other limitations are placed on the LBM with hazardous fuel concerning its constituents. They are set forth in proposed condition number 22 to the proposed permit. In accordance with the proposed permit, prior to submitting an application for an operating permit, which would allow LBM with hazardous waste to be burned, Solite is required to conduct testing at the facility for chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin and dibenzofuran, pursuant to a test plan approved by the Department. The proposed permit addresses test requirements and reports under various provisions set forth in Rule 62-297, Florida Administrative Code. The proposed permit reminds Solite that: Nothing in this permit shall exempt the permit to you from the requirements of 40 C.F.R. 761, polychlorinated bolychlorinated biophenyls, 40 C.F.R. 266, Subpart H, hazardous waste burned in boilers and industrial furnaces, and Chapter 62-730, Florida Administrative Code, hazardous waste, or any other requirements outside the purview of the Department's air regulation (Chapters 62-296 and 297, Florida Administrative Code). The permittee shall obtain such state and federal permits, when applicable, pursuant to any hazardous waste regulation (Rule 62-4.160, Florida Administrative Code). The proposed permit allows for an extension of the construction permit upon request of the Bureau of Air Regulation within the Department. The proposed permit makes it incumbent upon Solite to submit an application for an operation permit to the northeast district of the Department at least ninety (90) days prior to the expiration date of the construction permit. The proposed permit would allow kilns Nos. 1 and 1A to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, but no more than 760 hours during any calendar year, but not simultaneously. Concerning hazardous wastes in the LBM, procedures for testing those fuels to be used at the Solite facility are set forth in the waste analysis plan in the hazardous waste facility permit for the Oldover Corporation and the waste analysis plan for Solite. Oldover supplies those fuels to Solite. Under the waste analysis plan the generator of the waste material must complete a waste profile indicating the type of waste and its constituents which the generator proposes to supply to the facility. Initially Solite evaluates the waste profile to determine if the waste material meets all the necessary requirements for acceptance as a hazardous waste fuel for Solite. If the profile is acceptable, a representative sample is obtained from the waste generator. This sample is analyzed for a comprehensive set of parameters including physical characteristics, metals and organic compounds. If the representative sample indicates that the waste stream is acceptable it is approved and shipments are made to the Oldover facility adjacent to Solite. Once the waste stream has been approved by Solite and shipments are made, Oldover reviews the manifest associated with each shipment to determine the existence of any prohibitive constituents in the fuel before the fuel is accepted. Oldover tests the wastes for a limited number of parameters to determine whether or not the shipment conforms with the pre-established waste profile. If discrepancies are discovered between the waste profile and testing results the shipment may be rejected if the problems with the shipment cannot be reconciled with the anticipated waste profile. Comprehensive waste analysis are performed on an annual basis as well as at the initial point at which Solite begins to do business with a waste generator or upon the occasion when there is a significant change to the generator's waste stream. As it appears, the LBM with hazardous waste obtained from outside generators is generated off-site. Through this processes Solite has provided reasonable assurance that the use of LBM's with hazardous waste envisioned by the proposed permit will not allow the burning of hazardous waste that is listed for dioxin or derived from the dioxin-listed wastes: FO20, FO21, FO23, FO26 or FO27 as specified in 40 C.F.R. 261, Subpart H, or organic cyanides sulfites, mercaptans, insecticides, pesticides, herbicides, electroplating waste or radioactive material regulated by the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Solite has provided reasonable assurance that the LBM with hazardous waste will be properly analyzed to quantify the concentration of any constituent that may reasonably be expected to be in the waste. Those constituents will be identified and quantified, if present. This process of identification and quantification will be at levels detectable by analytical procedures prescribed in EPA method SW-846. That method is the prescribed method for analyzing hazardous LBM under the BIF rules. As a means to promote reasonable assurances that the proposed project will comply with applicable state and federal emissions standards, emissions from kiln 5 using its baghouse have been tested and the emissions at kiln 5 using the baghouse meet all applicable state and federal emission standards. Given that the proposed baghouse for kilns 1 and 1A will be very similar to the baghouse associated with kiln 5, it is to be expected that the emissions from kilns 1 and 1A using the proposed baghouse would be comparable to the experience with kiln 5 and its baghouse. Using a baghouse results in significant reductions in the emissions of particulate matter when compared to the experience with wet scrubbers. The emissions from the proposed project will not exceed emission standards for particulate matter. The use of the lime injection system with the proposed baghouse will decrease emissions of sulfur dioxide. The emissions from the proposed project will not exceed standards for sulfur dioxide. Neither the existing wet scrubber system nor the baghouse system are expected to have any significant impact on nitrogen oxide emissions. Consequently, there will be no significant change in nitrogen oxide emissions associated with the installation of the proposed baghouse. The emissions from the proposed project will not exceed emission standards for nitrogen oxides. The proposed baghouse will result in a reduction in the emissions of metals due to the increased efficiency in the removal of particulate matter. The emissions from the proposed project will not exceed emission standards for metals. The proposed baghouse will result in a reduction in mercury emissions due to increased efficiencies in the removal of mercury in particulate form. The proposed baghouse will not cause a change in the emissions of hydrogen chloride when compared to the experience with the wet scrubbers. The levels of hydrogen chloride when using the baghouse as a control device will not exceed any standards. Nor will there be emissions in excess of standards for chlorine gas. The proposed baghouse when contrasted with the experience in the use of wet scrubbers will not change the amount of emissions of organic materials. The proposed baghouse when contrasted with the wet scrubber system will result in a reduction of the emissions of dioxins and furans. The proposed project will comply with standards applicable to dioxins and furans by exclusion from the LBM and limiting the inlet temperature to the baghouse. The proposed permit prohibits the facility from accepting any dioxins bearing waste. The fuel is screened to insure that it does not contain dioxin. PCB's in excess of five parts per million are not allowed. This is a means to limit the formation of dioxins and furans from the PCB's. The maximum temperature of gases entering the baghouse is established at 450 degrees Fahrenheit and an automatic shut-off device is required if this temperature is exceeded in order to control the secondary generation of dioxins and furans. The inlet temperature to the baghouse is set at 425 degrees. The modeling that was done to examine emissions of metals and chlorine provided reasonable assurances that the ambient concentrations caused by the impact of these pollutants from this facility will be less than the Department's annual air reference concentrations, as a means to ensure that harm or injury to human health or welfare, animal, plant or aquatic life or property does not occur. Solite is required by the terms of the proposed permit to have continuous emission monitors for carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. When the emission standard for carbon monoxide or alternatively hydrocarbons nears the exceedance level, then the automatic waste feed shut-off is activated to assure that the carbon monoxide or, alternatively, hydrocarbon emission standards are not exceeded. Kiln 5 with its associated baghouse has demonstrated a destruction and removal efficiency for regulated organic pollutants in excess of 99.99 percent. Having similar technology, the proposed permit for a baghouse can be expected to meet the 99.99 percent destruction and removal efficiency for organic pollutants. The addition of the proposed baghouse with its associated features provides reasonable assurance that the particulate matter standard of 0.08 grains per dry standard cubic foot corrected to seven percent O2 will be met. As a protection against exceeding emission standards for various pollutants the proposed permit requires that Solite continuously monitor for carbon monoxide, oxygen, baghouse inlet temperature and sulfur dioxide at levels established in the proposed permit. Furthermore, the proposed permit requires that an automatic shut-off device be installed to maintain established emissions limits for temperature, oxygen or hydrocarbons. Such devices have been installed on the existing kiln 5 with its baghouse. Efficient combustion can be expected in kilns 1 and 1A based upon residence time for burning, turbulence, temperature and oxygen availability. The residence time for the fuels is approximately four seconds. The rotation of the kilns and movement of the clay material ensures adequate turbulence. The temperature of the kiln must be maintained at or above 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and the fuel feed of LBM with hazardous waste is automatically shut-off if the temperature falls below 1,850 degrees. Oxygen levels are to be continuously monitored. The gas flow rates for fuel introduced into the kiln may not vary significantly. These arrangements are contained in the proposed permit. The re-introduction of clay fines or dust into the kiln to be incorporated into the product has been taken into account in establishing estimates of emissions for kilns 1 and 1A. That phenomenon has been measured in emissions for kiln 5. In using the dust Solite will not create conditions which violate standards for emissions. To support these findings all experts who testified at the hearing agreed that the proposed project will meet all applicable rules and emission standards. Solite has established reasonable assurances concerning those standards. The Solite application was sealed by a professional engineer, Dr. John Koogler, who was among those experts mentioned. The Solite facility uses an industrial furnace which is similar in design to furnaces regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency in its hazardous waste regulatory program. Nothing about the facility is extraordinary, thus requiring a more rigorous regulatory response to this facility which uses LBM with hazardous waste in kiln No. 5 and proposes to do so through the project under consideration. It was not shown that the Department must impose its "Air toxics" permitting strategy for controlling toxic emissions from stationary sources at levels which will not endanger public health in order to adequately consider the proposed project. The "Air toxics" permitting strategy is a non-rule policy. Although not specifically required by rule or standard Solite performed additional modeling concerning the emissions of organics from the facility with the advent of the use of the proposed baghouse. The modeling indicated that there would not be an exceedance of the no threat levels established in the state air toxics strategy. Similarly, although not required, Solite conducted additional modeling of dioxins emissions which indicated that there would be no significant risk posed as a result of the proposed project. Solite has qualified for interim status under the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations to burn hazardous waste at its facility. Solite has filed EPA required precompliance certification for all three kilns and certification of compliance for kiln 5. Solite has obtained an extension from EPA for filing their certification of compliance for kilns 1 and 1A. In addition Solite has submitted an application for hazardous facility permit to EPA and this application is currently under review by EPA. In reviewing the permit application past violations of statutes and rules were considered by the Department. This was done to determine whether Solite had provided reasonable assurances that the Department standards in application to the proposed project would be met. The Department correctly decided that Solite's past violations did not justify denial of the permit. Those violations were not severe and Solite corrected the problems. Furthermore, the proposed project would improve air pollution control to the extent that it reduces or eliminates problems that led to the previous violations.
