Findings Of Fact Application No. 76-00451 seeks a consumptive water use permit for an existing use involving 14 withdrawal points. The application seeks a total average annual withdrawal of 20.2584 million gallons per day and a maximum daily withdrawal of 45.8539 million gallons per day. The water will be used for citrus processing. The Southwest Florida Water Management District's staff recommends issuance of the permit with the following conditions: That the applicant shall install totalizing flow meters of the propeller-driven type on all withdrawal points covered by this permit. That the applicant shall record the pumpage from the above-referenced meters on a weekly basis and submit a record of that pumpage to the district quarterly, beginning on January 15, 1977. That the permit shall expire on December 31, 1980.
Recommendation It is hereby Recommended that a consumptive use permit in the amounts and from the points set forth in the application be granted subject to the conditions set forth in paragraph 2 above. ENTERED this 13th day of October, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512 Lykes Pasco Packing Company Post Office Box 97 Dade City, Florida
The Issue The issue is whether the Petition for Administrative Hearing should be dismissed for failure to state a cause cognizable under Florida Law.
Findings Of Fact On November 30, 1998, Suwannee American filed its application and fee for an air construction permit for a dry process, preheater/precalciner type portland cement plant. The cement plant will emit oxides of nitrogen as a result of the combustion of fuels. A small fraction of the nitrogen oxides will, through oxidation, convert to nitrate. Some of the nitrate will become available for deposition as fall- out through two mechanisms: (a) dry deposition from particulate deposition; and (b) wet deposition from rainfall. Nitrate that lands on land and water surfaces can remain there, be taken up by vegetation, or enter ground and surface waters. The cement plant will also emit mercury. Joseph Kahn, a permit engineer in the Department's Division of Air Resources, Bureau of Air Regulation, was assigned to review the application. Early in the review process, Mr. Kahn became aware that members of the public and the Department's staff in its park's division had concerns about the atmospheric deposition of mercury and nitrate emissions from the cement plant. By letter dated December 29, 1998, Mr. Kahn requested the applicant to furnish additional information, including but not limited to, an additional impacts analysis of mercury and nitrogen deposition pursuant to Rule 62-212.400(5)(e), Florida Administrative Code. 1/ Specifically, the December 29, 1998, letter made the following inquiries: 8. Please compare other NOx [nitrogen oxide] limits established by BACT (for LaFarge and Great Star Cement, for example) with the proposed NOx limit and discuss the variables that affect emissions of NOx from Portland cement plants that are applicable to the proposed facility. * ** Please discuss the basis for the estimated emissions of mercury and provide illustrative calculations. Please estimate the possible impact or deposition of mercury at the Ichetucknee Springs State Park and the Santa Fe and Suwannee Rivers in the vicinity of the proposed facility. Please perform an additional impact analysis in the PSD [prevention of significant deterioration] Class II area near the facility including the Ichetucknee springs State Park and the Santa Fe and Suwannee Rivers in the vicinity of the proposed facility. This analysis must include impact on growth, soils and vegetation, and visibility. On February 25, 1999, the Department received Suwannee American's response to the December 29, 1999, letter. The response states as follows in regards to the deposition of mercury: Response: The PSD report used an emission factor for mercury from AP-42, Table 11.6-9, for cement Kilns with fabric filters. The other available emission factor in AP-42 is for cement kilns with ESPs. As this kiln will utilize an ESP for the pyroprocessing system, this response uses the ESP emission factor: 0.00022 pounds/ton of clinker X 839,5000 tons/year = 185 tons per year. Mercury emission data from nine cement plants ere evaluated as reported in the EPA Document Locating and Estimating Air Emission From sources of Mercury and Mercury compounds. These data are shown in the following table: [Table Omitted] The use of the average value from these tests results in a lower and consistent value: 0.000171 pounds/ton of clinker X 839,500 tons/year = 144 pounds per year. Emission estimates based on expected mercury levels in limestone, clay, sand, fly ash, and coal that will be used by Suwannee American result in an estimated emission rate of 129 pounds per year. The ambient air impact of mercury at the Ichetucknee Springs State Park and the Santa Fe and Suwannee rivers in the vicinity of the proposed facility is estimated as 0.00003- 0.00005 ug/m 3/ as a maximum annual concentration. The Reference Air concentration (RAC) for mercury (40 CFR 266, Appendix IV) is 0.3/m 3/ annual average. The deposition of mercury at the Ichetucknee Springs State Park and the Santa Fe and Suwannee Rivers in the vicinity of the proposed facility is estimated as 0.00002- 0.00005 g/m 2/ as a maximum annual deposition. If this level of deposition continued for 50 years and if all deposited mercury was to accumulate in the top six inches of soil, the increase in mercury levels in the soil would be on the order of 0.006 mg/kg. Safe mercury levels in soil established by Rule 62-785, F.A.C., are 3.7 mg/kg for direct exposure and 2.1 mg/kg for groundwater protection. After receiving the applicant's response to the December 29, 1998, request for additional information, Mr. Kahn performed independent evaluations to determine whether nitrate or mercury deposition would be of special concern in the area around the proposed plant. As to nitrate deposition, Mr. Kahn determined that approximately 50 tons per year of the NOx would be converted and deposited as nitrate within a 23-mile radius of the plant. He concluded that the estimated nitrate deposition from the cement plant was not significant because it was less than 0.1 percent of the annual total loading rate of nitrate (50,000 tons per year) from all other sources in the counties surrounding the Suwannee River. Mr. Kahn's independent analysis of mercury deposition yielded similar results. He concluded that, compared to the background levels of mercury existing in the soils around the proposed facility, and compared to the criteria of the Department's direct exposure soil criteria, 2/ the estimated additional mercury deposition from the cement plant would not be significant. Mr. Kahn and the applicant made several conservative assumptions in making an analysis of mercury deposition. For example, they assumed that mercury would be emitted and deposited in the cement plant's vicinity at a constant rate for 50 years. They also assumed that all of the mercury deposited on the ground would remain in the top six inches of the soil and would not migrate into any other media. On March 25, 1999, the Department conducted a public meeting on Suwannee American's application. The public commented on various issues. As to atmospheric deposition of substances, the public's comments were not structured enough for the Department to consider them per se in the application review. By letter dated March 26, 1999, the Department summarized the public concerns and requested Suwannee American to furnish the following information in relevant part: 2. Estimate potential mercury emissions from the pyroprocessing system, and characterize the fraction of mercury that will come from other raw material, coal, petroleum coke and tires. Please evaluate control methods for mercury emissions. * * * 8. What portion of the proposed plant's Nox emissions will be deposited as nitrate through dry and wet deposition within an area 25 miles radius from the site? Investigate pollution prevention techniques that may result in lower overall NOx emissions. On or about April 21, 1999, Suwannee American responded to the above-referenced questions. As to question no. 2, the responses states as follows: Response: Potential mercury emissions were submitted to the Department on February 25, 1999. Using three different approaches, the projected emissions were in all cases below the 200 pound per year threshold established by Rule 62-212.400(2)(f) and Table 212.400-2, F.A.C. as a significant emission rate increase (for PSD permitting purposes). Because the expected emissions are below the threshold amount, there is no regulatory requirement to apply BACT review for the de minimis emissions that are expected. Approximately 40 percent of the mercury will be contributed by fuel (coal) and 60 percent by raw materials. When petroleum coke or tires are used as fuel, the mercury contributed by fuel is expected to decrease. As to question no. 8, Suwannee American's response stated as follows: Response: The applicant notes that the matters inquired of in this request are not related to those matters allowed under Section 403.0876(1), F.S., and therefore requests that the Department begin processing the permit application under Section 403.0876(2)(a), F.S. However, in a continuing effort to be responsive to the concerns behind the questions asked, the applicant submits the following information, provided the submittal does not affect the permit processing time clock. Approximately 7% or less of the plant's NOx emissions will be deposited as nitrate through dry and wet deposition within an area 25 miles radius from the site. This is approximately 0.1 pounds per acre per year, and is less than one percent of the wet and dry background deposition measured at the Bradford Forest, near Starke, Florida. This analysis was very conservative, as it assumed nitrate deposition between five miles and 25 miles to be equal to the deposition rate at five miles (i.e., there was no credit taken for the decrease in deposition rate with distance beyond five miles). This approach is also conservative in that it assumed all NOx from the plant would immediately convert to nitrate and be available for deposition. This is a worst case assumption. Pollution prevention operating procedures that may result in lower overall NOx emissions are being evaluated. One technique planned for the facility is the stockpiling of limestone to allow natural drainage before pyroprocessing. Lower material moisture contents allow for the use of less fuel and hence, less NOx. After receiving Suwannee American's response to the Department's March 26, 1999, letter, Mr. Kahn reviewed the applicant's analysis. He