The Issue The issues are whether the Consent Order entered into between the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) and Kenneth Acre (Acre) is an appropriate settlement of the violations addressed therein and whether Acre is entitled to construction permit number IC35-190005 for an Industrial Waste Disposal Facility. The Bradys assert that the Consent Order is not a reasonable exercise of DER's enforcement discretion and that the permit should be denied.
Findings Of Fact Background Acre owns and operates an animal research facility in Eustis, Florida. Acre performs research trials on dogs using a USDA approved heartworm medication sold under the brand name of Heartguard, the chemical name of which is ivermectin. Acre is not in the business of testing or manufacturing new drugs. The Consent Order To handle the waste generated by the animals at the facility, Acre initially constructed a conventional septic tank system. Prior to construction, Acre contacted the Lake County health department to inquire about permitting and was told that he did not need a permit for his facility. With that information, he continued with the project. Subsequently, DER became aware of the facility and notified Acre that a DER industrial waste permit was required and that he should cease the discharge into the septic tank until such a permit was obtained. Acre complied with DER's instructions and plugged the septic tanks. Since the time the septic tanks were plugged, the waste has been collected by Roto Rooter on a periodic basis and disposed of offsite. Acre entered into a Consent Order with DER to resolve the alleged past violation for not obtaining a permit and paid of penalty of $600 as required by DER. The Consent Order is a reasonable and appropriate settlement of the violations alleged therein. The Disposal System Acre has applied for a permit to construct and operate an evapotranspiration disposal system to dispose of the waste from his facility on site. The proposed system is essentially a modified septic tank system using a lined drainfield to capture and hold the liquid waste, allowing it to transpire from the grass or otherwise evaporate into the atmosphere and preventing any discharge to groundwater. The waste will be discharged to a series of modified septic tanks which will provide treatment beyond that of a traditional septic tank system and will reduce the amount of total suspended solids. The first septic tank accepts the waste and provides initial treatment through natural settling of solids. The waste then passes through a filter device and travels by gravity flow to the second septic tank. From the second tank it flows through a second filter device and into a dosing tank. The dosing tank is basically a small holding basin with a pump that disperses the waste to the drainfield in incremental amounts. The dosing tank contains several float mechanisms which monitor the level of liquid in the tank. When the water level in the dosing tank reaches a certain level, one such float mechanism turns on the pump to transport the liquid to the drainfield. The waste is then pumped from the dosing tank through a closed pipe to one of two evapotranspiration cells where it is distributed through a number of perforated pipes. The Evapotranspiration Cells The perforated pipes are situated in a gravel bed approximately 24 inches in depth. On top of the gravel bed is a clay soil mix approximately 15 inches deep. The clay soil mix absorbs the liquid waste in the gravel bed by drawing it up through the process of capillarity. Once the liquid is in the upper clay soil layer, it is evaporated. Grass is planted on top of the soil mix as an additional method for dissipation of the waste. The liquid waste is absorbed by the roots of the grass and transpired through the grass leaves. The clay soil mix in the top layer of the system is relatively impervious. The impervious nature of the soil mix along with a three percent surface slope will prevent rain water from entering the evapotranspiration cells and impacting the effective operation of the system. The entire drainfield has a double liner: one PVC plastic liner and a 6" clay layer. These two liners will ensure that no discharge to groundwater will occur from the system. System Capacity It is estimated that the Acre facility will produce approximately 520 gallons per day (GPD) of waste to be handled by the system. The drainfield is designed to handle twice the volume that will be discharged by the Acre facility and is therefore more than adequate to assimilate the waste received into the system. The drainfield is composed of two independent cells so that loading of each cell will be rotated. Once one cell receives its maximum capacity, the loading of that cell will cease in order to allow that cell to assimilate the waste through evapotranspiration. In this manner, the first cell is permitted to "rest" while the second cell receives further loading from the dosing tank. Safety Features Although the proposed disposal system is innovative in design, it incorporates several safety features which will ensure that no overflow of waste will occur. First, a float mechanism in the dosing tank is designed to trigger an alarm in the event the water level in the dosing tank gets too high. If that occurs, the alarm provides a flashing light as well as a horn which will notify the operator of a problem. Once the float reaches this warning level, the system will automatically shut down, thus preventing further waste from entering the system. Second, each evapotranspiration cell is equipped with a similar device which will automatically close off the dosing tanks and prevent further discharge into the cells in the unlikely event the system were to become too saturated to accept further loading. Finally, the double lined drainfield provides an additional safety measure which will prevent any discharge to groundwater. The