Recommendation Based upon a consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which grants the construction permit for the air pollution source subject to the provisions set forth in the second amended proposed permit. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of August, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following discussion is given concerning the proposed findings of facts by the parties: Petitioner's facts Paragraphs 1 through 6 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 7 through 12 are not requirements that must be considered in deciding to grant or deny the permit. Paragraphs 13 through 16 are contrary to facts found. Paragraph 17 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 18 is rejected in its suggestion that Solite has not given the necessary reasonable assurances. Paragraph 19 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 20 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 21 and 22 are rejected in the suggestion that the activities at Solite caused these problems. Paragraphs 23 through 28 are rejected in the suggestion that the emissions tests associated with the permit request are inadequate or that Solite has routinely exceeded air emissions requirements or used unacceptable LBM with hazardous waste in the past. Paragraph 29 is rejected in the suggestion that the Department has inappropriately considered the permit request. Paragraph 30 is rejected in the suggestion that the Department would allow unacceptable fuels to be burned in the kilns. Paragraphs 31 and 32 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 33 is rejected as not establishing a requirement for granting or denying this permit. Paragraph 34 is rejected to the extent that it suggests that the Department has failed to take into account appropriate circumstances when determining to grant or deny the permit. Paragraph 35 is rejected in the suggestion that the Solite facility has caused problems for local gardeners. Paragraphs 36 and 37 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 38 is rejected in the suggestion that Solite has not complied with applicable standards for lead. Paragraphs 39 through 43 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 44 is not relevant. Paragraphs 45 through 47 are rejected in the suggestion that the Department has not adequately considered those circumstances necessary to determine whether to grant or deny the permit. Paragraphs 48 through 49 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 50 and 51 are rejected in the suggestion that these matters must be considered by the Department in deciding whether to grant or deny the permit. Paragraph 52 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 53 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 54 through 57 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 58 is not relevant. Paragraph 59 is a conclusion of law. Paragraph 60 is rejected in the suggestion that inappropriate modeling was conducted by Solite in support of its application. Paragraph 61 is a conclusion of law. Paragraph 62 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 63 is rejected in the suggestion that the air toxics strategy should have been employed in this case. Paragraph 64 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 65 through 67 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 68 is not relevant. Paragraphs 69 through 73 are rejected in the suggestion that reasonable assurances have not been given concerning compliance with applicable standards for emissions levels. Paragraph 74 is subordinate to facts found. The first sentence to Paragraph 75 is contrary to facts found. The second sentence is not a requirement for resolving the proposed permit request. Paragraphs 76 through 80 are not relevant. Paragraph 81 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 82 is contrary to facts found. Solite's facts: Paragraphs 1 through 5 are subordinate to facts found. The first sentence to Paragraph 6 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. The second sentence is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 7 through 16 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 17 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 18 through 42 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 43 is contrary to facts found in its suggestion that LBM with hazardous waste may be used with the existing wet scrubbers and the lack of increase in the capacity to burn LBM with hazardous waste if the proposed permit is granted. Paragraphs 44 and 45 are subordinate to facts found. Department's Facts: Paragraphs 1 through 9 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 10 is rejected in the suggestion that kilns 1 and 1A may use LBM with hazardous waste when operating with the wet scrubber notwithstanding what the permits may say. Paragraphs 11 through 28 are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas K. Maurer, Esquire Foley & Lardner Post Office Box 2193 Orlando, FL 32801 Julie Hellmuth 1205 Orange Circle North Orange Park, FL 32073 Priscilla Norwood Harris Post Office Box 702 Green Cove Springs, FL 32043 Jefferson M. Braswell, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 Kenneth Plante, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
The Issue The issue is whether Resort Village Utility, Inc., and SGI Utility, LLC, are entitled to a renewal of a permit for the construction and operation of a wastewater treatment facility with effluent disposal to a rapid-rate absorption field land application system consisting of three absorption beds on St. George Island in Franklin County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact In 1996, DEP issued Permit No. 235845 (subsequently renumbered Permit No. FLA010069-001) to RVU. The permit was issued pursuant to Adams v. Resort Village Utility, Inc. and Department of Environmental Protection, DOAH Case No. 95-0863 (Final Order February 23, 1996). Petitioner, in the instant case, was the petitioner in the prior case. RVU and DEP, Respondents in the instant case, were respondents in the prior case. The original permit authorized RVU to construct and operate an advance wastewater treatment facility with associated reuse/land application system (AWT facility) in a proposed mixed-use development on St. George Island in Franklin County, Florida. Mr. Ben Johnson was the owner of the proposed development and the principal of RVU when DEP issued the original permit. DEP issued the original permit for five years with an expiration date of March 1, 2001. The instant case involves a renewal of the original permit, currently designated as Permit No. FLA010069-002 (the Permit). Since the issuance of the original permit, the AWT facility has been constructed in accordance with its plans and specifications. However, at the time of the final hearing in the instant case, the AWT facility was not operational. The original permit contained certain groundwater monitoring requirements. These requirements included baseline monitoring to collect data on certain contaminants or pollutants before the AWT facility becomes operational for comparison to groundwater monitoring after the AWT facility becomes operational. The original permit did not specify the time frame for beginning and ending the monitoring. RVU furnished DEP with a baseline groundwater monitoring report in December 1997 and June 1998. By letter dated June 15, 1998, Garlick Environmental Associates, Inc., on behalf of RVU, advised DEP that further baseline groundwater monitoring would be suspended until February 1999. RVU properly suspended the baseline groundwater monitoring because of a delay in the construction and operation of the AWT facility. At the time of the final hearing, RVU had not resumed the monitoring. The AWT facility is scheduled to become operational in incremental stages beginning with 30,000 gallons of effluent per day and increasing to 90,000 gallons of effluent per day. The monitoring requirements in the original permit and the instant Permit are sufficient to show at each stage of operation whether the AWT facility will cause an increase in contaminants in Apalachicola Bay. Because the AWT facility is not currently operational, it is not responsible for causing any pollution. In October 1999, Mr. Johnson sold the subject property to SGI Limited Partnership, a Florida limited partnership. Mr. David Wilder is a principal in SGI Limited Partnership and vice-president of SGI Utility, LLC. On February 10, 2000, RVU filed an application with DEP to transfer the original permit to SGI Utility, LLC. By letter dated February 18, 2000, DEP granted the request to transfer the permit contingent upon approval of the sale of the AWT facility by the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC). The February 18, 2000, letter states that DEP would change its records to show SGI Utility, LLC, as owner of St. George Island Resort Village domestic wastewater treatment facility. DEP's letter states that it shall be attached to and become part of domestic wastewater Permit No. FLA010069. On September 1, 2000, SGI Utility, LLC, filed an application with DEP to renew the original permit. The application indicates that SGI Utility, LLC, is the applicant/owner/operator of the AWT facility. Mr. Wilder signed the application as the authorized representative of SGI Utility, LLC. A professional engineer signed the application in his professional capacity, as well as agent for SGI Utility, LLC. The application for permit renewal contains a copy of RVU's PSC certificate. The certificate grants RVU authority to provide wastewater service in Franklin County. The application included the following implementation schedule and completion dates: (a) Begin Construction, September 2000; (b) End Construction, March 2001; (c) Begin Reuse or Disposal, March 2001; and (d) Operational Level Attained, August 2001. SGI Utility, LLC, enclosed a check payable to DEP in the amount of $1,000 with the permit renewal application. The purpose of the check was to cover review fees. By letter dated September 28, 2000, DEP requested additional information. On or about October 5, 2000, the professional engineer for SGI Utility, LLC, sent DEP copies of the signed and sealed cover page for the permit renewal application. DEP subsequently sent SGI Utility, LLC, a copy of a Notice of Application. The notice stated that DEP had received the permit renewal application from SGI Utility, LLC. DEP expected SGI Utility, LLC, to publish the notice in a newspaper of general circulation. For the reasons set forth below, SGI Utility, LLC, never published this notice. After SGI Utility, LLC, received the Notice of Application, Mr. Wilder wrote a letter dated October 11, 2000, to DEP. The letter states that SGI Utility, LLC, as the proposed transferee of the Permit, had filed the application to renew the Permit on behalf of RVU, the current holder of the Permit. Mr. Wilder advised DEP that PSC approval was still pending. The letter states as follows in relevant part: Technically, therefore, SGI Utility, LLC is not yet the holder of the permit, although it is acting with the approval of and as the agent for Resort Village Utility, Inc. Additionally, should the publication Notice be amended to show Resort Village Utility, Inc. and SGI Utility, LLC as the applicant? By letter dated November 2, 2000, Mr. Johnson confirmed that Mr. Wilder was authorized to act on behalf of RVU with respect to all