compared information presented by the applicant with his own estimates of nitrate and mercury deposition. Suwannee American's data confirmed Mr. Kahn's prior conclusion that atmospheric depositions of mercury and nitrate from the cement plant would not be a significant fraction of the existing total deposition and total loading of those elements from all sources. Mr. Kahn did not perform any further analysis to estimate the impact of nitrate or mercury emissions on the area surrounding the proposed plant. He never made any comparisons to the Department's surface water quality criteria or standards related to Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) bodies. In other words, Mr. Kahn did not attempt to discern the specific impact of mercury and nitrate deposition on the ground water and surface water surrounding the proposed plant. His additional impact analysis was limited to comparing the estimated mercury and nitrate depositions from the proposed facility to the existing total loading of those elements from all sources in the area around the cement plant. Concluding that the impacts would be insignificant, he then informally advised certain members of the public, including Mr. Greenhalgh and some of Sierra Club/SOS' members, that the water pollution and OFW rules did not apply. The Department's Division of Air Resources never applies the standards relating to water quality or an OFW. Those standards are applied and enforced by the Department's staff in its water resource division when a water pollution permit is required. If there are off-site impacts that are not covered by the PSD rules, the applicant will be required to apply for other applicable permits. 3/ The parties do not assert that, in order to construct the cement plant, Suwannee American requires a separate water pollution permit to determine its compliance with the OFW rules. No one from the Department's water resource division officially reviewed the application at issue here. In performing his independent evaluation of additional impacts, Mr. Kahn sought information regarding the total nutrient loading in the Middle Suwannee River Basin from all sources from the Department's water resource staff, including Mr. Greenhalgh. Mr. Greenhalgh is a professional geologist who works for the Department in its water resource division. Specifically, Mr. Greenhalgh is one of the individuals working on the Department's Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) analysis for the Middle Suwannee River Basin. In response to Mr. Kahn's inquires, Mr. Greenhalgh stated that the basin had already exceeded its assimilative capacity and could not tolerate additional inputs of nitrate. Other members of the Department's water resource division gave Mr. Kahn similar opinions. However, Mr. Greenhalgh admits that he has not done any calculations to determine the impact of atmospheric deposition of nitrates from the proposed plant on the surrounding area. Mr. Greenhalgh directed Mr. Kahn's attention to a paper written by David Hornsby, an employee of a water management district, concerning the total nitrate loading from all sources in the Middle Suwannee River Basin. Mr. Kahn used data from the paper to make his comparisons between the total nitrate loading from all sources in the area to his estimate of nitrate deposition from the proposed plant. Mr. Kahn then informed Mr. Greenhalgh that the Department could not deny the permit on the basis of nitrate atmospheric deposition because the Department did not regulate all sources of nitrate in the basin. Except for the applicant, and the informal consultations with members of the Department's Division of Water Resources, no one furnished Mr. Kahn with any technical information regarding the atmospheric deposition of mercury and nitrates. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency has not developed or approved methods for calculating air deposition rates for emissions. In the absence of such standards, the methods used by Suwannee American and Mr. Kahn to determine the proposed facility's additional impact on the surrounding area were appropriate and reliable. The Department has adopted the federal government's acid rain rule (Rule 62-214.420, Florida Administrative Code.) That rule specifically addresses water quality impacts from the emissions and atmospheric deposition of sulfur dioxide and NOx from certain electric power plant facilities. The parties agree that the acid rain rule does not apply in this case. Permits for electrical power plants are issued under the authority of the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act. The Governor and Cabinet sitting as the electrical power plant siting board approve power plant siting applications. The Department's Division of Air Resources performs a PSD review for electric power plant siting applications. Unlike the circumstances in this case, an electrical power plant siting application also requires other sections of the Department to consider impacts on water quality, solid waste, and land use. Under the terms of the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act, the Department has required one other applicant to perform the type of additional impact analysis that was performed in this case. That application involved an existing Florida Power and Light Company, Inc. (FP&L) electrical power plant located near Tampa Bay, an OFW. The FP&L electrical power plant requested permission to convert to orimulsion fuel. In the FP&L power plant case, the Department took the position that water quality concerns were satisfied by a demonstration of compliance with air quality standards. There is no specific permit application that one would fill out or apply for to determine if one would be in compliance with the OFW rule. The OFW rule is usually considered in the context of another permit. However, there is no evidence that the Department has ever considered the OFW rule in the context of a new source PSD permit application. Suwannee American's proposed cement plant will be located within three miles of an OFW. There is no evidence that the Department has ever considered another application for a new source PSD (prevention of significant deterioration) permit within such close proximity to an OFW. Sierra Club/SOS' only factual allegation is that Suwannee American has not provided reasonable assurances that it would not significantly degrade the Santa Fe River, an OFW, through the atmospheric deposition of mercury, in contravention to Rule 62-302.700, Florida Administrative Code. 4/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Administrative Hearing in DOAH Case No. 99-3096, with prejudice for lack of standing. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of October, 1999, 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 21st day of October, 1999.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this portion of the proceeding is whether the Siting Board should issue a final certification to the Florida Municipal Power Agency (FMPA) to construct and operate the Treasure Coast Energy Center (TCEC) Unit 1 and an ultimate site capacity determination of 1,200 megawatts of steam electric generating capacity to be located at the TCEC, in accordance with the provisions of the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA).
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: FMPA is a joint action agency created under the Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1969 (Section 163.01, Florida Statutes) and the Joint Power Act (Part II, Chapter 361, Florida Statutes). FMPA comprises twenty-nine municipal electric utilities across Florida and was created to allow its member utilities to cooperate with each other on the financing, construction, ownership, and operation of electrical generating resources. FMPA is governed by a Board of Directors consisting of one representative from each of the twenty-nine member cities. Within FMPA, the All-Requirements Project (ARP) was formed in 1986 and currently has fifteen municipal members serving approximately 280,000 customers. Under the ARP, both generating and non-generating members purchase all of their capacity and electrical energy needs from the ARP. Additionally, ARP members with generating plants commit their capacity to FMPA. FMPA will own the TCEC and act as the project manager for construction. The FPUA will operate Unit 1 for FMPA. FMPA's proposed TCEC will be located in the County, approximately five miles west of the City of Fort Pierce and eight miles north of the City of Port St. Lucie. Much of the site's northwestern boundary is determined by a Florida East Coast Railroad line that parallels Glades Cut- Off Road. To the south, the site is bordered by the North St. Lucie River Water Control District's Canal 102 with a Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) electrical transmission line right-of-way across the southern part of property and adjacent to Canal 102. The parcel north of the proposed site is owned by the FPUA and is proposed for a mainland wastewater treatment plant. The land directly east of the site is largely undeveloped industrial park. The proposed plant site itself is located within the Midway Industrial Park. The site is approximately one-half mile east of the Florida Turnpike and one-half mile north of Midway Road. The site contains approximately 68.1 acres. Land use and vegetation at the site consist primarily of pasture used for cattle and horses. Within the pasture land are areas of wet prairie, freshwater marsh, and Brazilian Pepper. The site was historically and most likely pine flatwoods or savannah, based on the characteristics of the surrounding vicinity. However, due to past clearing and agricultural activities, the site has been significantly altered from its natural state and has little native vegetation. Current vegetation reflects the disturbed condition of the site. There were no observations or indications of protected plant or wildlife species on the site. The site is located in an area outside the 500-year flood plain as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The future land use map in the County's Comprehensive Plan indicates no expected changes in the land use patterns for the site or the adjacent land area in the future, indicating that the site will continue to be compatible with the predominant land use in the immediate Project vicinity. As part of its land development approvals for the site, the St. Lucie Board of County Commissioners determined that the Project was compatible with surrounding land uses. FMPA proposes to construct a nominal 300-megawatt combined cycle electrical generating unit at the site known as Unit 1. FMPA is also requesting an ultimate