numerous permit conditions requiring periodic monitoring of water quantity and quality in the system itself as well as the groundwater in the vicinity of the system provide ample assurance that the system will not pose a threat to the state's water resources. Ivermectin Although the proposed system will not discharge to groundwater, DER required the applicant to determine the amount of ivermectin in the wastestream. Ivermectin binds tightly to soil and does not dissolve in water. A sample of the wastestream from the Acre facility was collected by Bionomics Laboratory, Inc., and analyzed by Analytical Development Corporation using the analytical procedure designed by Merck scientists. The results of this analysis show that the concentration of ivermectin in the Acre wastestream ranges from .6 to 6.1 parts per trillion (ppt). The publication submitted to the Department by Acre entitled, Chapter 11, "Environmental Aspects of Ivermectin Usage in Livestock: General Considerations" by Halley, Nessel and Lu, from William C. Campbell, Ivermectin and Abamectin, documents the results of studies designed to determine whether using ivermectin in animals would result in any harmful or undesirable effects on the environment through excretion in the feces. This publication indicates that: Ivermectin is relatively immobile in soil and will not readily translocate into groundwater. Ivermectin is rapidly decomposed by sunlight and therefore will not accumulate in soil when administered to livestock. Ivermectin has no effect on earthworms at a concentration in soil of 12 parts per million (ppm). (This concentration is approximately two million times higher than that of the Acre waste stream.) Aquatic organisms such as water fleas and fish are highly sensitive to ivermectin toxicity. However, ivermectin is not toxic to the most sensitive species, the Daphnia magna, at a concentration of 0.01 parts per billion (ppb). Ivermectin concentrations in cattle feedlot runoff was less than the no-effect level of 0.01 ppb for Daphnia magna and therefore should cause no adverse environmental effects in surface or subsurface waters. The highest concentration of ivermectin found in the Acre waste stream is 6.1 ppt (or .006 ppb), which is less than the 0.01 ppb non-toxic level for the most sensitive aquatic species. Based on the concentration of ivermectin found in the Acre waste stream and the fact that ivermectin binds tightly to soil, the discharge from the Acre facility would not cause any adverse environmental impact, even if it were discharged to groundwater. Bradys' case Bradys submitted no evidence to show that the Consent Order is not an appropriate settlement of the violations alleged therein. They submitted no evidence that the septic tanks were improperly plugged. Brady offered no expert testimony in support of their claim that the facility had caused an adverse impact to groundwater or that the proposed system would cause any threat to groundwater quality. Bradys apparent concern about standing surface water on their property during heavy rainfalls is not relevant to this proceeding. Their concern that the lining of the drainfield could leak is unsupported by competent evidence. Bradys learned immediately prior to hearing that DER had changed its position and intended to issue the permit. Their failure to present any relevant evidence that the Consent Order was insufficient or that the proposed facility would violate any applicable DER rules or criteria and their ill- prepared participation in the hearing was in part the result of DER's late change in position. Bradys' participation in this proceeding was not shown to be frivolous.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order and therein: Ratify the terms of the Consent Order as reasonable. Grant Acre construction permit number IC35-190005 for an Industrial Waste Disposal Facility, subject to the special conditions set forth in DER Exhibit 1. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 22nd day of July, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NOS. 91-2608, 92-0958 AND 92-0959 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioners, Bradys 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 6 & 7(8) and 15(10). 2. Proposed findings of fact 1-5, 16, 27, 28, 31, 36-42, 44, 46-49, 51, 52, 54, 57-59, 61, and 62 are subordinate to the facts actually found in the Recommended Order. 3. Proposed findings of fact 8, 10-14, 17, 19-21, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 43, 53, 55, and 56 are irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 9, 18, 22-25, 45, and 50 are unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 34 and 60 are unsupported by the competent and substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondents, Acre and DER Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-44(1-44). Proposed findings of fact 45 and 46 are unsupported by the competent and substantial evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Carlyn H. Kowalsky, Attorney at Law Bogin, Munns & Munns 250 North Orange Avenue 11th Floor-P.O. Box 2807 Orlando, FL 32802 Douglas MacLaughlin, Attorney at Law Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Martha Hunter Formella Attorney at Law FOLEY & LARDNER Post Office Box 2193 Orlando, FL 32802-2193 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issue for consideration in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to a variance for installation of an on-site sewage disposal system ("OSDS") for property located near the Suwannee River in Dixie County, Florida, in accordance with the provisions of Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the owner of certain real property located in Dixie County, Florida, more particularly described as Lot 4, Wonderland Subdivision. The property is approximately 60 by 150 feet in size and was purchased in 1982 for a price of $9,000.00. It is presently