matters relating to the renewal and transfer of the Permit, including without limitation, signing all applications, documents, certificates and publication notices. Mr. Johnson's letter also states as follows in relevant part: This letter will also confirm your statement to Gary Volenac, P.E., that the form of the Notice of Application for the renewal of the permit previously submitted by the Department to Mr. Wilder by letter dated October 11, 2000, is acceptable with the exception of substituting Resort Village Utility, Inc. for SGI Utility, Inc. On November 23, 2000, the Notice of Application was published in the Apalachicola Times. The notice stated that DEP announced receipt of an application from David E. Wilder for RVU to obtain a renewal of the Permit. In a letter dated December 1, 2000, DEP advised SGI Utility, LLC, that it had been 52 days since SGI Utility, LLC, had been notified of deficiencies in the Permit renewal application. DEP reminded SGI Utility, LLC, that failure to supply the requested information might result in permit denial. Petitioner wrote DEP a letter dated December 4, 2000. Petitioner was concerned that the newspaper announcement named RVU as the applicant for renewal of the Permit instead of SGI Utility, LLC. Petitioner also noted that RVU had created a small lake on the property close to the AWT facility's largest absorption bed. Petitioner was concerned that flooding after heavy rains in the absorption bed area, together with the addition of the small lake, would present a threat of pollution to Apalachicola Bay. By letter dated December 6, 2000, SGI Utility, LLC, furnished DEP with a copy of the Notice of Application that was published in the Apalachicola Times on November 23, 2000. On January 18, 2001, DEP representatives (Joe May and Dave Krieger) met with Petitioner and an employee of SGI Utility, LLC (Morris Palmer), at the site of the AWT facility. The purpose of the visit was to conduct a routine inspection in response to the Permit renewal application and to address Petitioner's concerns. At the time of the inspection, construction of the wastewater treatment plant had not commenced. Two of the absorption beds had been installed. The third absorption bed had been flagged for construction. During the meeting on January 18, 2001, Mr. May noted that there could be a concern with rainfall run-on for one of the absorption beds. Mr. May suggested the creation of a berm at the entrance to the bed along the adjacent road to prevent rainfall run-on. Mr. May concluded that implementation of the approved stormwater plan would redirect rainfall run-off from the road. Mr. May also suggested the creation of a berm for another absorption bed. A berm between dunes adjacent to that bed would prevent run-on to the bed from high tide. During the meeting, Mr. May and Petitioner discussed the impact of heavy rainfall from a tropical storm in October 1996. The storm flooded isolated areas on St. George Island, including areas in the subject development. The isolated flooding lasted for several days. However, persuasive evidence received at final hearing indicates that the 1996 storm did not cause prolonged flooding, if any, in the absorption cells. Similar concerns about flooding in the absorption cells were addressed in the original permit. The absorption cells have been designed to ensure protection to the facility in the event of a large storm. The creation of the berms recommended by Mr. May will provide additional protection from run-on resulting from heavy rainfall. After the meeting on January 18, 2001, Morris Palmer constructed all of the berms as suggested by Mr. May. During the site visit on January 18, 2001, Mr. May and Petitioner discussed the impact of a small lake or pond created by RVU in the development after issuance of the original permit. The pond is the only change to the 58-acre development that was not contemplated prior to the issuance of the original permit. The pond is more like an isolated ditch that RVU excavated below groundwater level. RVU used the sand from the ditch to elevate the ground surface in the absorption beds and for other purposes. The pond is located approximately 527 feet from the AWT plant and 478 feet from the nearest absorption bed associated with the plant. Surface water drainage, if any, from the three absorption beds is away from the pond. Persuasive evidence indicates that the pond will not interfere with the AWT facility once it begins operation. Additionally, there is no credible evidence that possible flooding in the absorption beds will cause contaminates to collect in the pond and eventually result in a discharge of pollutants to Apalachicola Bay. Petitioner presented some evidence that the pond might act as a collection point for pollution from sources such as cars, animals, and other above-ground sources. However, the greater weight of the evidence indicates that excavation of the pond will have no impact on the results of groundwater flow modeling and contaminants transport modeling introduced at the prior hearing in DOAH Case No. 95-0863. DEP appropriately referred Petitioner's other concerns about the pond to DEP's Submerged Lands and Environmental Resources Program. Neither the original permit nor the instant Permit requires an anti-degradation study. Such studies are required only in cases involving a direct discharge to surface waters. In this case, the AWT facility will not result in a surface water discharge. During the meeting on January 18, 2001, Mr. May acknowledged that ambient monitoring data showed elevated levels of hydrocarbons and nutrients. The elevated hydrocarbons may be caused by traffic on the road and at the airport located near the absorption beds. The elevated nutrient levels can only be attributed to animals. As stated above, the AWT facility is not operational; therefore, the elevated levels of hydrocarbons and nutrients are not the result of the AWT facility. On March 30, 2001, DEP issued its Notice of Intent to Issue the Permit to RVU. The Intent to Issue indicates that RVU is the applicant for an application filed by SGI Utility, LLC, and RVU. The Permit lists RVU and SGI Utility, LLC, as co- permittees. If PSC approves the transfer of RVU's certificate to SGI Utility, LLC, DEP will transfer the Permit to SGI Utility, LLC. Until then, DEP will issue the Permit in the name of both entities. The Permit sets forth requirements for continued ambient and groundwater monitoring. These requirements, like the ones in the original permit, are sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that operation of the AWT facility will comply with Chapter 62-620, Florida Administrative Code. Under cover of a letter dated May 22, 2001, Mr. Wilder provided DEP with proof that the Notice of Intent to Issue had been published in the Apalachicola Times on April 12, 2001. Mr. Wilder signed the letter as treasurer of RVU. The published notice indicates that DEP intends to issue the Permit to RVU.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That DEP enter a final order granting RVU and SGI Utility, LLC, a renewal of Permit No. FLA010069-002. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas H. Adams Post Office Box 791 Eastpoint, Florida 32328 Craig D. Varn, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 L. Lee Williams, Jr., Esquire Williams, Gautier, Gwynn & DeLoach, P.A. 2010 Delta Boulevard Post Office Box 4128 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-4128 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact On or about August 4, 1990, Bio-Med Services, Inc., (hereinafter "BMS") submitted to the Department of Environmental Regulation (hereinafter "DER"), an application for the construction of a biohazardous waste incineration facility (hereinafter "facility") to be located on approximately 5.5 acres in the City of LaBelle Industrial Park. The application was prepared, signed and sealed by Robert A. Baker, Professional Engineer, and was signed by Gary V. Marsden, president of BMS. BMS is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bio-Med Management, Inc., (hereinafter BMM), and was formed for the express purpose of making application for construction of the facility at issue in this case. Gary V. Marsden has held the position of president of BMS for approximately one and one-half years. Prior to becoming BMS president, Gary Marsden was a telephone equipment salesman. Gary Marsden's father, Clarence, is president of BMM, and a director of BMS. The BMS business plan indicates that Clarence Marsden was integral to the formation of BMS, was the primary contact between BMS and engineer Baker, and will act as salesman for BMS. Clarence Marsden has been convicted approximately four times on felony counts related to illegal drug activities. Neither Marsden has any experience related to construction or operation of biohazardous waste incineration facilities. According to the first application, the incinerator facility will utilize two "Consumat-1200" incinerators and one "U-Burn 12060" incinerator. 1/ The Consumat-1200 units are each capable of incinerating approximately 2,000 pounds of waste hourly. The U-Burn incinerator is capable of incinerating 250 pounds of waste hourly. The total waste incineration capacity of the facility is approximately 50 tons daily. The waste to be incinerated consists of biological and biohazardous wastes, primarily from hospitals and medical offices. The facility would not be authorized to incinerate hazardous or radioactive wastes. The application seeks approval to construct an incinerator facility which could operate 24 hours daily, seven days weekly, on a year-round basis. Although the incinerators would be shut down for maintenance and repairs, the applicant hypothesized the constant operation of the facility for the purpose of predicting emissions levels. The air pollution control (hereinafter "APC") system proposed in the first application includes venturi scrubbers, caustic scrubbers, and a 50 foot tall, 30 inch diameter discharge stack. On or about April 19, 1991, BMS submitted amendments to the first application. The amendments, (hereinafter the "second application") were prepared and signed by Mr. Baker. The amendments deleted the venturi scrubbers/caustic scrubbers and substituted dry hydrated lime injection scrubbers and baghouses. The amendments also altered the discharge stack dimensions to provide for a stack height of 65 feet and a diameter of 40 inches. The second application also included a bypass stack to provide for APC system malfunctions. Such bypass stacks provide for uncontrolled discharge of emissions into the atmosphere, when such emissions could further damage a malfunctioning APC system. On or about September 24, 1991, an application was submitted by Eastern Grading, Inc. 2/ for a permit to construct a biohazardous waste incineration facility to be located on a site outside the City of LaBelle, rather than at the LaBelle Industrial Park. According to the third application, the incinerator facility still proposes to utilize two "Consumat- 1200" incinerators and one "U-Burn 12060" incinerator. The third application deleted the bypass stack system intended to handle emergency situations and substituted a proposed crossover mechanism. The Eastern Grading application, (hereinafter the "third application") prepared and signed by Mr. Baker and signed by Gary Marsden as president of Eastern Grading, Inc., is the application at issue in this proceeding. Subsequent to the filing of the third application, BMS has now abandoned plans to locate the facility on the site identified in the third application and instead seeks approval to construct the biohazardous waste incineration facility at the LaBelle Industrial Park site identified in the first application. The proposed site for the facility is located approximately 4,900 feet from the City of LaBelle Public Water Treatment Facility. The raw water supply comes from shallow wells southwest of the city, and is stored at the treatment plant in open holding areas. After sand-filtering and softening, the water is stored in vented tanks. Based upon the proximity of the water treatment plant to the incineration site, there is high potential for impact on the local water supply by the emissions discharged from the incineration facility. The site of the proposed facility is located next to the Cross Tie Mobile Home Estates Subdivision, approximately 75 feet from the closest