site capacity determination for a total of 1,200 megawatts of generating capacity to be located at the Project site. Any future electrical generating units after the first two units up to the proposed ultimate site capacity of 1,200 megawatts will require additional zoning review and approval and any other applicable County development authorization at the time those units are proposed for approval. Unit 1 will be dual fuel, with natural gas as the primary fuel and ultra low sulfur diesel fuel oil as a backup fuel. The Project will be a "one-on-one" combined cycle unit. Unit 1 will be comprised of a combustion turbine, a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG), and a single steam turbine generator. In the combustion turbine, fuel is combusted in the form of hot gases which expand through the turbine. The combustion turbine spins the electrical generator that is directly connected, producing power. About half of the energy of the hot gases is extracted when expanded through the combustion turbine. The remainder of the heat is exhausted into a HRSG. These hot gases flow through the HRSG which turns water into steam. The steam flows into a steam turbine, spinning a second electrical generator. The steam is then exhausted into a condenser, where it is condensed back into water and pumped back to the HRSG. The HRSG will also be equipped with duct firing to provide peak power by increasing the steam production in the HRSG, which increases the output from the steam turbine generator. The Unit will also be able to operate in a steam turbine bypass operation where the combustion turbine and HRSG will operate normally but the steam will bypass the steam turbine. This mode of operation will be employed during startups and will also allow unit operation when the steam turbine/generator is not available. Combined cycle generation technology is very efficient because it generates electrical energy from the fuel input, both directly through the combustion turbine and indirectly through capture of the energy in the combustion turbine exhaust gas in the HRSG. This captured energy is used to produce steam to drive the separate steam turbine electrical generator. By reheating the steam between sections of the steam turbine, additional improvements and cycle efficiency can be achieved. Combined cycle technology makes the most of the input fuel, achieving increased efficiency in the generation of electrical energy. It achieves efficiencies of 55 percent in converting fuel into electricity. For these reasons, the modern combined cycle power plant is one of the most efficient power cycles available. If properly maintained and operated, the life expectancy of a combined cycle unit is indefinite. Combined cycle units operating on natural gas, such as Unit 1, are one of the cleanest sources of fossil generation. These units also use considerably less water than traditional steam turbine units, requiring approximately one-half the amount of water used by a steam cycle only unit with similar electrical output. The ultimate site arrangement for the Project allows for the installation of three future similar-sized combined cycle units for an ultimate site certification capacity of approximately 1,200 megawatts. FMPA will clear and develop the entire Project site during the construction for Unit 1. A cooling tower used to cool the steam turbine condenser will be located to the north of Unit 1. The cooling tower will consume approximately 95 percent of all the water used by the Project. For this Project, reclaimed water will be supplied from FPUA's soon-to-be constructed water reclamation facility, which will be located just north of the site. The reclaimed water will be used as cooling tower makeup. Until the water reclamation plant comes online, the new Unit 1 will utilize water withdrawn from the Upper Floridan Aquifer for cooling. The cooling tower design will be a multiple cell, mechanical draft, counter flow cooling tower. Access to the site will be over Energy Drive, which is an access road in the adjacent industrial park. Unit 1 will be interconnected to the FPL electrical transmission system. A new electrical switchyard will be constructed on the site. Two new transmission lines will connect the site to an existing nearby FPL electrical substation and electrical transmission system. The new transmission lines will be installed on new structures for the entire length of each transmission line. Each of the two new lines will be approximately three miles long. One line will parallel Glades Cut-Off Road to the southwest and connect to the existing FPL Midway/Turnpike transmission line. The second line will go west from the Project site, cross Glades Cut-Off Road parallel to an existing road and FPL transmission line, cross over the Florida Turnpike and Interstate 95, and then turn south into the FPL Midway electrical substation. Each corridor is one-fourth mile wide for most of its length. It is expected that a final right- of-way will be acquired parallel to Glades Cut Off Road for one transmission line and a final right-of-way will be acquired for the second transmission line parallel to the existing FPL right- of-way. The new transmission line structures will be self- supporting concrete tubular steel or hybrid concrete-tubular steel poles or a combination of these options. The typical aboveground height of the transmission structures will be approximately one hundred feet. The structures will be placed approximately four hundred to eight hundred feet apart along the route. The lines will be designed to meet the clearance requirements of the National Electrical Safety Code for the minimum ground clearance of twenty-six feet. The two lines will also comply with the Department's electric and magnetic fields limits in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-814. These two transmission line corridors were selected as the most direct means with the least impact for connecting into the FPL transmission network. The transmission lines are located in areas zoned for commercial, industrial, and agricultural uses. No housing units will be moved as part of the Project and no residential areas will be impacted. The transmission lines will be constructed completely within or adjacent to existing rights-of-way which provide minimal ecological value. A new natural gas pipeline up to sixteen inches in diameter is proposed to connect the site with the Florida Gas Transmission gas pipeline. This existing gas main is located approximately 3,700 feet southwest of the site, near the Florida Turnpike. A 1,320-foot wide corridor centered on Glades Cut Off Road from the Florida Turnpike to the site is proposed for certification. A seventy-five-foot wide temporary easement for pipeline installation and a permanent forty-foot right-of-way are anticipated. It is expected that the natural gas pipeline will be constructed within or adjacent to the existing Florida East Coast Railroad corridor or adjacent to Glades Cut Off Road. The pipeline will be manufactured according to American Petroleum Institute standards and will be built in accordance with United States Department of Transportation and FPSC safety requirements. The proposed gas pipeline corridor is located in areas zoned for commercial and utility uses. No residential areas will be impacted during construction of the underground pipeline. The existing railroad right-of-way is expected to be maintained as a transportation corridor and provides minimal ecological value. There will be minimal impacts to vegetation in the gas pipeline right-of-way as there will be only minor clearing required for construction. Disturbed lands will be returned to maintained right-of-way condition following construction. Fuel oil for use in the unit will be delivered by truck. A complete fuel unloading, storage, and supply system will be installed at the site. The unloading station will be designed for containment of a fuel spill. Double-walled piping will be used for underground piping running through the unloading station to the storage tank and from the tank to the combustion turbine. A one-million gallon aboveground storage tank will be installed to provide approximately three days of fuel oil at full load operation for Unit 1. This will be a single wall tank fabricated from carbon steel and will be installed inside a dike containment area. The containment area will be provided with a synthetic liner sufficiently impermeable to ensure no oil can escape by infiltrating through the liner into the soil or into surface or groundwaters. The major water use during operation of Unit 1 will involve cooling tower operation. This is the highest volume water consumer for the Project. The cooling system will use approximately 2.52 million gallons per day of treated wastewater, most of which is evaporated to the atmosphere in the cooling process. Other plant non-cooling water uses will include the plant service water system. This system supplies fire water, miscellaneous process uses, and makeup water to the demineralizer system. The demineralizer system provides boiler makeup water and provides water for control of nitrogen oxides when firing oil in the unit. Treated sewage effluent or reclaimed water will be used for cooling tower makeup water. This reclaimed water will be provided by the FPUA wastewater treatment plant proposed to be located north and adjacent to the site. This treatment plant is expected to be online in late 2009. The reclaimed water will be supplied via pipeline across the site. It will be necessary to utilize groundwater for cooling purposes until the wastewater treatment plant is online. Groundwater will also be used when the wastewater treatment is offline and unable to supply treated effluent in the future. Three new onsite wells pumping from the Upper Floridan Aquifer will supply fire water and service water. The wells will supply water to the steam cycle and makeup treatment system and the evaporative cooling makeup. They will also provide a temporary water supply for cooling tower makeup. The wells will be sized so that two of the wells will be able to provide the required water flow at full load with a third well as a backup. An average of 2.95 million gallons per day of groundwater will be used prior to the availability of reclaimed water. An average of approximately 129,000 gallons per day of groundwater will be needed under average annual conditions for non-cooling water needs of the plant. Cooling tower blowdown from Unit 1 will be conveyed to the FPUA wastewater treatment plant for treatment and disposal. Approximately 586,000 gallons per day of cooling tower blowdown wastewater will be returned to the FPUA system for disposal. The cooling tower