appraised at $11,000.00; however, if an OSDS could be permitted and installed, the property would appraise for approximately $22,000.00. The lot was platted in 1957. On October 19, 1989, the Petitioner made an application for a variance from the OSDS permit requirements for the property. The application form indicated, and the Petitioner intends, that this would be a new system for a single-family residence. The residence would contain two bedrooms and would produce approximately 250 gallons per day of sewage flow. The Petitioner desires to construct a residence on the property to have a pleasant place to live and is suffering a hardship because of the investment which he has made in the property, which is of no use to him if he cannot obtain the subject permit or variance and install the OSDS so that he can construct his residence. Alternatively, he is unable to sell the property readily without the ability to obtain an OSDS permit or variance for the property. At the behest of the Respondent in the permit application or variance application process, the Petitioner obtained a survey of the property by a registered land surveyor (see Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 in evidence). That survey resulted in a benchmark elevation being established of 12 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"). The site of the proposed OSDS installation is 11.71 feet above MSL. The ten-year flood plain elevation for this property is 16 feet above MSL, as verified by records of the Suwannee River Water Management District in evidence without objection. The property is also located within the regulatory floodway of the Suwannee River. Although the Petitioner acknowledged in a general way that he would be amenable to consideration of various alternative types of systems involving piping of sewage effluent to an appropriate upland disposal and treatment area, the use of chemical toilets or other appropriate non-discharge types of treatment and disposal systems, no concrete evidence was adduced from the Petitioner to establish that such are or are not reasonable alternatives to the conventional subterranean septic tank and drainfield type of disposal system with which the variance application is concerned. Consequently, the Petitioner's proof does not establish that no reasonable alternatives exist in order to secure the grant of a variance nor did the Petitioner's proof establish that the type of system proposed would not pollute the ground or surface waters or pose a threat to public health in terms of the standard subterranean OSDS or any alternative systems which the Petitioner might theoretically employ, including the types mentioned above. The Petitioner's proof simply did not establish that installation of a standard subterranean OSDS would only pose a minor deviation from the permitting statute and rules cited herein nor did the Petitioner establish that no reasonable alternatives exist to the establishment of a standard OSDS, as that relates to the substantiality of the hardship which the Petitioner is experiencing in not getting the OSDS originally requested permitted; and the Petitioner did not establish that any system proposed would not pose a threat to public health or pollute ground or surface waters. In summary, the Petitioner did not establish that a sufficient hardship is experienced, because reasonable alternatives have not adequately been explored and considered by the Petitioner nor made a part of the subject of Petitioner's proof nor has the Petitioner established that a grant of a variance would involve only a minor deviation from the permitting statute and rules standards because it has not been proven that the public health nor the ground or surface waters would not be adversely affected. Finally, because the property is located in the regulatory floodway of the Suwannee River, under Rule 10D- 6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code, before a mounded or filled OSDS could be permitted and installed, which is one alternative under consideration, a registered professional engineer must certify that the mounding of the system and installation of fill in the regulatory floodway area would not cause elevation of the "base flood" of the Suwannee River. No such engineering evidence or testimony has been adduced iii this proceeding; therefore, such an alternative system cannot herein be recommended for approval.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for a variance from the statutory and regulatory requirements for an OSDS permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 11th day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3111 Respondent' Proposed Findings of Fact: All of Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esq. General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Marilou Clark Suwannee Plantation Realty Rt. 3, Box 73 Old Town, FL 32680 Frances S. Childers, Esq. Assistant District III Legal Counsel Department of HRS 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609
The Issue The parties have raised myriad issues hare. Petitioner has alleged being capriciously and arbitrarily denied its permit because similar treatment plants have been licensed nearby. The parties disagree over whether local Lake County Pollution Control Board rules are applicable to Petitioner's plant. If the rules are applicable, they disagree over their interpretation. The parties further disagree over whether Petitioner has pending an application for a waste water treatment plant operating permit. It is this last issue which is discussed below because it is dispositive of the case.