residence, approximately 2,000 feet from a senior citizen service center, and approximately 3,700 feet from a local nursing home. It is likely that some individuals in the nursing home may be regarded as particularly health sensitive, as are a number of residents of Cross Tie Mobile Home Estates Subdivision who suffer from respiratory illnesses and who testified during the proceeding. The site is approximately 4,600 feet from a local elementary school, approximately 4,400 feet from an intermediate school, approximately 7,400 feet from a middle school, and approximately 8,600 feet from a high school. Persons with existing respiratory illnesses, elderly persons, and children are regarded as "sensitive receptors" and are substantially more at risk through exposure to airborne chemical pollutants than is the general population. Based upon the proximity of the incineration site to such sensitive receptors, there is high potential for impact on such persons by the emissions discharged from the incineration facility. There was no site-specific analysis of the proposed facility done by either the applicant during preparation of the application or by the DER during review of the proposal. The applicant has provided no data related to potential heath risks posed by the proposed facility. The DER has not specifically analyzed such health risks. The third application states that various requirements of the Department will be met. The application provides as follows: "Each incinerator will have the following equipment and operational requirements in order to comply with the requirements of FAC 17-2.600: Particulate emissions will not to (sic) exceed 0.020 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) corrected to 7% oxygen (O2). Hydrochloric acid (HCI) emissions to be reduced by 90% by weight on an hourly average basis. At least one second residence time at no less than 1800 F. in the secondary combustion chamber. An air lock system designed to prevent opening the incinerator doors to the room environment and to prevent overcharging. Carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations in the stack exhaust gases of less than 100 PPMv, dry basis, corrected to 7% 02 on an hourly basis. The secondary combustion chamber to be preheated to 1800 F. prior to burning and maintained at 1800 F. or greater during active burning of wastes. All incinerator operators will be trained by Consumat Systems or another qualified training organization. A training plan for the operators will be submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) prior to the start of operations. Continuous monitoring and recording of temperatures and oxygen will be maintained at the exit of the secondary combustion chamber. Operating procedures and calibration requirements will be submitted to FDER upon selection of monitoring equipment. All air pollution control equipment will be functioning properly during operation of the incinerator system. The list of assurances set forth above are a recitation of the requirements of the DER's rules as provided at Chapter 17- 2.600, Florida Administrative Code. The evidence as to specific equipment and operational requirements is insufficient to support the assertion that the facility will meet such standards. As the applicant's professional engineer, Mr. Baker signed and sealed a statement as follows: This is to certify that the engineering features of this pollution control project have been examined by me and found to be in conformity with modern engineering principles applicable to the treatment and disposal of-pollutants characterized in the permit application. There is reasonable assurance, in my professional judgement, that the pollution control facilities, when properly maintained and operated, will discharge an effluent that complies with all applicable statutes of the State of Florida and the rules and regulations of the department. It is also agreed that the undersigned will furnish, if authorized by the owner, the applicant a set of instructions for the proper maintenance and operation of the pollution control facilities and, if applicable, pollution sources. Mr. Baker's certification relates only to his opinion that the facility, properly operated and maintained, will be capable of compliance with Chapter 17-2.600, Florida Administrative Code. The engineering and design of the incineration facility have not been completed. The application states, without qualification, that the two Consumat units will be utilized. The remaining equipment, including the entire air pollution control system, is identified by type of component, but is otherwise not specified. Where equipment specifications are provided, such specifications are qualified by language stating that the equipment installed will meet either such specifications "or their technical equivalents". No actual operating or test data related to any of the equipment or systems proposed for use is included in the application. There is no reliable operating or test data applicable to biohazardous waste incineration facilities available for this particular configuration of components. The application fails to contain sufficient information related to "engineering features" to permit a credible determination as to whether or not the incineration facility will conform with modern engineering principles. The application fails to support Mr. Baker's assertion that reasonable assurances are provided that when properly maintained and operated, the facility will discharge an effluent that complies with all applicable statutes of the State of Florida and the rules and regulations of the DER. Although there is no evidence to establish that the applicant intends not to comply with the requirements of the DER's regulations, the application, reflecting the fairly preliminary design of the incineration facility, fails to provide sufficient information to assure that, once final design decisions are made and the equipment acquired, that such equipment will be compatible and configured in a manner which assures compliance with the DER's acceptable emissions regulations. The applicant has no experience in construction or operation of such incineration facilities. There is no other existing and operating biohazardous waste incineration facility using this configuration of air pollution control equipment. Mr. Baker contends that the completion of final design plans and specifications is a relatively straightforward process, but nonetheless, it has not been done. The Consumat incinerators have already been purchased, are used equipment, and were subject to a cursory inspection conducted by a BMS investor prior to purchase and transportation of the used equipment from the original owner in South Carolina. There is no evidence that structural inspections by a qualified metallurgist are contemplated. The Consumat units are starved-air incinerators. A starved air incinerator consists of two chambers, one primary and one secondary. The inflow of air into the primary chamber is controlled to provide for partial combustion and volatilization of wastes. The maximum temperature of the primary chamber is 1400 degrees F. The gases produced in the primary chamber flow into the secondary chamber where the temperature is maintained through gas burners. The minimum temperature in the secondary chamber is 1800 degrees F. The application provides that the waste gases will remain in the secondary chamber for two seconds. Control of temperature and residence time is the secondary chamber is required to complete the combustion process. The draft permit conditions require the applicant to install, maintain and operate continuous emissions monitoring equipment to record the secondary combustion chamber's exit temperature and oxygen level. Each incinerator will have an oxygen probe and a thermal couple at the secondary chamber exit. The oxygen probe will provide data needed to ascertain whether the combustion process is adequate and permits the correction of oxygen levels to the 7% standard required to measure emissions levels. The thermal couple permits the monitoring of exit temperatures. The draft permit also requires BMS to maintain all testing measurements and calibration data, and other information related to equipment maintenance and adjustments. The Consumat units must be retrofitted to permit the residence time and temperature indicated in the application. The application does not contain design or engineering information related to retrofitting the secondary chambers. The U-Burn unit is, according to professional engineer Baker, a "very unique design of a company that's no longer in existence." The U-Burn would be operated only in conjunction with one of the Consumat units. One Consumat and the U-Burn would each have a separate connection into one of the two APC systems. The application provides no design or engineering data related to the connection of the U-Burn unit into the APC system. The application states that the incinerators will be loaded by means of an enclosed ram feed mechanism which will prevent the incinerator from being opened to the room environment and prohibit overloading of the unit. The enclosed ram feed mechanism has not yet been designed. Two parallel lines of identically sized pollution control equipment are proposed, each line designed to meet the requirements of one Consumat unit and the U-Burn unit. Each line of equipment will include a preconditioner ("quencher"), a lime injection dry scrubber, and a fabric filter baghouse. To control emissions, it is necessary to reduce the temperature of gases exiting the secondary chamber, where the minimum temperature is 1800 degrees F. According to the "Process Description" in the application, the gas stream will be preconditioned by the use of water injection to lower the gas stream temperature to 275 degrees F. The water from the preconditioning process will be evaporated as part of the exhaust gases. The preconditioner will be lined with refractory material to withstand the extreme temperature. The application contains preliminary design specifications for the preconditioner, however the application states that such specifications "or their technical equivalents" will be utilized in the final design, accordingly such specifications are subject to change. There has been no more than preliminary design and engineering work completed for the construction and operation of the preconditioner. The application states that the dry hydrated lime injection system (dry scrubber) and the fabric filter system have been designed to meet the requirements of Chapter 17-2.600 F.A.C. for particulate matter and HCI emissions control. Upon leaving the preconditioner, cooled flue gases move into the dry scrubber. According to the "Process Description" in the application, an ultra- fine, dry hydrated lime (calcium hydroxide) will be injected into the preconditioned gas stream via a metered pneumatic system inside a reactor. Although the velocity of the injection must be sufficient to ensure that the dry lime mixes thoroughly with the flue gases, the application contains no information related to expected injection velocity. Once mixed, the lime reacts with hydrochloric acid to produce calcium chloride. The dry scrubber will collect large particulate matter and will have an airlock system for removal of collected solids. The lime injection rate will be at a minimum of 30% greater than the stoichiometric requirements for the neutralization of the HCI. This system is intended to remove at least 90% of the HCI in the gas stream. The application contains preliminary design specifications for the dry scrubber, however the application states that such specifications "or their technical equivalents" will be utilized in the final design, accordingly such specifications are subject to change. No more than preliminary design work for the construction and operation of the dry scrubber has been completed. Following dry scrubber treatment, the flue gases proceed to a reverse jet fabric filter baghouse. Baghouse technology is a relatively standard methodology of controlling submicron particulate matter (and dioxins/furans condensed on such matter) and heavy metal vapors. According to the "Process Description" in the application, the reverse jet fabric filter will have a maximum air to cloth ratio of 5 to 1. 