system will operate at three cycles of concentration when using groundwater, which is considered the maximum practical limit to prevent scaling of heat transfer systems within the cooling system. When reuse water is available, the cooling towers will operate at four cycles of concentration, which further minimizes the amount of water needed for cooling. The cooling system is also designed to minimize the amount of cooling tower blowdown and makeup that is required. Potable water for the site will be provided through an extension from the FPUA municipal water system. This connection will also supply the evaporative cooler needs on the Unit and backup water supply to the plant service water system. Water treatment and other water uses in Unit 1 will generate various process wastewaters. Wastewaters from the onsite demineralizer system, including filter backwash and reverse osmosis reject wastewater, will be routed to an onsite wastewater sump for disposal to the FPUA wastewater treatment plant. The HRSG and boiler piping will be chemically cleaned during commissioning of the new unit and the steam generators will be cleaned infrequently over the life of the unit. Chemical cleaning solutions will be neutralized onsite if required and transported offsite by a licensed waste disposal contractor. Sanitary wastewater will be routed to the FPUA municipal sanitary treatment system for treatment and disposal. The TCEC design contains several features to minimize impacts of project wastewaters to surface and groundwaters. The cooling system design will minimize the amount of cooling tower blowdown and makeup required. There will be no process wastewater discharge to groundwater or surface waters at the plant site. All process and sanitary wastewaters will be returned to FPUA for final disposal. Further, the use of reclaimed and treated wastewater in the cooling system will reduce the quantity of wastewater that would otherwise have to be disposed of to surface and groundwaters. Groundwater consumption will also be reduced through the use of treated wastewater for cooling and by recovering and pumping blowdown water from the HRSG to the cooling towers as makeup rather than sending the blowdown to the wastewater collection and disposal system. Groundwater withdrawals during initial operation of Unit 1 are proposed from the Upper Floridan Aquifer for cooling tower makeup until future sources of treated wastewater become available for the Project to displace groundwater withdrawals. Analyses were performed to determine the impact of these groundwater withdrawals from the non-potable Upper Floridan Aquifer. A three-dimensional aquifer analysis computer model was developed to model these impacts. The computer model was one developed by the United States Geological Survey and approved by the SFWMD. The drawdown in the Floridan Aquifer was simulated for the condition of groundwater withdrawals for Unit 1 of 3.2 million gallons per day. This assessment indicates that the onsite pumping from the Upper Floridan Aquifer would have a small impact on existing legal groundwater users in the area. This modeling predicts that the additional two- and one- foot drawdowns in the Upper Floridan Aquifer due to the plant withdrawals at maximum withdrawal rates would occur at 1.8 and 5.8 miles, respectively, from the Project. This limited impact in drawdown of the Floridan Aquifer and the magnitude of the drawdown increase are not considered significant. The proposed groundwater pumping is not expected to cause salt water intrusion into the Floridan Aquifer. Due to the presence of a 600-foot thick Hawthorne formation and the upward gradient from the Upper Floridan Aquifer to the land surface, no adverse effects to surface wetlands are expected. The SFWMD agreed with these conclusions as indicated in its report submitted to the Department. Impacts on the Upper Floridan Aquifer after the Project begins operation using reclaimed water will be significantly reduced and also cause no adverse impacts. Project construction may require dewatering for placement of subsurface facilities, such as piping, electrical trenches, sumps, and foundations. Dewatering impacts for construction were estimated using site specific geotechnical information. Due to the short duration of the onsite dewatering, it will not affect existing users and will have a minimal and temporary impact on the surficial water table aquifer. No impact is expected to extend beyond the project site boundaries. Of the 68.1-acre Project site, 11.96 acres constitute wetlands. Three onsite wetlands will be lost due to the site development, comprising 11.25 acres of wetlands. The onsite wetlands were delineated in accordance with state and federal guidelines for such delineations. These onsite wetlands are low quality herbaceous wetlands, mainly disturbed wet prairie and freshwater marshes. Cattle have access to the entire site including these wetlands. Natural vegetation and wildlife have been largely eliminated from the Project site and much of the surrounding vicinity due to onsite grazing and past development activities, including residential, industrial, and commercial development. Based on these considerations, the loss of vegetation and associated wildlife habitat at the Project site will be insignificant. FMPA must mitigate for the unavoidable wetlands impacts due to site development. FMPA has entered into a mitigation credit purchase and sale agreement with the Bluefield Ranch Mitigation Bank (located in the County) to compensate for those wetlands impacts subject to state jurisdiction. There will be no impacts to surface waters from operation of the facility. The Project will not withdraw or discharge wastewaters to surface waters. The onsite stormwater management system will be designed to comply with all applicable state and local regulations regarding discharge into offsite surface waters. The stormwater management system will meet the water quality treatment requirements of the Department and SFWMD, as well as the standards of the County. Runoff originating from potentially contaminated areas, such as miscellaneous plant drains and drainage from oil containment areas, will be routed through an oil/water separator. Oil and grease will be removed from the contaminated stormwater, and the treated effluent will be collected and discharged to the FPUA wastewater treatment plant. Captured oil and grease will be properly disposed offsite. Runoff from other potentially contaminated areas, such as storage tank containment areas, will be contained locally. All runoff from the fenced site will be directed to the onsite stormwater detention basin for treatment and discharge in accordance with applicable stormwater rules. Peak stormwater discharges from the Project area are less than the peak stormwater discharges from the pre-Project site for the same storm event. Therefore, the potential for local flooding will not be affected by the Project. During construction, a combination of silt fencing, straw bale sediment barriers, and a stormwater detention pond will be used to control erosion on the site and to reduce the potential for transport of loaded sediment offsite. Grading will be accomplished in phases and each graded area will be seeded and mulched after construction is completed. During operation, stormwater ditches will route stormwater to the onsite stormwater detention area. This basin will meet the stormwater treatment quality and quantity requirements of the Department, SFWMD, and County. Thus, there will be minimal adverse impact from the management and storage of surface waters on the site. Air emissions from the Project are subject to review under federal and state regulations, primarily the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program. The Department regulates major air pollution facilities, such as Unit 1, in accordance with the PSD program under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-212.400. The PSD pre-construction review is required in areas currently in attainment with the state and federal ambient air quality standards. The County is an attainment area for those air quality standards. The state PSD regulations are designed to assure that the air quality in existing attainment areas like the County does not significantly deteriorate or exceed the ambient air quality standards while providing a margin for future industrial and commercial growth. The PSD regulations apply to major stationary sources and major modifications at major existing sources undergoing construction. A major stationary source is defined for PSD permitting purposes as any one of twenty-eight listed major source categories which emits or has the potential to emit one hundred tons per year or more of any regulated pollutant. The Unit 1 Project is one of the twenty-eight major listed category types, a fossil fuel-fired steam electric plant, and has the potential to emit greater than one hundred tons per year of at least one of the PSD regulated pollutants. Unit 1 also exceeds the PSD significant emission levels for several pollutants and is thus subject to PSD review as a major stationary source. The emissions from Unit 1 subject to PSD review include nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), particulate matter less than ten microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM10), and sulfuric acid mist. The PSD review requires an analysis of best available control technology (BACT), an air quality impact analysis, and an assessment of the Project's impacts on general commercial residential and commercial growth, soils and vegetation, and visibility, as well as impacts to air quality in Class I areas. BACT is defined as an air emission limitation based on the maximum degree of pollutant reduction for emissions, determined on a case-by-case basis, considering technical, economic, energy, and environmental factors, as well as other costs for the control of each pollutant. The facilities at the Project subject to BACT review include the combustion turbine, the fuel oil storage tank, a diesel driven fire pump and oil storage tank, a safe shutdown generator and storage tank, and the mechanical-draft cooling tower. A BACT analysis was performed for each of these emission sources. The analysis was conducted using the "top down" methodology described by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Based upon this analysis, best available control technologies for controlling NOx emissions from Unit 1 were determined by the Department during its PSD review to be the use of dry low NOx burners within the combustion turbine and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) installed in the HRSG to achieve an emission limit of 2.0 