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner operates a waste water treatment plant in Lake County, Florida which serves four motels at the intersection of U.S. Highway 27 and SR 19 immediately to the south of Interchange 27 on the Florida Turnpike. On October 27, 1972, DER issued a construction permit to Petitioner to construct the plant at a design capacity of 250,000 gallons per day (gpd). The treated effluent was proposed to be discharged via a spray irrigation system to the ground water on Petitioner's site. The plant has never operated at capacity. Its normal volume has ranged from between a low of 40,000 gpd to a peak of 140,000 gpd. Petitioner's plant is situated on a 12.5 acre site over a clay hard pan. The hard pan which is immediately below the ground surface prevents adequate percolation of the plant's effluent down to the underlying ground water. During periods of heavy rain the effluent from the plant has breached a retaining dike and flowed directly into a marsh area known as the Little Everglades to the north. Petitioner has submitted four permit applications to the Department. The first, submitted in September of 1972 was for the construction permit already mentioned. The next applications dated October 22, 1973, was for an operation permit. The application indicated that there would be no discharge to surface waters but there would be a discharge to ground waters. The application also indicated that the availability of space for the expansion of the plant was limited to the site at that time. Petitioner later purchased additional land not reflected in this application. The operation permit was never granted by the Respondent. As stated by Mr. Potter, President of Lake County Utilities, Inc., "In the fall of 1973, I made an application as engineer for the utility company to the Florida DPC [Department of Pollution Control] and to Lake County for an operation permit. That permit was denied by the Department on the ground that we had not satisfied Lake County as to the total containment of our effluent." Subsequently on August 30, 1976, Petitioner submitted a construction permit application to DER for permission to add a 1.32 acre oxidation-polishing pond, to regrade and regrass the existing spray irrigation field, to construct a 0.40 acre denitrification pond and to add a nutrient uptake. No increase in the design capacity was proposed. On that application Petitioner indicated that there would be a discharge to the surface waters of the state. In answer to that part of the application which asked for proposed drainage path of the effluent Petitioner stated, "From treatment plant to 'on-site' ponds to 'on-site' grassy pond and marsh would overflow to ajacent Florida DOT [Department of Transportation] borrow pit: thence via developed drainage waste to the 'Little Everglades' swamp: then, via developed canal and ditches and through natural ponds and marshes to 'Little Lake Harris' and ultimately the Atlantic Ocean." This permit was denied by DER because the Lake County Pollution Control Board did not approve the plan. Finally on September 29, 1978, Petitioner applied for another construction permit. Thee construction would include: Construction of storm water control structures and culverts: Regrading of water and sewer plant sites; Construction of percolation pond "A" and enclosing dikes; and Construction of percolation pond "B" and enclosing dikes. This application was made in response to advice from DER that Petitioner's plant should be in a no discharge condition in order to comply with Lake County Pollution Control rules. On November 2, 1979, the Department issued a Letter of Intent to deny the last permit application because the application was deemed to be incomplete and because the further data which DER requested was not provided. In response to DER's intent to deny the construction permit Petitioner on November 20, 1979, filed its Petition for an Administrative Hearing. Petitioner does not now intend to construct the proposed facilities for which it requested the construction permit in September of 1978. The following colloquy is from the final hearing. Mr. Stephens Have you-- Can you describe briefly the nature of the changes proposed in your 1978 construction permit application? Mr. Potter 1978 construction permit application on nominally the five acre parcel to create a diked pond or lake. Mr. Stephens Uh-huh. Mr. Potter Solely that. The part on the nominally two and a half acre parcel, give or take, was to create a deep percolation pond in which I proposed digging through the clay to the sand and shell below. Mr. Stephens Uh-huh. Mr. Potter So that waters that entered that pond, A, because of its depth, would denitrify and release nitrogen contents to the atmosphere; and, the water would, because of its hydraulic head in relation to the soil below, would push its way into the soils below. Mr. Stephens Uh-huh. Mr. Potter But in the event I could not dispose of the water through that form of percolation, it would overflow into the five acre diked area. And thereby I hoped to satisfy Lake County and the D.E.R. and solve this lingering festering problem. Mr. Stephens Uh-huh. You are the Petitioner in this case. Is it your desire or intention to complete those. . .that construction? Mr. Potter Now that I have been made aware of the law, the law of Chapter four oh three, the rules of Florida D.E.R. and become clear as to the ordinances adopted by the County Commission and the Lake Pollution Board of Lake County as to Class 3-B waters, I have no intention of squandering my money, and, in effect, the money of my customers, in such a wasteful pursuit. Mr. Stephens So you're saying here under oath you don't intend to perform that work even if granted a permit? Mr. Potter Not shy of a court order. As the result of Mr. Potter's testimony on behalf of the Petitioner at the final hearing, it is found that Petitioner has withdrawn its September 1978 application for a construction permit. There is not now pending before the Department of Environmental Regulation a valid permit application for the Petitioner to operate its waste water treatment plan. On May 9, 1980 Lake County Utilities, Inc. served Petitioner's Fourth