3/ Under some conditions, a 5 to 1 air to cloth ratio may result in the filter bags becoming clogged with ultrafine particulates. The baghouse is intended to have a removal efficiency of greater than 99% for submicron particulate matter. The application contains preliminary design specifications for the baghouse, however the application states that such specifications "or their technical equivalents" will be utilized in the final design, accordingly such specifications are subject to change. A substantial amount of manufacturer literature related to dry scrubbers, baghouses (including the fabric filter bags), and emissions monitoring equipment is included in the application, but is of no probative value given that the applicant has not committed to using any of the equipment for which literature is included. The application indicates that the incineration facility will include a "crossover" between the two APC systems, to provide for the possibility that one APC system could fail. During such "upset" conditions, there is a substantial potential for visible and fugitive emissions, as well as odors and smoke. The applicant has not yet designed the crossover mechanism and has no information related to the actual planned operation of a crossover mechanism. Standard incinerator design provides for the utilization of bypass stacks which permit the discharge of uncontrolled emissions upon the failure of an APC system. The crossover theoretically would shift the discharge from one incinerator's failed APC system to the second incinerator's APC system, during which time the operation of the second incinerator unit would be reduced or would cease in order to provide adequate capacity in the operating APC system for the discharge from either or both operating incinerators. The application does not provide information related to the operation, design or location of the crossover mechanism. There is no information as to how the facility would address the potential situation where, with only one incinerator and APC system operating, an APC system failure would occur. The utilization of the crossover mechanism is unique, there being no similar medical waste incineration facility crossovers in use elsewhere. It is not possible to determine, given the lack of detail in the application, whether the crossover mechanism could be expected to adequately and successfully address potential "upset" situations. The site plan identifies two buildings on the site, one for incineration operations and the second for ash storage. There is no information supplied related to the location or storage of delivered, but unincinerated, biohazardous wastes, although, if the site plan is accurate, such storage apparently occurs within the incineration building. The application states that solid wastes (ash and lime) will be collected and disposed of off-site in an approved landfill. At hearing, BMS submitted an ash residue management plan, providing the applicant's plan to manage ash from the incinerators and the baghouse discharge. The plan was not signed or sealed by the applicant's professional engineer although he attested to the plan at hearing. According to the plan, incinerator bottom ash generated by the facility "will be handled in a manner which will prevent danger of contamination or release to the environment". Ash will be removed from "the consumat Model CS 1200 incinerator" 4/ unit by means of an ash ejection ram and collected in a wet sump, designed to eliminate dust and blowing ash. The wet ("quenched") ash is removed from the water-filled sump by a drag chain from which excess water will drain for reuse in the ash sump. The wet ash will exit the building by conveyer and be deposited into a covered, metal, "roll-off"-type, water tight storage container. When full, the container contents will be sampled and a representative sample provided to a DER-approved laboratory for Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure ("TCLP") analysis. The container will thereafter be sealed, and the ash trucked to an approved disposal facility. Baghouse waste will include fly ash and reagent waste related to the dry scrubber treatment. Such waste will be removed through a bottom drop hopper discharging into 55 gallon drums. The hopper/drum system will be shielded to prevent waste escape into the atmosphere. Upon filling, the drums will be sampled for the TCLP analysis and then sealed and transported to the approved disposal site. The BMS Ash Residue Management Plan also states: "Type A class waste will be disposed of by Waste Managements, Inc., at their facility located at 3000 N.W. 48th Street, Pompano Beach, Florida 33073. In the event ash residue would not be classified as Type A waste, it will be disposed of by Chemical Waste Management, Inc., whose offices are also located at 3000 N.W. 48th Street, Pompano Beach, Florida 33073." The Ash Residue Management Plan is insufficient to comply with the DER's requirement related to such plans. The plan fails to indicate the capacity of the disposal site or whether the disposal site is intended to receive ash residue from the solid waste combustor for the life of the facility. The plan is ambiguous as to whether the identified sites are actual disposal sites or are offices of the company which will allegedly handle disposition of the ash. The plan fails to address the beneficial uses, if any, of ash residue, although the plan does state that ash recycling is not anticipated. The plan fails to identify contractual requirements, or notification and inspection procedures, which assure that hazardous wastes are not received or burned in the facility. Although the plan states that the incinerator ash will be placed into a wet sump to eliminate dust and blowing ash, and that wet sump water will be recycled into the sump, the plan fails to address the cumulative effects such water reuse and the potential impact of exposure to humans or the environment. As to the baghouse hopper/drum system (shielded to prevent waste escape into the atmosphere) the plan fails to consider other pathways of human or environmental exposure such as through direct contact or ingestion, and the potential for soil and ground water contamination. The application states that any liquids generated from wash-downs and cleaning operations will be collected in a holding tank and thereafter incinerated. The application contains no design or engineering data which identifies the means for incinerating such liquids or establishes that such liquid incineration will be accomplished in a manner which will not adversely affect incinerator or APC operation. Petitioners assert that the facility is experimental in nature because the design is rudimentary and the crossover mechanism is not used in medical waste incinerators of this type. Respondents assert that the facility is not experimental, and that the various types of equipment proposed are in use at other incineration facilities elsewhere. The evidence fails to establish that the entire facility should be properly identified as "experimental", however, there is no credible test data available for a facility utilizing this proposed combination of equipment in the configuration identified in the application. It is likely to expect a biohazardous waste incinerator to emit multiple air pollutants. Such pollutants include particulate matter and hydrogen chloride (HCI), as well as toxic pollutants such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, manganese, nickel, zinc, and dioxin equivalents. As to toxic pollutants, the DER reviewed the anticipated chemical emissions of arsenic, mercury, manganese, cadmium, chromium VI, nickel, zinc, lead, tetrachlorodibenzo dioxin (TCDD), and hydrochloric acid. The draft permit in this case requires the proposed facility to conduct emissions tests for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, oxygen and carbon monoxide within 60 days of initially operating the facility, and to conduct annual emissions tests thereafter. At hearing, the applicant agreed to monitor emissions for the toxic pollutants arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, manganese, nickel, zinc, and dioxin equivalents, and further agreed to continuously monitor carbon monoxide and opacity. The DER has established a policy related to the control of toxic emissions from an air pollution source. The "Air Toxics Policy" is an effort by the DER to protect public health from the potential dangers posed by inhalation of excessive levels of toxic air emissions. The DER has a working list of 756 chemicals for which acceptable emission levels have been established. In identifying chemicals for inclusion on the working list, the DER utilized sources which referenced chemicals of concern and also reviewed data related to the air toxics programs of other regulatory agencies. The DER air toxics working list suggests acceptable ambient air concentration levels for the identified toxic chemicals. The acceptable levels are identified as "no threat levels" or "NTL's" and are set forth at average eight hour, 24 hour, and annual concentration levels. The DER asserts that the NTL's are conservative figures and that adverse public health consequences are unlikely to occur when ambient concentration emission levels do not exceed the NTL's. In establishing the average eight and 24 hour concentration NTL's, the DER utilized the more conservative of figures available from either the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). The OSHA and ACGIH figures are applicable to exposure of a healthy employee to a single chemical for an eight hour working period. The annual NTL's are directly based on EPA health data values listed in the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System. Of the three NTL's, the EPA- based annual levels are considered to be more accurate. In situations where the eight and/or 24 hour averages are exceeded, additional consideration is given to whether the annual NTL is also exceeded. The DER has not reviewed the data upon which the EPA, OSHA and ACGIH levels rely, and has not independently reviewed the statistical methodology utilized by the EPA, OSHA and ACGIH in calculating the cited agencies acceptable emissions levels. However, the weight of the testimony in support of the methodology, absent specific evidence to the contrary, establishes that such reliance is reasonable. In attempting to establish eight and 24 hour NTL's for use in the DER's Air Toxics Policy, the DER considered the likelihood that air emissions would contain multiple toxic chemicals and would impact a less healthy population (including particularly susceptible individuals) for an extended period of time. The DER reduced the eight hour OSHA/ACGIH concentration by two orders of magnitude, resulting in DER eight hour NTL's which are 100 times less than the OSHA/ACGIH levels. The DER further reduced the 24 hour OSHA/ACGIH levels by a factor of 4.2 (based upon dividing the total hours in a seven day period by a 40 hour work week) resulting in DER average 24 hour NTL's which are 420 times less than the OSHA/ACGIH acceptable occupational levels. Petitioners assert that the uniform safety factors calculated by the DER which resulted in the reduction of OSHA/ACGIH figures to the DER NTL's are arbitrary, and that some NTL's were likely too high and others were too low. However, Petitioners did not identify any of the 756 chemical NTL's on the DER working list as inadequate or excessive. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the DER's utilization of a two magnitude safety factor is appropriate. Based upon the lack of adverse health impacts on the working population subject to OSHA/ACGIH occupational levels, the dearth of toxicological data available for most substances of concern, and absent evidence to the contrary, the inclusion of safety factors which result in an average eight hour NTL 100 times less than the OSHA/ACGIH levels and an average 24 hour NTL 420 times less than the OSHA/ACGIH levels is a reasonable attempt to prohibit excessive emissions and protect the general public's health from dangers posed through inhalation of such toxic air emissions. The DER annual average air toxic concentration levels are directly derived from EPA data and are distinguished on the basis of whether or not a substance is a carcinogen. For carcinogens, the NTL is based upon a unit risk factor which equates to a one in one million increased risk of developing a cancer related to said chemical. For non-carcinogens, the DER NTL is based upon an "inhalation reference concentration" which relies directly upon inhalation toxicity data, where such data is available. Where "inhalation reference concentration" data is unavailable, the DER NTL is based upon an extrapolation of oral toxicity data. The evidence fails to establish that the reliance of the DER on such EPA data is inappropriate or unreasonable. The DER utilizes the air toxics working list to compare anticipated emissions from a proposed air pollution source to the NTL's. Not all 756 chemical comparisons are made in every case. The comparison is for the purpose of determining whether additional inquiry should be made related to specific chemical emissions. The instant application includes predicted emission rates supplied by engineer Baker. The Baker estimates are based upon actual uncontrolled incinerator emission test results, to which a predicted "control efficiency" was applied for each type of control technology proposed in the application. The control efficiency predictions were based upon a noncommercial Canadian pilot project utilizing a dry-scrubber/baghouse combination, on non peer-reviewed literature and, as to mercury emissions, on a telephone conversation with a representative of the municipal waste industry. At the hearing, Petitioners utilized a data base compiled by Dr. Paul Chrostowsky, who supplied emissions estimates based upon his data base. The data base consists of actual test results from incinerators (including 12 medical waste incinerators) and from peer-reviewed literature. None of the facilities in the Chrostowsky data base reflect data from facilities utilizing a dry scrubber/baghouse system. Half of the incinerators in his data base utilized no controls, one utilized a baghouse, and the remaining five utilized wet scrubbers. Dr. Chrostowsky took the average emissions levels and added one standard deviation to account for uncertainty related to the lack of an operating record for the proposed facility. The emissions estimates produced by Dr. Chrostowsky are deemed to be more reliable and are credited. Dr. Chrostowsky opined that the applicant's estimates did not reflect likely operating conditions and were unreasonably low. According to his estimates, the application underestimated emission rates for hydrogen chloride, arsenic, cadmium, lead, manganese, mercury, and nickel. He also opined that the application's predicted mercury removal rate of 94% was excessive and that a removal rate 70% would be more likely. However, even given Dr. Chrostowsky's emissions levels, only the 24 hour NTL for hydrogen chloride is exceeded. Although Dr. Chrostowsky's calculated an exceedance of the annual average HCI NTL, the calculation was based on error. Other emissions remain at levels below the DER's level of acceptable emissions established by rule. Utilization of a 70% mercury removal rate still results in mercury emissions within the DER's range of acceptable emissions. As to Dr. Chrostowsky's estimated hydrogen chloride emission in excess of the DER's 24 hour NTL, such calculation appears to have been based on the application's estimated HCI control efficiency of 90%. The application utilized a conservative figure based upon the DER minimum requirement of 90% HCI control, when the actual HCI control efficiency could likely be greater than 90%. However, given the preliminary state of design and the lack of test results and data reflective of this particular equipment configuration, the evidence is insufficient to determine with reasonable assurance that such requirement will be met, or that the 24 hour HCI NTL will not be exceeded. It should be noted that the DER's NTL's address only potential human impact through inhalation, on the assumption that the most likely human ingestion for air emissions is through inhalation. The policy does not address human consumption of toxics though contaminated water supplies or via other pathways, Given the proximity of the proposed facility to local water supplies, the potential for other ingestion impacts exists, and should be examined. The application also included the results from engineer Baker's air dispersion modeling, performed to predict local concentrations of certain pollutants in the ambient air. The results indicate that maximum one, eight, and 24 hour concentrations will occur approximately 100 meters from the stack, and that maximum annual average maximum concentrations will occur approximately 500 meters from the stack. Mr. Baker first utilized a standard screening model developed by the federal Environmental Protection Agency specifically for this purpose. Mr. Baker is not an expert in computer modeling and utilizes standard EPA programs to perform such functions. If an initial comparison demonstrates that expected emissions from a proposed pollution source exceed an NTL, additional review of anticipated emissions is conducted to determine whether the initial review data is inaccurate or, if not, whether additional APC technology is required to control the excess emission. The use of an initial screening model is standard scientific practice and is reasonable. Mr. Baker uses the screen model to determine whether there are exceedances of any relevant emissions standards. Where no exceedances occur, it is generally unnecessary to perform further modeling. The Baker screen model relied upon hypothetical meteorological data unrelated to the meteorological variables at the proposed incineration facility site. The screen model results are regarded as an estimation of maximum one hour air pollutant concentrations at or beyond a property line. A set of conversion factors is applied to the maximum one hour air pollutant concentration with the results predicting eight hour, 24 hour, and annual concentrations. According to Mr. Baker's screen model results, the proposed facility's emissions did not exceed the DER's air quality standards or the NTL's in the working list. Mr. Baker subsequently utilized a more advanced EPA model, identified as the "Industrial Source Complex" (ISC) model, which projects both short-term and long-term concentrations. Mr. Baker opined that the ISC model provides a more accurate estimation of pollutant dispersion into the atmosphere. In running the model, he relied upon National Weather Service (NWS) surface meteorological data from Fort Myers and on NWS upper air meteorological data from Tampa, (as the DER had directed) and upon default EPA options. The NWS data included five years of weather information. Based on the ISC model, Mr. Baker anticipates that the emissions will not exceed the DER's air quality standards or NTL's. Meteorological conditions in LaBelle may differ significantly from the NWS Tampa upper air meteorological data. Tampa is much closer to the Gulf of Mexico than LaBelle. Lake Okeechobee, located nearby to the east of LaBelle, may impact LaBelle's local conditions. There is no reliable LaBelle meteorological data easily available, and the DER did not require collection of such site-specific data. Although an expert witness opined that, based upon Orlando's inland location, available Orlando NWS upper air data would be more representative of LaBelle conditions than the Tampa data used, the witness utilized the Tampa data to run his models. There is no actual evidence that utilization of Orlando data would have resulted in different pollutant dispersion modeling results than those included in the application. On behalf of the Petitioners, the ISC model was run utilizing the same weather data used by Mr. Baker and the emissions projections calculated by Dr. Chrostowsky, resulting in substantial agreement between the modeling results. Petitioners suggest that the applicant should have been required to provide data related to the dispersion of air pollutants during certain specific meteorological events, such as temperature inversions. Such inversions occur when warm upper air traps the cooler air below, and holds air pollutants close to the Earth's surface. Although the evidence related to such inversions is based upon a one-year frequency of fog incidence for Ft. Myers, Tampa and Orlando (rather than an analysis of temperature and air pressure data) temperature inversions may occur in LaBelle as often as 20 or more times annually. Utilization of a five year set of NWS data would include occurrences of temperature inversions. Fumigation concentrations occur when, during the dissipation of temperature inversions, the cooler and warmer air levels mix, and pollutants concentrations at the top of the cooler air level may be pulled down resulting in short, but intense, concentrations of pollutants at ground level. It is likely that fumigation events occur in the LaBelle area. Stagnation events are similar to fumigation events, although apparently affecting a larger geographic area than does a fumigation event. It is likely than stagnation events occur in the LaBelle area, however, there is no model which simulates a stagnation event. The screen model utilized in this case by the DER does simulate a fumigation event. According to the screen model predictions, maximum pollutant concentrations would occur under neutral stability conditions, not during fumigation events. The DER utilized the ISC model to predict small particle deposition ("fallout"). Fallout is specific to the meteorology of a site. The ISC model does not accurately predict fallout and such modeling is not required by the DER's regulations. However, such information, if available, could provide useful particle deposition data, given the proximity of the site to the City of LaBelle public water supply. Petitioners assert that the DER should have required a full risk assessment to determine the facility's potential for adversely affecting the local environment and residents in the area. A limited assessment, solely related to dioxin risks and acid gas risks, was performed on behalf of the Petitioners. The evidence is insufficient to establish whether or not the proposed incineration facility will result in an adverse health risk to the general population residing in the area, but given the location of the proposed facility and proximity to the local water supply and to sensitive receptors, the completion of a full risk analysis is warranted. As to dioxin levels, the limited risk assessment estimated that the BMS facility would produce a cancer risk ten to 100 times greater than the risk associated with Lee County's proposed nonbiohazardous waste incineration facility. However, the predicted dioxin emission levels are within the range established by the EPA as acceptable. The Petitioner's expert further opined that such EPA figures overestimate the cancer potency of dioxin. An acid gas analysis was performed utilizing the "hazard quotient/hazard index" method of analysis. The hazard quotient/hazard index analysis provides an acceptable approach to determining air emission health risks. Acid gases include hydrogen chloride, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen fluoride, and sulfuric acid mists. Certain meteorological conditions, including temperature inversions or fog, interact with acid gases to form acid mists and other agents injurious to human lung function. The acid gases/acid mists risk assessment indicates that the incineration facility increases the potential for hazardous health impacts on the local population.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order denying the application of Bio-Med Services, Inc., for a permit to construct a biohazardous waste incineration facility at the LaBelle Industrial Park, in LaBelle, Florida. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 31st day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1992.