parts per million of NOx when burning natural gas. The Department also determined during its PSD review that when burning fuel oil, BACT to control NOx emissions was the use of water injection with a SCR to achieve an emission limit of 8.0 parts per million. The Department agreed with FMPA's proposed NOx emission limit for this Project. For carbon monoxide emissions, BACT control was determined by the Department during its PSD review to be good combustion controls and practices. Carbon monoxide is a product of incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels such as natural gas and fuel oil. Most combustion turbines incorporate good combustion practices based on high temperature and other techniques to minimize emissions of CO. The Department further determined during its PSD review that the BACT for CO was 4.1 parts per million for natural gas firing and 8.0 parts per million for fuel oil firing. A continuous limit of 8.0 parts per million CO on a twenty-four hours basis will also be implemented for both gas and oil firing with or without the duct burner in operation. In addition, an annualized limit of 6.0 parts per million of CO will also be included to recognize that Unit 1 will be operated in the normal natural gas-fired mode. BACT for particulate emissions, both PM and PM10, was determined by the Department during its PSD review to be a fuel selection of natural gas and ultra low sulfur fuel oil and good combustion controls. Sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid mist control was determined by the Department in its PSD review to be the use of low sulfur fuels, including the limited use of ultra low sulfur diesel fuel. The cooling tower can produce PM emissions in the small amounts of water entrained in the air passing through the cooling tower that can be carried out of the tower, known as "drift" droplets. These droplets contain impurities from the cooling water which can be classified as an emission. FMPA proposed, and the Department accepted during its PSD review, that use of high-efficiency mist eliminators with a maximum guaranteed drift rate of 0.0005 percent constitutes BACT for these drift emissions. Modeling of the impacts of the emissions and plume from the cooling tower indicates that there would be no environmental impact. Finally, the Department concluded during its PSD review that the use of ultra low sulfur fuel oil and limited hours of operations (five hundred hours or less) insures that emissions from both the onsite safe shutdown generator and the diesel engine fire pump will be minimal. An air quality impact analysis was also conducted for the Project-related air emissions, in accordance with the Department's and EPA's air dispersion modeling guidelines. The ambient air quality impact analysis conducted for Unit 1 demonstrates that this Project will not have a significant impact on air quality near the Project site or in the nearest Class I air quality areas, including the Everglades National Park. There are no predicted air quality impacts greater than the PSD significant impact levels. Therefore, under the PSD program, no further air quality impact analysis was required for the Project. The Project is not expected to cause any adverse impacts on vegetation, soils, or visibility in the Project area or at the nearest Class I areas. The Project construction activities may produce air emissions during onsite construction of buildings and from construction equipment exhaust. Particulate matter would be the major source of air pollution during construction. These emissions are expected to be intermittent, short term, and composed of relatively-large particles. These particles tend to settle out quickly and will not generally leave the Project site. Particulate matter emissions will be controlled by watering and application of dust suppressants or ground covers as necessary in active work areas. Construction and operation of the Project will result in significant economic benefits to the County, the region, and the State of Florida. No significant permanent adverse socioeconomic impacts are expected. The anticipated benefits of the Project include primarily the direct and indirect employment and earnings impacts that will be realized in the area from construction and operation. The Unit 1 construction will create approximately 286 temporary jobs, with an estimated payroll of $23.6 million over a twenty-two-month period. It is expected that most of these jobs will be filled by workers already residing in or near the County. The in-migration of construction employees will be small and should not increase the demand for services from local governments and nearby service providers. Information gathered for the Project indicates that more than enough service capacity is available to accommodate the construction work force. Individuals temporarily relocating to the area during construction should not have a problem securing affordable housing. The indirect socioeconomic impacts from construction of the Project include the creation of service jobs in the area to accommodate construction workers. Using an accepted economic multiplier, it is expected that 762 additional jobs may be created as a result of the construction. Expenditure of the construction payroll in the local economy will be passed along to local businesses through spending by construction workers and the governments in the form of taxes. Benefits from operation of the Project will occur from the sixteen operational personnel needed to operate the combined cycle units. The annual payroll for these employees is estimated to be $1.38 million. It is expected that these employees will come from the existing FPUA work force. Since operational personnel tend to live near the facility they operate, the majority of the annual payroll will remain within the local economy. Indirect socioeconomic impacts will include the creation of up to sixteen additional fulltime indirect jobs as a result of the operation of the combined cycle project. By its Order dated July 27, 2005, the FPSC found that there is a need for the proposed Unit 1, taking into account the need for electric system reliability and integrity. The FPSC found that Unit 1 was required to maintain FMPA's winter and summer reserve margins. The FPSC also found that Unit 1 will enhance the reliability and integrity of FMPA's electric system through the use of the highly efficient combined cycle technology with the ability to burn two different types of fuel. The two interconnections to FPL's transmission system would also be a benefit to Unit 1 and allow FMPA to better serve its members in the FPL transmission grid. FMPA's analysis of five proposals from other potential bidders indicated that Unit 1 is the most cost-effective option available. There were no conservation measures taken by or reasonably available to FMPA which would mitigate the need for the proposed Unit 1. Unit 1 was further found by the FPSC to provide the most cost-effective solution to satisfy FMPA's forecast capacity requirements beginning in 2008. The Department, DCA, FPSC, SFWMD, FDOT, FFWCC, TCRPC, and the Cities of Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie each prepared written reports on the Project. The Department has proposed Conditions of Certification for the Project, which FMPA has agreed to accept and comply with in construction and operation of the Project. No state, regional, or local agency has recommended denial of certification of the Project.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board grant final certification to the Treasure Coast Energy Center Project under Part II, Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, for the location, construction, and operation of the Project, representing a 1,200 megawatts combined cycle unit site with Unit 1 being a nominal 300- megawatt combined cycle unit, as described in the Site Certification Application and the evidence presented at the certification hearing, and subject to the Conditions of Certification contained in Department Exhibit 2. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 30th day of March, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Bayfront commenced construction of the biological waste incinerator here at issue prior to March 21, 1992, the effective date of the moratorium on construction of biological waste incinerators and was exempt from that moratorium. An inspection of the premises on April 9, 1992, (exhibit 5) showed substantial work had been accomplished and the inspector concluded, and DEP's legal counsel concurred, that in order to have achieved the construction progress shown on April 9, 1992, the work had to have been commenced prior to March 21, 1992. Further, a building permit to renovate the building into which the waste incinerator was placed was issued November 12, 1991, (exhibit 7) and a building permit to install a waste incinerator was issued March 4, 1992, (exhibit 6). No contradictory evidence was submitted by Petitioner. Respondent's witnesses testified without contradiction that Bayfront's application for an operation permit was complete in all respects, including certification by a professional engineer; that all test results showed the emissions into the atmosphere were within the prescribed standards; that certain conditions contained in the construction permit as a result of the settlement agreement resolving the challenge to the issuance of the construction permit are contained in the operation permit; that those conditions exceed the conditions required by the rules for incinerators; and that Bayfront affirmatively provided the Department with reasonable assurance based on plans, test results, installation of pollution control equipment, or other information that the operation of the incinerator will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution in contravention of DEP's standards as contained in Rule 17-4.070(1), Florida Administrative Code. This testimony is accepted as factual. The draft permit authorizes Bayfront to burn a maximum of fifteen hundred pounds per hour of waste. Each time a test run is conducted to check the emissions, the pounds of waste burned per hour during the test establishes an upper limit on the rate of burning waste. As explained by James L. McDonald, the engineer processing air pollution applications for the Department at Transcript p. 50-51: The construction application asked for a permit at fifteen hundred pounds per hour. So the construction permit is -- the condition that we would want, the Department would normally want the test within ten percent of that fifteen hundred pounds an hour in order to go ahead and issue, if its in total compliance, to issue an operating permit at