Interrogatories to Respondent which asked by Interrogatory 10: Please state when and by whom the Department of Environmental Regulation has caused field studies to be made and samples to be taken out of the waters of Lake County (and specifically the geographical vicinity of U.S. 27 - S.R. 19 - Fla. Turnpike) periodically and in a logical geographic manner so as to determine the levels of water quality of the waters as such studies and sampling is within the powers and duty of the Department as mandated by the Florida Legislature in Chapter 403 of the Laws of Florida. (emphasis in original) The Department responded: 10. The Department conducts sampling in the waters of Lake County in conjunction with individual permit applications and not on a systematic basis throughout the County. Respondent objects to this interrogatory as being irrelevant to this proceeding in that the subject permit was not denied on the basis of anticipated water quality violations, but rather, as a result of the pollution control ordinances of Lake County, Florida, which prohibit any discharge to surface waters from the subject facility, and which the Department is required to enforce pursuant to Section 403.182(6), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it Is RECOMMENDED: That the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order dismissing the Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing without prejudice, however, to the filing of a new application by Petitioner for a waste water treatment plant operating permit. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of May, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON 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 12th day of May, 1981.
The Issue Whether permit application SWO 13-5152, should be granted under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. This case involves the application of Respondents City of North Miami and Munisport, Inc. to Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) for an operating permit under the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-7, Florida Administrative Code, to operate a sanitary landfill located in North Miami, Florida. DER granted provisional approval of the application by the issuance of a Notice of Intent to issue the permit on January 27, 1978. Petitioners filed the instant petition of February 13, 1978, challenging the issuance of the proposed permit. Final hearing herein was originally scheduled for April 7, 1978, but at the instance of the parties was continued and reset to commence on October 18, 1978. During the course of the final hearing, 29 witnesses presented testimony, including six public witnesses. (List of public witnesses - Hearing Officer's Exhibit 3) A total of 35 exhibits were admitted in evidence. Three exhibits (Exhibits 5, 13 and 15) were rejected by the Hearing Officer.
Findings Of Fact By application dated November 14, 1977, Respondent City of North Miami, Florida, as owner, and Respondent Munisport, Inc. as the "responsible operating authority" requested Respondent DER to issue a permit to operate a solid waste resource recovery and management facility consisting of 345.90 acres located at 14301 Biscayne Boulevard, North Miami, Florida. The site, known as the North Miami Recreation Development, had been operating as a sanitary landfill under temporary operating permits (TOP) issued by the DER on May 8, 1975 and September 21, 1976. The 1976 TOP provided for an expiration date of July 1, 1977, and contained various conditions designed to give the permittees a reasonable period of time to conform to the DER regulations relative to sanitary landfills. These included standard requirements such as the rendering of reports on the operation of the facility and prohibiting the deposit of raw and infectious waste, or hazardous waste that had not been rendered safe and sanitary prior to delivery. Additionally, the permit conditions required the facility to be so operated that it would cause minimum adverse effects on the environment, such as objectionable odors, contaminated storm water runoff, or leachates causing degradation of surface of ground waters. Further, the permit provided for a three-month review program after its issuance to consider the feasibility of dumping solid waste in 63 acres of submerged land subject to previous filling with clean fill and/or construction debris, filling of land above mean high water with garbage either above clean fill or above trenches filled with wood and construction debris and covered with clean fill, and a six-week period of weekly water quality monitoring at agreed to sites for analysis by both permittees and the Dade County Environmental Resources Management (DERM). The permit further prohibited the placement of refuse waterward of the mean high water line or in trenches cut below the natural ground water table. (Exhibits 1, 4). By letter of January 27, 1978, DER gave notice to the applicant of its intent to issue the requested operation permit for the solid waste disposal facility and stated therein the following reasons for its determination: The solid waste disposal site is in the public interest. The Department feels that the site will not substantially affect the water quality or interfere with the area's wildlife. The applications and plans for this facility have been evaluated and found to be in conformance with Chapter 403, F.S., Chapter 17-4, FAC, and Chapter 17-7, FAC. The letter stated standard conditions to which the permit would be subject, including special conditions that had been noted in the 1976 TOP. It also prescribed specific conditions that no solid wastes could be placed within 30 feet of any existing or future lake area, no dumping below water at any time nor in any dewatered excavations, and that a quarterly water quality monitoring program at monitoring wells No. 4 through 12 be sampled for specified substances. Proposed