The Issue The first issue is whether Petitioner, Jacqueline M. Lane (Lane) has standing. The second issue is whether International Paper Company (IP) provided reasonable assurances it has the ability to meet the conditions of the existing industrial wastewater permit for the wastewater treatment facility at the paper mill in Cantonment, Florida, pursuant to Rule 62- 620.340(3), Florida Administrative Code. A final issue is whether Lane litigated this matter for an improper purpose.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and testimony of the witnesses presented and the entire record in this proceeding, the following facts are found: The Parties The Department is charged with the responsibility for determining whether to approve the Application for transfer of permit number FL0002562-002-IWF/MT from Champion to IP. IP is a corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida. IP operates a bleach kraft fine paper mill in Cantonment, Florida, formerly operated by Champion. Lane is a citizen of the State of Florida who lives on Perdido Bay. Application for Transfer of Industrial Wastewater Permit Number FL0002526-002-IWF/MT In June 2000, IP notified the Department it was acquiring Champion as a wholly owned subsidiary. IP took over operation of the facility in Cantonment on January 1, 2001. At that time, the companies had fully merged. On January 19, 2001, IP timely submitted an Application for Transfer of a Wastewater Facility or Activity Permit (Application) and advised the Department that "the permittee name for the pulp and paper mill in Cantonment, Florida[,] has been changed from 'Champion International Corporation, Inc.' to 'International Paper Company.'" Several wastewater permit- related documents were submitted to the Department as part of this name change. The Department processed IP's Application to transfer the facility's permit pursuant to Rule 62-620.340(3), Florida Administrative Code. "The parties agree that this matter is controlled by Rules 62-4.120 and 62-620.340, F.A.C., regarding the transfer of the permit. The parties [did not agree] upon what conditions of the combined permits are applicable to determine whether the Department has received 'reasonable assurances that the conditions of the permit will be met.' Rule 62-620.340(3), F.A.C." Rule 62-620.340(3), Florida Administrative Code, provides: "The Department shall allow the transfer under subsection (2) of this section unless it determines that the proposed permittee cannot provide reasonable assurance that conditions of the permit will be met. The determination shall be limited solely to the ability of the proposed permittee to comply with the conditions of the existing permit, and it shall not consider the adequacy of these permit conditions." (Emphasis added). This proceeding does not involve an enforcement action or consideration of whether the wastewater permit, and related documents, should be renewed. Champion's renewal application is under consideration by the Department. The parties agree that the documents described in Findings of Fact 10-19, infra, set forth the conditions of the permit number FL0002526-002-IWF/MT at this time. These documents are listed below: November 15, 1995, DEP Order (combining the NPDES permit and the State- issued wastewater permit) April 22, 1996, DEP Letter (clarifying November 15, 1995, Order regarding 1983 NPDES Permit) January 3,1983, EPA NPDES Permit December 13, 1989, DER Temporary Operating Permit December 1, 1989, DER Consent Order December 12, 1989, DER Variance The Permit(s), Consent Order, Variances, and Related Permit Documents Before May 1, 1995, in order to operate the wastewater treatment facility at the mill in Cantonment, both state and federal permits were required. The Department or its predecessor agency, the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), issued state permits pursuant to Sections 403.08 and 403.088, Florida Statutes, and applicable rules. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits pursuant to 40 Code of Federal Regulation Section 124.15. As a result of EPA's delegation of its NPDES authority to the Department in 1995, only one permit is now required. The 1995 Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and the Department does not allow the Department to modify a permit that has been administratively continued. Modifications to permit limits have to be made through the permit renewal process. On or about January 3, 1983, the EPA issued a NPDES permit to St. Regis Paper Company, authorizing discharge from the facility, located at the paper mill in Cantonment to the receiving waters named Eleven Mile Creek (creek). This NPDES permit contains the federal permit conditions applicable at this time. (EPA has since used the facility as a benchmark model to develop effluent guidelines for its new cluster rule.) On December 1, 1989, the DER entered into a Consent Order with Champion International Corporation. This Consent Order was issued as a result of Recommended and Final Orders issued in Perdido Bay Environmental Association, Inc. et al. v. Champion International Corporation and Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, 12 F.A.L.R. 126 (DER Nov. 14, 1989). This Consent Order allowed the continued operation of the facility. As a compliance requirement, a study report was required to include "an evaluation of technologies and treatment alternatives . . . to determine the most environmentally sound and practicable means to correct identified water quality violations caused by Champion." The studies required by the Consent Order are needed to pinpoint sources of pollutants in the creek and Perdido Bay (bay). The Consent Order has no expiration date although it is tied to the temporary operating permit (TOP) which had an expiration date of December 1, 1994. Extensive studies have been submitted to the Department pursuant to paragraph 14.A. of the Consent Order, which are necessary to trigger "the final compliance plan." This has been an ongoing process since the Consent Order and TOP were issued. The conditions in the Consent Order and TOP apply at this time. Various discharge limitations and monitoring requirements are set forth in the TOP. On December 13, 1989, DER issued a TOP, Number IT17- 156163, to the facility, which was issued in conjunction with the Consent Order. The TOP expressly relies on the Consent Order for authorization. It contains the effective state permit conditions at this time. On December 8, 1989, DER issued a Variance from water quality standards for color (transparency), iron, zinc, and the general water quality criterion for specific conductance. The standards in the Variance are part of the TOP and are effective at this time. The mill no longer needs the Variance for iron and zinc. As to those parameters, it currently operates at lower levels than under the Variance. On November 15, 1995, the Department combined the state and federal operating permits into a single permit identified as Wastewater Permit Number FL0002526-002-IWF/MT. The TOP and NPDES permit were administratively continued when renewal applications were filed. The Department will transfer to IP the permit documents described in Finding of Fact 9, supra. The Department will also transfer the pending permit renewal applications filed by Champion. Wastewater Treatment Facility at the Paper Mill in Cantonment, Florida In the past, Champion owned and operated a 1400-ton per day bleach and kraft pulp and paper mill in Cantonment. The operation is now conducted by IP. The paper mill treats its effluent from industrial activities at an on-site wastewater treatment facility (facility). Stormwater that falls on the industrial portion of the mill is also processed through the facility. The mill is required to and takes monthly samples from the creek for a few parameters, e.g., DO and pH, to provide data to the Department for use in developing possible changes to effluent limitations in a final compliance plan. There is an installed structure that continuously measures the flow of the effluent at the end of the facility's treatment system. This point, i.e., where the flow is measured, is called the Parshall Flume which is the compliance point for the facility. The effluent at Parshall Flume is automatically sampled each day, analyzed, and reported on a monthly basis to the Department. The analyses are reviewed and compared to the effluent limitations for a particular permit. The treated effluent is discharged from the Parshall Flume through a pipe to natural wetlands. In this wetland area, the treated effluent combines with several streams, non- processed stormwater, and runoff from land south and west of the facility. Runoff from residential areas and areas west of the mill, including the City of Cantonment, also flows into this area. The IP mill is not the only source of discharge into this area. After passing through the natural wetlands, the treated effluent runs through a pipe that discharges into the creek from below the surface. This point is about a half-mile from the facility. It is called the "boil" because the water from the pipe boils up into the creek. The "boil" is not a compliance point. On occasion, a Department inspector has taken water samples at the boil. Each time, his sampling has shown water quality standards were met at the boil. At the boil, the water flowing into the creek from the pipe contains treated effluent and drainage from areas not associated with the mill. From the boil, the creek flows a distance of fourteen miles to Perdido Bay (the bay). At the boil, there is also stormwater runoff and drainage from residential areas flowing into the creek in addition to the water from the pipe. Along the sides of the creek to the bay is a large drainage basin, which includes agricultural and residential runoff that flows into the creek. The boil, which is non-processed stormwater of the creek, could be contaminated from non-IP sources. Sources of pollutants in the bay include residential and agricultural stormwater runoff, Perdido River, and the creek. The Escambia County Utility Authority (ECUA) also has a treatment plant that has a discharge into the bay. Saltwater intrusion and runoff from development are additional sources of pollutants in the bay. Lane takes samples at the boil and most recently in May and June of 2001. Her measurement of dissolved oxygen (DO) was approximately 2.6 and for specific conductance, between 1600 and 2000. Lane also samples the water at a bridge (279A) two miles down the creek from the boil. Lane testified regarding bacteriological quality at the boil or further down stream, that fecal coliforms, including the bacteria Klebsiella, were present. Lane is not a certified sampler. She does not have the required quality control/quality assurance program. Lane does not know the Department requirements to sample dissolved oxygen. She could not describe an approved standard for such sampling. Surface Water Quality Standards Unless otherwise provided through relief mechanisms, discharges into surface waters must meet the minimum water quality standards set forth in Rules 62-302, Florida Administrative Code. Relief mechanisms include variances, consent orders, and temporary operating permits. The Department has issued variances, consent orders, and temporary operating permits to allow permit holders time to respond to changes in water quality standards and related regulations that reflect changes in understanding of environmental impacts to water bodies. Permit Conditions The permit conditions do not require compliance with all the water quality criteria in Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, for water quality parameters. The Department has not yet agreed on "final treatment solutions" it can require under the Consent Order. See, e.g., Finding of Fact 49. Specific deviations from the surface water quality standards in Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, are authorized by the Consent Order, TOP, variance, and NPDES permit. The specific effluent discharge limitations in the TOP and NPDES permit, are for BOD5, TSS, iron, specific conductance, pH, and zinc. (The reference to condition 12 in paragraph 25 of the TOP has not been amended.) Several of the effluent limitations (e.g., specific conductance) were granted by the Variance. Paragraph 26 of the TOP specifies the monitoring and frequency requirements for the monitoring at the Parshall Flume. This monitoring information can be used by the Department to pinpoint sources of pollutants in the creek and in order to establish numerical, water-quality based effluent limitations for those sources. General Condition 5 of the TOP does not per se impose on the mill the duty to meet all water quality standards in Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code. The TOP authorizes "a certain amount of pollution" and "certain relief." The TOP further established a "compliance schedule" for Champion to study the impacts of the discharge. However, the Department rules allow for reopening of the TOP and changing the permit conditions to reflect new evidence causing a concern regarding pollution. Here, the Department has not reopened the TOP. The permit, including the TOP and Consent