fifteen hundred pounds. Since the test came in at a reduced rate, below the ten percent, then that's why in the operating permit condition twenty-one says you're limited to the rate that we're, the test was conducted. [sic] Now, also, its interesting to note that in their test, if you look at their runs two and three -- because there are rules that say the Department could accept two runs out of three if a condition occurred that was out of their control -- if your average runs two and three, they would average within ten percent of fifteen hundred. So, as a permit processor, it even gave me some reasonable assurance that they could probably comply with the fifteen hundred. But, since the test of all three runs came in as an average of twelve fifty-one, then the operating permit included that twelve fiftyone. And like the real world out there, just like power plants, when it comes time for their annual testing, if they are at half speed, their business is down, it allows them to test at half speed. We won't require them to go up to full speed. They can test at half speed. But then they are limited there. And if they go above it at a later date they would have to retest. So they can work their way back up to where the Department has reasonable assurance that the upper limit of fifteen hundred pounds -- that's where later in condition twenty-one of the operating permit it says but in no case shall the maximum permit or burning rate of fifteen hundred pounds per hour be exceeded. Petitioner's second two grounds for challenging the issuance of the operation permit was answered by McDonald's testimony, above quoted, and this evidence was not rebutted by Petitioner. The primary thrust of the evidence presented by Petitioner was that Bayfront had somehow misled the City of St. Petersburg regarding the operation of the incinerator and had not complied with all of the City's requirements in other respects, ergo, Bayfront could not be relied on to comply with the conditions in the operation permit. This evidence is irrelevant to the determination of whether or not the operation of the incinerator complies with all of the Department rules. The conditions of the operating permit require Bayfront to submit periodic reports to the Department from which the Department can determine whether the conditions in the permit are being complied with. Furthermore, the Department requires the permittee to notify the Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management at least fifteen days prior to the date on which each formal compliance test is to begin (Permit Condition No. 22) to allow them to witness the test, if desired. The construction permit, complying with the settlement agreement, required Bayfront to adhere to more frequent testing and more extensive testing then is required by the rules for operating biological waste incinerators. All of the tests and reports submitted by Bayfront on the operation of this incinerator met all of the requirements in the construction permit and the draft operation permit.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Bayfront Medical Center be issued Permit No. AO52- 224337 to operate a biological waste incinerator at Fifth Avenue South and Eighth Street, St. Petersburg, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of November 1993 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of November 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Adrian W. Helm, Esquire 925 14th Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 Daniel N. Burton, Esquire Thomas K. Maurer, Esquire Terri L. Gillis-Tucker, Esquire Foley and Lardner 111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1800 Orlando, Florida 32801 W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Unit No. 2 is certified to be a nuclear facility situated on 300 acres of a 1132 acre site previously cleared and filled on Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County, Florida. The site is presently occupied by Unit No. 1, also a nuclear facility. Hutchinson Island is a typical but highly developed coastal barrier island of the Florida Atlantic Coast. The site prior to development was predominantly flat and water covered, with dense vegetation typical of coastal mangrove swamp. On the Eastern side of the island, the land rises slightly in a dune to approximately 15 feet above mean low water. The cooling system for Unit No. 2 is essentially the same as that for Unit No. 1. It is proposed that the existing intake and discharge canals, present on the 300 acre tract for Unit No. 1, will be utilized by Unit No. 2. As originally planned and presently certified, the discharge structure for cooling water from Unit No. 2 consists of an open discharge canal, excavated to elevation - 17 feet. This canal is 28 feet wide at the bottom, with a slope of to 3. The open discharge canal extends from the plant approximately 2200 feet to a point 400 feet west of the existing shoreline. From there, a 12 foot diameter concrete conduit, for each unit, is buried beneath the ground and carries the discharged water under the beach and ocean floor out to the ocean discharge structures. The conduit for Unit No. 2 will extend approximately 2800 feet from the shoreline. The Unit No. 2 ocean discharge structure consists of a multiport diffuser containing 48 ports. Each port will be 1.5 feet in diameter, spaced 22.5 feet between centers and oriented to discharge horizontally. The jets will be mounted in an alternating manner on either side of a 1,060 foot manifold. Ocean depth at the discharge point will be approximately - 35 to - 40 feet mean low water. Exit velocity of the discharged water from each port will be approximately 13 feet per second. The effects on the environment which would occur from construction of the discharge conduit with the multi-port diffuser originally planned for Unit No. 2 were thoroughly studied and were the subject of extensive testimony at the 1975 certification hearing. Paragraphs 11, 44, 46, 50, 53, 54, 55 and 64 of the Findings of Fact contained in the October 8, 1975 Recommended Order, discuss and summarize the studies and testimony. On January 11, 1980, Florida Power & Light Company filed and served on all parties a "Petition for Modification of Terms of Certification" pursuant to Section 403.516(3), Florida Statutes. The petition requests a modification to the certification previously issued to reflect proposed design modifications to the cooling water discharge system which are necessary to account for design head losses resulting from the final multi-port diffuser design and to allow a margin for greater than anticipated marine fouling effects. The petition filed by Florida Power & Light Company seeks to modify the original design from that described in paragraph 6 of the Recommended Order entered October 8, 1975 by widening the distance which the open discharge canal extends along the shoreline, increasing the size and length of the conduit, and increasing the number of ports in the diffuser. On January 28, 1980, pursuant to Sections 120.57 and 403.615(3), Florida Statutes, and proper notice published in the local newspapers and served on all parties, a formal hearing was held at the St. Lucie County Library, 124 North Indian River Drive, Fort Pierce, Florida. At the hearing, Florida Power & Light Company presented three (3) witnesses who testified in support of the Petition for Modification of Terms of Certification. These witnesses, Clifford Kent, James O'Hara, and J. Ross Wilcox, described the need for, and the effects of the proposed modifications. Their testimony demonstrated that the proposed modification will result in improved availability of St. Lucie Unit No. 2, and will not result in a significant environmental impact or effect to the public that was not previously considered in the certification proceedings. Florida Power & Light Company also introduced into the record documentary evidence reflecting that it has applied for and been granted the following permits and approvals for this project: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Construction Permit No. 79K-1019 issued January 7, 1980, and State of Florida, Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Department of Natural Resources) Easement No. 25624 (2670-56)A, St. Lucie County, approved January 8, 1980. The testimony and evidence were not opposed or contradicted by testimony or evidence of any other party. At the hearing on the petition to modify, the Department of Environmental Regulation presented evidence indicating that the effects anticipated from construction of the modified discharge system would increase turbidity in the ocean during construction in the immediate area of the excavation. Adequate control structures are to be used however. The construction of the canal extension would remove approximately two acres of impounded mangrove habitat. To mitigate this loss, Florida power & Light Company proposes to breach the dike on the northern mangrove area to allow approximately 50 acres of mangrove to function more normally with the Indian River estuary. The environmental effects from operation of the revised Unit No. discharge system will be approximately the same as the original proposal. The Department of Environmental Regulation has recommended that the proposed modification be certified subject to the following additional conditions: That the dike around the mangrove area north of the discharge canal be opened up to Big Mud Creek by breaching the dike in three (3) places. Each breach in the dike shall be a minimum of ten feet (10') wide at the bottom and the bottom elevation of the breach shall not be higher than one foot below mean sea level (- 1 MSL) or deeper than - 3 MSL. That the Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Beaches and Shores be allowed to inspect the dune once restored. Florida Power and Light Company has agreed to the imposition of the proposed conditions. The Conservation Alliance of St. Lucie County has stated that its experts have concluded that the anticipated effects on the environment from the proposed modification will not be dramatically different from those which have previously occurred. Accordingly, the Alliance does not oppose this petition to modify.