Condition 16 stated as follows: Solid waste shall be deposited in locations consistent with those approved in the Army Corps of Engineers' dredge and fill permit #75B-0869. No solid waste shall be deposited in the areas commonly known as the wetlands and transitional zones of said wetlands, as shown on the attached map. Subject to the Corps approval of proposed modifications to permit #75B-0869, a revised DER solid waste permit will be issued consistent with the approved modifications. A sketch of the landfill site purporting to designate the landfill deposal area, wetlands and transitional zone, and mean high water line was attached. (Exhibit 3) The Petitioners consist of the Florida Audubon Society, which has some 2,000 members residing in Dade County, Tropical Audubon Society, which is affiliated with Florida Audubon Society; Keystone Point Homeowners Association, Inc., comprised of approximately 425 owners of mostly waterfront or canal homes in North Miami within a mile of the landfill site; Thomas Pafford, North Miami, Florida, who uses the waters of Biscayne Bay and nearby wetlands for recreational purposes; and Maureen B. Harwitz, who resides within a half mile of the landfill site and uses Biscayne Bay and the mangrove preserve adjacent to the landfill site for recreational purposes. Members of the above-named organizational groups use the waters surrounding the landfill site for recreational purposes and are concerned that the waters and fish and animal life therein will be adversely affected if the operation permit is granted. (Testimony of Lee, Brown, Pafford, Lippelman, Harwitz) Munisport has been operating the North Miami landfill under a lease with the City of North Miami since approximately 1974. The ultimate aim is to convert the area into a recreational complex consisting of golf courses, club house, and other sports facilities. The site was used as an unregulated dump for many years prior to initiation of the Munisport operation. The site has been the subject of previously issued state and Corps of Engineer dredge and fill permits which are not the subject of this proceeding. The landfill site occupies an area generally between Northwest 135th Street on the south and Northwest 151st Street on the north. It lies between Biscayne Boulevard on the west, and state mangrove preserves and land of Florida International University on the east. It is less than a mile to Biscayne Bay on the east side of the landfill. The nearest point of entry is in the southeast area where Arch Creek empties into the Bay. At this time, Munisport has filled approximately 210 acres at the site with ten feet or more of fill material. A final cover has been completed over about 70 acres of this land and a golf course is presently being constructed. Pursuant to the dredge and fill permits, five lakes approximately 35 feet deep are nearly completed and some six or seven more are to be dug in the future pursuant to those permits. These lakes are separated from the solid waste by a 30 foot wide dike of clean fill. Although some cover material has been trucked to the site, about 1.6 million cubic yards of fill from the excavated lakes have been or will be utilized in cover operations for the landfill. The solid waste layer averages 15 feet in depth and lies about two feet above the ground water table. About 230 acres lie within the upland fill area above the mean high water line which is not within the area of jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. The mean high water line has been established by appropriate procedures under Chapter 177, F.S., and the surveying procedures were approved by the Department of Natural Resources on April 6, 1978. Although not stated in the Notice of Intent to issue the requested permit, DER intends to restrict the life of any permit to the time when the Metropolitan Dade County Resources Recovery Facility commences operation in approximately two years. The applicants and Dade County also have a memorandum of understanding to this effect. (Testimony of Stotts, Checca, Exhibits 1, 2, 35, 36, Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1) Munisport receives solid waste from a variety of firms, institutions, and surrounding municipalities. Its procedures are for vehicles to enter and exit the site from an access road leading to Biscayne Boulevard. A sign is located along the road indicating the operating hours, fee schedule, waste restrictions and other pertinent information. A large portion of the site is virtually inaccessible due to dense mangroves and mosquito control canals and ditches. At the check-in gate, a cursory inspection of vehicle loads is made by Munisport personnel who check the contents for quantity. Each load is directed to a designated place at the site where Munisport employees spread and compact the waste. At this stage, they are instructed to look for any unauthorized materials, such as hazardous and infectious waste. If such wasted is found, the offending party is required to remove it from the site. compactors and bulldozers push the solid waste to the face of the landfill and spread it out to facilitate compaction. During the hours of 6:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M., a watchman is on duty at the site to accommodate customers. If less than four or five truckloads arrive during the night hours, the material is not processed. If a larger quantity is involved, a Munisport employee moves and covers the material prior to the following workday. Due to the high ground water tabled, the area method is used for filling the site. This is a procedure by which refuse cells are constructed in lifts not to exceed ten feet in vertical height. They are composed of cells which constitute a one-day quantity of refuse. Six inches minimum cover of clean fill is applied daily, and a one foot intermediate cover is applied within a year after compaction. The cells are compacted in