Order, allows the mill a period of time to come into compliance with all minimum water quality standards. When a final permit is eventually issued, the facility will have to meet these standards absent some express relief mechanism at that time. IP Provided Reasonable Assurances of Its Ability to Meet Permit Conditions The Department employee who reviewed IP's Application to transfer the permit is an expert in environmental engineering. At the time he reviewed the Application, he was familiar with the existing permit conditions. As part of his review, he ascertained whether IP was satisfying the conditions of the permit and determined it was. The Department reviewed IP's annual report and other corporate brochures as part of its processing of the transfer Application. Information in these documents revealed IP has obtained other Federal-type NPDES permits for other companies at several other facilities. The Department was familiar with IP's local management at the Cantonment facility when it processed the transfer Application. IP brings considerable "capability and talent" to the mill. The Department performed inspections during the last six (6) months and was familiar with the facility and wastewater system. IP is an international company with greater financial resources than Champion. It has approximately $30 billion in annual sales. Champion, in comparison, generated about $5 billion a year. It is clear that that the operation of the mill and the facility would have less capital and financial support without IP. Since June 2000, IP has worked with the Department in a continuation of the Department's concept of relocating the facility's discharge to wetlands. The plan considers removal of the facility's treated effluent from the creek to wetlands on IP's land and effectively eliminates it as a point source discharge and removes the discharge from the creek. IP will have a greater ability than Champion to meet permit conditions due to greater financial sources, technical staff, and resources. IP's management is committed to resolving water quality issues like specific conductance and is willing to resolve outstanding water quality issues in the bay and creek. In the view of the former Northwest District Director who worked on water quality issues at the facility for twelve years ending March 31, 2001, the current plan to discharge to wetlands will be implemented and allow compliance with all water quality standards. He also opines that IP has the ability to comply with water quality standards under the plan to discharge to wetlands. In the Department's view, IP has provided reasonable assurances that it has the ability to meet the existing conditions of the permit sought to be transferred. IP Complies with Permit Conditions as Evidence of Ability According to the Department's expert, Mr. William A. Evans, a professional engineer with a Master's degree in civil engineering and an expert in environmental engineering, there have been no verifiable violations of permit conditions and no exceedances since January 2000, before IP took over operations of the mill. On the other hand, Mr. Evans, in reviewing a discharge monitoring report for IP for April 2001, advised, during cross-examination, that there appeared to be "an apparent violation, exceedance of the permit" for specific conductance pursuant to the 1500 micromhons per centimeter limit in the EPA's version of the permit. However, the Variance, which is part of the Application, was granted "because there is no practicable means known or available for the adequate control of the pollution involved," i.e., specific conductance. The Department applies the limit of 2500 micromhos per centimeter set forth in the Variance for specific conductance, which is a reasonable interpretation of the permit documents. When the permit documents, including the Variance are read in this light, IP is in compliance with this limit. IP is in compliance with the Consent Order, NPDES permit, and Variance. In making this finding, the undersigned is mindful of Lane's arguments and facts presented. The issue here is not black or white; violation or no violation. As noted by Mr. Evans: This permit is recognized since '89 is [sic] not meeting water quality standards. It has all these documents because it doesn't. And they're still working under those. And the Department agrees with Ms. Lane that they are not meeting water quality standards in the creek. And we're working under these documents to make improvements. And so is Champion and so is IP. But they are not, in our opinion, violating the conditions of the permit. There [sic] are complying with studying it, meeting the interim limits that are set forth in the permit. And that is what the Statutes require when a facility can not meet all the standards of a permit. The Department, while considering the renewal application, has not approved it yet because they have not received reasonable assurances that new permit conditions can be met. Champion, and now IP, are facing the continuing challenge of satisfying, among other requirements, water quality standards, which takes time, money, and know-how. The Department rightly believes that IP can best meet this challenge. The Department's review of the monthly monitoring reports submitted by the mill since Champion was purchased reveals the facility has complied with permit conditions. The most recent monthly report was submitted May 23, 2001, and includes data through April 2001. During inspections at the facility since June 2000, the Department found no violations of permit conditions. The mill, under IP's operation, has not exceeded the fecal coliform conditions of its permit. The mill has no significant contribution to fecal coliform in the creek because it treats its own domestic sewage and meets the fecal coliform limit at the compliance point. Runoff along the creek from agricultural and domestic sources could contribute to fecal and total coliform in the creek. The Department enforces the "more stringent" pH condition in the 1989 TOP and Variance which is controlling over the less stringent standard in the 1983 NPDES permit. The pH limit in the NPDES permit is 6.0-9.0. The Department reasonably interprets the freshwater stream pH rule to mean enforcement is not required if the permittee meets the range in the rule (6.0-8.5), more stringent than the 9.0 limit in the NPDES permit. The facility's pH data satisfies this range. If the Department were to enforce a limit of 6.5, instead of 8.5, IP has the ability to meet the lower limit by installing one of several available technologies to control the pH levels. IP's current proposal includes one of these technologies. The biological integrity provision in the Consent Order requires studies on biological components of the creek and pH impacts this condition. Permit Conditions Affecting the Creek and Bay The permit does not require the facility to meet all the minimum surface water quality standards of Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, in the creek and bay. That is because of the relief mechanisms in the Consent Order, TOP, NPDES permit, and Variance. The Consent Order provides a time frame for the facility to come into compliance with water quality standards in the creek and bay. In terms of the Consent Order, the Department considers IP to be at the paragraph 14.A. step of the compliance schedule since the Department has not yet "resolved or agreed on the final corrective action required under this [C]onsent [O]rder." The Department considers the facility to be in compliance with permit conditions because it is "working under a complying [sic] schedule and an order or a temporary operating permit." See Finding of Fact 49. As long as IP is meeting the "interim limits that are set forth in the permit," it is not violating conditions of the permit. The Department is aware of water quality exceedances from the standards in the creek and bay caused by the mill. This data was reported in the "fifth year surveys." This information serves as a basis for making improvements and finding "a new solution for the effluent as required by the consent order." See Finding of Fact 49. Proposal for Joint Project with ECUA IP and the ECUA are working with the Department on a plan than would result in the discharge of IP's treated effluent to wetlands, thereby removing the effluent from the creek. IP's financial capability, size, and technical human resources make this plan feasible. IP will propose a plan to satisfy the Consent Order which consists of three parts: upgrading IP's industrial wastewater treatment facility; allowing ECUA to locate an advanced domestic wastewater treatment plant on its land; and disposing the treated effluent from both facilities to wetlands on IP's land through a pipeline. The proposed plan to discharge the facility's treated effluent to wetlands is a suitable solution that will allow the mill to meet minimum water quality standards. Lane has no objection to the plan to discharge to wetlands. It will resolve all her water quality issues. She believes the plan, similar to a prior plan, is "feasible." Standing and Improper Purpose Lane admits the Department is not making any changes to existing permit conditions before transferring it to IP. Lane agrees that changing the name on the permit from Champion to IP has no adverse affect on her. Lane brought this proceeding because she is dissatisfied with the manner in which the Department is enforcing conditions in the facility's permit. According to Lane, "They haven't done their duty." Her main complaints are with the Department's failure to enforce the permit conditions and the lack of a permit that makes the permit holder comply with Florida law. Lane feels that Champion violated permit conditions in the past, and IP is currently violating permit conditions and, as a result, the permit should not be transferred because a decision to transfer is an implicit finding of compliance. In this light, Lane argues that past performance can be an indication of future ability or lack thereof. Lane acknowledges that in order to add conditions to the existing permit, the Department must provide notice to the mill and give it a chance to meet the proposed conditions. She further admits the Department has not provided such notice. Lane proved that the environmental situation attending Champion's, and now IP's, operation of the mill and the wastewater facility has been and is less than optimum and in need of positive changes. The Department agrees and so does IP. Lane's personal observations of the condition of the creek and bay are documented. However, Lane did not prove that she will suffer an "injury in fact" if the permit and related documents are transferred to IP. Lane is not otherwise substantially affected by the Department's decision to approve the transfer. Lane's evidence did not rebut IP and the Department's proof that IP has the ability to comply with the permit conditions. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the environment in and around the mill and the facility has a better opportunity for improvement if IP takes control of the mill and facility. On the other hand, based on this record, Lane did not bring this case for an improper purpose.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a final order be rendered as follows: Lane lacks standing to challenge the transfer of industrial wastewater permit number FL0002526-002-IWF/MT to IP because Lane did not prove that her substantial interests were being determined by the Department's transfer of the permit from Champion to IP; IP provided reasonable assurances it has the ability to comply with the conditions of industrial wastewater permit number FL0002526-002-IWF/MT; IP has complied with the conditions of industrial wastewater permit number FL0002526-002-IWF/MT, as the Department construes those conditions, since assuming control of the mill on January 1, 2001; and Lane did not participate in this administrative proceeding for an improper purpose. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Jacqueline M. Lane 10738 Lillian Highway Pensacola, Florida 32506 Terry Cole, Esquire Patricia A. Renovitch, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 301 S. Bronough Street, Fifth Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 Craig D. Varn, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 David B. Struhs, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