The Issue Whether the costs incurred by the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Emergency Response (Department) in connection with its response to Incident Number 95-SE-0371 may be recovered from Petitioner pursuant to Chapter 376, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is a state regulatory agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapters 376, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the instant case, Petitioner has been the owner of a fenced and gated parcel of land, approximately one acre in size, located at 960 Old South Dixie Highway in an industrial area of Jupiter, Florida (Petitioner's Property or Property). Before the incident which is the subject of the instant proceeding (Incident), Petitioner had used the Property to store equipment used in his asphalt paving business. Petitioner removed the equipment from the property in December of 1989, when he moved his business operations to a new location in west Jupiter. Underground tanks that Petitioner had installed on the Property to store diesel fuel used in his asphalt paving business were also removed when Petitioner's business relocated. Groundwater tests were conducted in May of 1990, after the tanks were removed. The results of these tests revealed the absence of any pollutants. Following the relocation of his business to west Jupiter, Petitioner began renting the Property to Schmidt's Auto Body (Schmidt's), an automobile repair business located next to the Property. The rental agreement (which was not in writing), at Petitioner's insistence, included the requirement that Schmidt's maintain the Property and keep it clean. Schmidt's used the Property to store vehicles that needed to be repaired or towed elsewhere. To allow it easier access to Petitioner's Property, Schmidt's built a gate in the fence separating its business from the Property. After Petitioner relinquished possession of the Property to Schmidt's, the Property was used by others, acting without Petitioner's approval or authorization, as a dumping ground for abandoned personal property. Petitioner is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, legally blind and in failing health. Due to his blindness and poor health, Petitioner had been, prior to the Incident (and he has remained), unable to personally inspect the Property to ascertain Schmidt's compliance with the rental agreement's requirement that it maintain the Property and keep it clean. Petitioner's wife passed by the Property each month when she visited Schmidt's to collect rent for Petitioner, but she did not closely inspect the Property on these visits. There is no evidence that Petitioner was made aware, by his wife or anyone else, that his Property (which was fenced) was being used as a dumping ground. On September 8, 1995, the day of the Incident, the Jupiter area experienced an unusually heavy rain event and resultant flooding and ponding of water in some spots, including locations on and around Petitioner's Property. Depressions in portions of Petitioner's Property contained standing water, although the entire property was not flooded. At approximately 10:30 a.m. on September 8, 1995, Ann Meador, an Emergency Response Coordinator with the Department, received a report (from Palm Beach County Risk Management) of two 55-gallon drums leaking asphalt sealant on Petitioner's Property. Meador was initially told that the "situation was being handled" by Palm Beach County Risk Management, but she was later advised otherwise. Meador arrived on the scene at approximately 3:00 p.m. that same day (September 8, 1995) and served as the Department's on-scene coordinator. Upon arriving on the scene, Meador observed two 55-gallon drums which had unsecured lids and were rusted and in otherwise poor condition. One of the drums was labelled "asphalt sealant.“ (Although Petitioner was in the asphalt paving business, he did not use asphalt sealant for any of the work he performed.) Petitioner was not in any way responsible for the drums being on the Property. In fact, at no time prior to the Incident, did he even know that the drums were there. The heavy rains had caused the contents of the drums (product) to overflow. Approximately 85 gallons of product, mixed with water, had spilled onto the ground. Stormwater runoff had carried some of the product to a depression in an unpaved road adjacent to the Property and near a storm drain. Meador reasonably believed that the drums and the spilled product should be removed immediately to avoid the possibility that, with additional rainfall, the product would spread to other areas. After having learned that Petitioner was the owner of the property on which the drums were located and having obtained his telephone number, Meador called the number to inform Petitioner of the leaking drums on his Property. The person to whom Meador spoke identified himself as Petitioner. He told Meador, upon being advised that the drums and product needed to be removed from the Property, that he was not "going to do anything." Following this telephone conversation, Meador hired OHM Remediation Services, Inc. (OHM), a qualified emergency response contractor with whom the Department had a contract, to remove the drums and product (as well as the water and soil the product had contaminated) from the Property and to properly dispose of these items. OHM, in turn, contracted with Magnum Environmental Services (Magnum) to perform these services (as a subcontractor). Magnum personnel responded to the scene and performed these removal and disposal services. To determine the most appropriate means of disposal, samples of the product were collected and analyzed. The analysis revealed that the product was a petroleum derivative. Magnum properly disposed of the drums based upon the results of its analysis. The Department paid OHM $12,033.03 from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund for the services Magnum performed (as OHM's subcontractor). In requesting that these services be performed and in paying $12,033.03 for the performance of these services, the Department acted reasonably and prudently. The Department reasonably incurred other expenses (also paid from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund) totaling $461.91 in connection with its response to the Incident. The total amount the Department paid from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund to have the leaking drums and product (as well as the water and soil the product had contaminated) properly removed from Petitioner's Property and disposed of was $12,497.94. 2/ The Department is requesting that Petitioner reimburse the Department for these costs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department finding that Petitioner is not liable for the costs the Department incurred in responding to Incident Number 95-SE-0371. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Ferncrest Utilities, Inc. owns and operates a sewage treatment plant at 3015 Southwest 54th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. It presently services the needs of a population of about 2500 primarily located in three trailer parks, certain warehouses, a 153 room hotel, and several other business establishments. The plant was constructed and operated by a lessee of Petitioner's owners, but, in July 1979, Petitioner became the owner and operator of the facility. At that time, it was determined necessary to secure new operators and upgrade the plant equipment and method of process in order to properly service the existing and anticipated future number of customers in the area covered by a Public Service Commission franchise. Although the plant had been operating at a permitted capacity of 0.25 million gallons per day (MGD), Petitioner planned to expand the capacity to 0.60 MGD by modifying the aeration tank, and adding tertiary sand filters and equipment for clarification. Upon assuming control of the plant, Petitioner found that the 0.25 MGD permitted capacity had been exceeded by approximately 120,000 gallons per day for a number of years. Petitioner estimates that a population of 6,000 could be served under its new proposed design capacity. (Testimony of Forman, Exhibit 1) Pursuant to Petitioner's application for a construction permit, dated May 25, 1979, to modify the existing treatment plant, Respondent issued permit No. DC06-21789 on August 6, 1979. The permit specified that it was for construction of additional tank capacity for an existing 0.25 MGD wastewater treatment plant intended to approve effluent quality, and further stated that plant design capacity would remain at that figure. A subsequent letter from Respondent's subdistrict manager to Petitioner on January 15, 1980, stated that an evaluation of the quality of the surface waters receiving the plant discharge and the effect of such increased discharge would have to be made before processing a request for an increase in permitted flow. (Exhibit 7) On February 8, 1980, Respondent issued a temporary operating permit for Petitioner to temporarily operate a 0.25 MGD contact stabilization sewage treatment plant, including additional tank capacity and tertiary filtration. Specific conditions attached to the permit stated that it was issued to give the permittee a reasonable period of time to complete construction of the modification outlined in DER Permit DC06-21789 and for subsequent assessment of the effects of discharge on receiving waters. The conditions further required that the facility continue to achieve 90 percent removal of BOD5 and total suspended solids at all times with specified average daily discharges of such substances. Another condition required that the effluent from the plant be adequately chlorinated at all times so as to yield the minimum chlorine residual of 0.5 parts per million after a minimum contact period of 15 minutes. (Exhibit 8) Thereafter, on July 21, 1980, petitioner filed the instant application for an operation permit for the facility at a design capacity of 0.60 MGD. On October 7, 1980, Petitioner filed a certificate of completion of construction. By letter of December 16, 1980, Respondent's South Florida Subdistrict Manager advised Petitioner that the application for an operating permit had been denied for the reason that monitoring of the Class III receiving waters by the Broward County Environmental Quality Control Board indicated that the dissolved oxygen concentration was frequently below the minimum of 5 milligrams per liter required by Section 17-3.161(1), Florida Administrative Code, and that Petitioner's plant contributed to the substandard conditions in those waters. Petitioner thereafter requested a Section 120.57(1), F.S., hearing. (Exhibits 1-2, 4, 8) Petitioner's plant discharges into the North New River Canal through a six inch effluent pipe. The canal extends from Lake Okeechobee to the intracoastal waterway approximately five miles in distance from the point of discharge of Petitioner's plant. Monitoring of water quality in the canal for the past several years by the Broward County Environmental Quality Control Board shows that the dissolved oxygen concentrations at various sampling stations have ranged from below