two-foot layers and, upon completion of a particular area, a minimum of two feet of final cover is applied. A dike constructed of compacted limerock borders the east side of the site and basically constitutes the present mean high water line. It is designed to protect the adjoining 129 acres of mangrove preserve and Biscayne Bay from any adverse water quality which might occur from runoff of degraded waters from the landfill site in the event of contamination. (Testimony of Haddad, Checca, Exhibit 1, 9) The shallow soil underlying the landfill at depths ranging to almost ten feet consists of a combination of organic matter and debris from prior dump use, muck, and sand. Soil borings taken at the site show that limestone or calcareous rock known as Miami oolite is about eight feet below the soil layer. At this depth is found the Biscayne aquifer that carries the unconfined ground water in the area. The aquifer is approximately 160 feet deep under the site and constitutes the major source of water supply in Dade County. The gradient of the water table for the landfill site runs in a southeasterly direction toward Biscayne Bay. Approximately 75% of the surface soil layer consists of organic muck, whereas in approximately 25% of the area, which was previously filled in the southern and westerly portions before commencement of the Munisport operation, the soil is primarily of a sandy type. (Testimony of Checca, Pitt, Exhibit 1) Leachate is produced in sanitary landfills by precipitation that percolates down through decomposing refuse cells and picks up polluting substances created from the decaying solid waste. It can form a "plume" or "bubble" that takes the course of least resistance in flowing laterally or vertically through a landfill site. The strength and concentration of the leachate is dependent upon various factors including the composition, compaction, and the age of decomposing refuse, and the amount of water being introduced into the area. As it passes slowly through the soil beneath the solid waste material, the unsaturated soils act as filters and permit ion exchange which reduces the quantity of contaminants. Dilution takes place where leachate comes in contact with ground water and leachate movement occurs gradually through the ground water aquifer in its direction of the flow. The presence and movement of leachate normally can be detected by analysis of ground water samples taken at various places throughout the landfill site. (Testimony of Checca, Pitt, Coker, Exhibit 1) Commencing in 1975, a monitoring program was instituted at the sanitary landfill to determine its effects on the ground water regime. A number of monitoring wells at various depths were constructed at different sites at the landfill, and samples were withdrawn and evaluated periodically to determine the types and degrees of pollution being generated by the landfill. Background samples were also obtained from wells off the site to establish the general character of water quality in the area and to compare these samples with those obtained from the site. Additionally, "grab" samples were taken of water from the bay and nearby canals and wetlands. Locations of the background and sampling wells were established by the applicants in conjunction with the DER and the Environmental Protection Agency. To determine the amount of leachate that probably would be generated at the site, the "water balance method" of computing the estimated time required to produce leachate, as well as the quantity that probably would be generated upon completion of the landfill, was made by representatives of the EPA in 1975 utilizing specific climatological and surface conditions at the site. This study indicated that percolation of surface water would increase during the operation of the landfill and before final soil and vegetative cover were in place, and that leachate would occur in about a year in larger quantities than would be produced by a completed landfill. Tests conducted during the ensuing three-year period of both surface and ground water through the monitoring program have failed to produce evidence that water quality is not within acceptable parameters or that water quality in the area surrounding the landfill site has been degraded. No significant differences in the concentrations of various ground water constituents were found between samples obtained at the disposal site and those collected in the adjacent mangrove forest or background areas. Neither was any evidence of contamination from leachate found in samples of surface water collected in the vicinity of the landfill or in nearby natural areas. (Testimony of Checca, Pitt, Linett, Perez, Exhibit 1, Exhibit 33) Three basic factors have undoubtedly accomplished reduction in the amount of leachate generated at the landfill. These are (a) attenuation and filtration of pollutants by unsaturated soils between and beneath the refuse cells, (b) biological assimilation by organisms living within the refuse cells and underlying soils, and (c) dilution upon contact with the ground water. A hydrogeologic study shows that the uppermost 14 feet of the aquifer immediately below the landfill represents only 0.2% of the total discharges with a ground water velocity of less than 0.1 foot per day. This part of the aquifer therefore provides considerable detention time for the water that percolates through the landfill. The strata, as well as the overlying organic marine soils, provide the absorption and assimilation that removes pollutants from the water. After water percolates through this layer, it reaches the highly permeable Miami oolite that carries about 43% of the ground water flow. The effects of soil absorption, filtration through the upper 14 feet of the aquifer, and dilution within the aquifer have demonstrably been sufficient to assimilate the water that percolates through the landfill. It is estimated that the time of travel of