one part per million to in excess of five parts per million, depending upon the season of the year. However, at no station did the dissolved oxygen concentration reach an average of five parts per million. In addition, the tests also showed that BOD5 is generally low in the canal waters. (Testimony of Mazzella, Exhibits 1, 3, 5) Petitioner's modified plant is now capable of treating 0.60 MGD and meets current basic state requirements of 90 percent (secondary) removal of BOD and total suspended solids. In fact, the plant has tertiary treatment and can consistently operate at a level of 95 percent treatment. The data submitted by the applicant as to effluent water quality characteristics showed removal of 98 percent BOD, 97 percent suspended solids, 50 percent total nitrogen, and 25 percent total phosphorus with an average chlorine residual in the effluent of 0.2 parts per million. The dissolved oxygen level in the effluent has been established at 6.5 milligrams per liter. (Testimony of Hermesmeyer, Dodd, Exhibit 1) Respondent's district personnel took one 24-hour sample of the effluent from Petitioner's plant in March 1981 and determined that a concentrate of 14.6 milligrams per liter of ammonia was being discharged to receiving waters. Respondent therefore determined that the dissolved oxygen levels of the canal would be further degraded because approximately 48 to 50 parts per million of dissolved oxygen would be necessary to offset the effects of oxygen removal resulting from the ammonia discharge. Respondent further found that, although the effluent from the plant had 6.5 milligrams per liter of dissolved oxygen, the amounts of phosphorus and nitrogen being discharged could lead to algal blooms and consequent eventual eutrophication of its waters. Respondent's reviewing personnel therefore considers that there would be negative impacts upon the receiving waters if Petitioner discharged its prior licensed capacity of 250,000 gallons per day, and that a discharge of 600,000 gallons per day would double such impacts. Respondent's personnel therefore believes that although Petitioner's facility meets the basic secondary treatment requirements of Rule 17-6.01, Florida Administrative Code, it does not meet the water quality-based effluent limitation specified in Rule 17-6.10. In order to meet such requirements, it would be necessary to redesign the plant for more efficient removal of nutrients or to redirect the discharge. (Testimony of Mazzella) Other facilities adjacent to or near the North New River Canal discharge directly or indirectly into the canal waters and contribute to an unknown degree to the poor quality of the canal waters. Additionally, agricultural use of land produces stormwater runoff containing fertilizer residue into the canal in an unknown amount. A sewage treatment plant operates at optimum level of treatment when it discharges at about 50 percent of its treatment capacity. (Testimony of Mazzella) In 1983, Broward County will require Petitioner's plant to conform to state advanced waste treatment criteria which will provide for additional removal of nitrogen and phosphorus from effluent. To meet this requirement, Petitioner, plans to investigate the possibilities of utilizing a landlocked lake on its property near the treatment plant as a seepage pond. Although Petitioner's plant is identified in area regional plans to be diverted to the Hollywood wastewater treatment plant in the future, there is presently no target date for tying in to such a regional facility. (Testimony of Hermesmeyer, Exhibit 1)
Recommendation That Respondent issue a permit to Petitioner for the operation of its sewage treatment plant, with appropriate conditions as designed to protect the receiving waters. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of May, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Alfred Clark, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Martin S. Friedman and R.M.C. Rose, Esquires Myers, Kaplan, Levinson, Kenin and Richards 1020 East Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Victoria Tschinkel Secretary, Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact On January 23, 1985, following the filing of the and its on-site inspection, DER issued its notice of intent to grant the air construction permit, pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Chapters 17-2 and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The notice stated that the proposed equipment, with a cyclone primary dust collector followed by a Dustex Baghouse Model DW-14-28W dust collector, was adequate to insure compliance with DER particulate emission standards. The ambient air standards for sulfur dioxide emissions by the plant were to be controlled by the use of low sulfur fuel oil (maximum 0.5 percent sulfur). Subsequent to the issuance of the notice of intent, DER received a Petition for Administrative Hearing regarding the issuance of the permit. The petition alleged, inter alia, that the plant would emit particulates and gases in contravention of Chapter 17-2, F.A.C., and that stormwater run-off from the plant would be contaminated with oil, scum and debris. The petition further asserted that this run-off would cause water pollution in contravention of Chapters 17-3 and 17-25, F.A.C., and would introduce pollution into Dry Branch and Bayou George, a Class I Water. The permit application covers only the proposed batch plant site and the immediately adjacent property consisting of 2.15 acres. The location of the building would be at the northern end of the parcel, approximately 0.10 miles from both Star Avenue and U.S. Highway 231. There is no residential use of property immediately adjacent to the project site. However, Petitioners all reside in the immediate area, and will be affected to some extent by this facility. Dust from construction activity has already been experienced. In this regard, it must be recognized that the area has no zoning restrictions and is therefore subject to industrial uses such as that proposed here. The Applicant owns several acres of property surrounding the location of the proposed batch plant. The permit application at issue covers only the request to construct the facility on a 2.15 acre portion of the larger parcel. Anticipated environmental problems caused by activity not on the immediate parcel are not related to this permit application and thus are not germane to a determination whether the permit should be issued or denied. Further, the construction permit will only allow the applicant to build the proposed air pollution source. Before such a source can actually be operated, a separate operation permit application must be made, and testing for compliance with standards by the facility must be satisfactorily completed. Petitioners demonstrated that the individuals who own Triangle Construction Company, Inc. were previously employed by Gulf Asphalt Company, which was occasionally out of compliance with state air emission standards. Petitioners asserted that these individuals would likely fail to operate the proposed facility in compliance with DER standards. Although these individuals did have managerial responsibility at Gulf Asphalt, final decisions concerning financial expenditures for repairs and maintenance were made by the owner of the plant, rather than the Applicant's owners. It was also established that the Gulf Asphalt Plant continued to have emission problems after such individuals left as employees. Petitioners contend the Applicant's unrelated dredging activities in an adjacent borrow pit area caused turbidity in Dry Branch Creek, and characterized the Applicant as a habitual violator who could not be expected to comply with state pollution control regulations in the operation of the proposed facility. Testimony revealed that the Applicant constructed a culvert in Dry Branch, which flows through a borrow pit area and did some other incidental dredging in areas within the landward extent of waters of the state. However, when the Applicant became aware that activities in the proposed borrow pit area were potentially in violation of DER rules, it ceased activities and applied for the appropriate permits. An asphalt concrete batch plant is a relatively simple operation in which sand and aggregate are dried, then mixed with hot liquid asphalt and loaded directly into trucks. It is the drying process which emits the particulates which the cyclone and the baghouse are designed to control. Baghouse operations are similar to those of a vacuum cleaner. Particulate-laden air from the drying process is vented into the baghouse, where it is filtered through a number of cloth bags. The bags trap the particulates, and pass the filtered air through the bag cloth and out of the building. When enough air has been filtered to cause a build-up of trapped particulates, a portion of the baghouse is taken off cycle and reverse air is blown through the bags. The reverse air causes the trapped particulates to fall into a hopper where they are removed for disposal. The baghouse was designed to function efficiently in conjunction with a plant producing up to 120 tons per hour of asphalt concrete. Applicants's plant will produce only 80-85 tons of asphalt concrete per hour due to the limited size of the dryer. The estimated air to cloth ratio in the amended permit application is 6:1, which will result in emissions substantially lower than DER standards. Air to cloth ratio is not a specific standard or requirement, but is a figure which is used by engineers to determine projected emissions which may reasonably be anticipated from facilities which use an air pollution control mechanism. A projected air to cloth ratio of 6:1 for this baghouse may be reasonably expected to yield emissions of approximately 0.014 micrograms per dry cubic foot, which is approximately one-third of the DER standard of 0.04 mg. per dry cubic foot. The equipment to be installed is used and in need of minor repairs. The testimony established that necessary repairs will be accomplished prior to plant activation, and that operations will not be adversely affected when such repairs are complete.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue a final order granting Triangle Construction Company an air construction permit. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of June, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Lynn C. Higby, Esquire BRYANT, HIGBY & WILLIAMS, P.A. Post Office Box 124 Panama City, Florida 32402 E. Gary Early, Esquire and Clare E. Gray, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard Smoak, Esquire SALE, BROWN & SMOAK Post Office Box 1579 Panama City, Florida 32402 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