ground water from the landfill site to the closest discharge point in Biscayne Bay is approximately 68 years. Although the attenuation capability of the organic muck soil underlying the greater part of the landfill is high, the older area of the site in the southwestern portion which had been filled before the Munisport operation commenced, has no muck and consists primarily of sand with a higher rate of permeability. (Testimony of Checca, Pitt, Teas, Exhibits 1, 33) The fact that the organic muck material under the landfill is not uniform throughout the site, plus the fact that there have been various breaches in the permeable oolite layer below the soil, will, in the opinion of some experts, eventually lead to the generation and movement of a leachate plume into such breaches and ultimately to Biscayne Bay. These breaches consist of the deep lakes at the site, the Arch Creek Canal to the south of the site and a dredged excavation at the exit of that body of water into the bay some 3,600 feet distant from the landfill. Additionally, these experts postulate that the dike located on the eastern border of the site will not prevent leachate from moving into the surrounding mangrove area. It is therefore estimated that in the above ways, large amounts of leachate would enter the bay and adjacent wetlands within a period of five to ten years. (Testimony of Coker, Hudson, Pasley, Browder, Exhibits 12, 14, 29, 30) Although water monitoring at various levels in and at probable discharge points near the site have not found degradation of water quality, the applicants propose to address any future leachate problems in a variety of ways. These include continuous periodic testing of water quality and monitoring wells, excavation of a canal on the upland side of the site to intercept leachate and treatment of any contaminated water therein or by pumping the water to an interior lake for treatment. Based on the particular type of any degradation, chlorination and precipitators would be utilized. Long-range problems will be further reduced by the ultimate construction of the golf courses and placement of final soil and vegetative cover to reduce percolation of surface water. This will be aggravated to an undetermined degree, however, by periodic irrigation of the golf courses. (Testimony of Checca, Pitt, Kelman, Exhibits 1,33) During the early years of the Munisport operation, a number of violations of the conditions of the temporary operating permit occurred, but for the most part these were caused either through simple negligence of landfill personnel, breakdown of equipment, or introduction of unauthorized materials to the site by Munisport customers. In these situations, Munisport usually took prompt and effective action to prevent recurrence and to remedy the problem. For example, on one occasion in 1977, some 12 drums containing residue of a chemical substance deemed to constitute "hazardous waste" was brought into the site by persons unknown and was found leaking into the ground. A number of violations and warning notices were issued to Munisport by the Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM), primarily in 1976, involving the placement of tree cuttings and wood scraps into excavations containing water at the south end of the site. These occurred, however, during a period when Munisport was engaging in tests to determine the suitability of such operations in conjunction with DER. Additionally, in 1976 and 1977, Munisport was advised of violations in the placement of garbage in exposed water, uncovered garbage, and delivery of garbage after hours. Munisport has had a continuing problem over the years with the unauthorized delivery of hospital wastes from various customers to the landfill in spite of letters written to hospital facilities and delivery firms cautioning them concerning the prohibition against the introduction of such material to the landfill. DERM personnel concede, however, that the operation has been continuously improved and that it is well-conducted in comparison with other landfills in the country. However, they believe that lakes should not exist in landfills and that the North Miami landfill is too close to the wetlands. (Testimony of Morrissey, Karafel, Sobrino, Haddad, Checca, Exhibits 6-11, 17, 18, 20-24, 27, supplemented by testimony of Pafford and Exhibit 16) In a letter of January 17, 1977, DERM expressed concerns about the Munisport operation to DER. One of these concerns was that leachate would migrate to proposed golf course lakes and the resulting pollution would produce poor water quality. Although 1976 testing of then existing lakes at the site reflected unusually high amounts of fecal coliform, subsequent tests in late 1978 showed very little, but tests again in January, 1979, showed that several lakes were again somewhat high in coliform. Coliform is not considered to be a strong parameter in assessing the presence of leachate and amounts vary considerably from day to day in lake areas. Additionally, great numbers of birds are normally present on the landfill site during operations and contribute in raising coliform readings to some extent. Dade County has a current policy that does not permit lakes to be excavated on landfills operated by the county. (Testimony of Checca, Morrissey, Sobrino, Karafel, Kosakowski, Linett, Newman, Kelman, Perez, Exhibits 17, 19, 20, 24, 25, 31, 32, 37, 38)
Recommendation That a permit be issued to the City of North Miami, Florida and Munisport, Inc. to operate the solid waste disposal facility as described and under the conditions stated in the letter of the Department of Environmental Regulation, dated January 27, 1978, wherein it gave notice of its intent to issue the said permit. DONE and ENTERED, this 13th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: David Gluckman, Esquire 5305 Isabelle Drive Ken VanAssenderp, Esquire Tallahassee, Florida Smith, Young and Blue, P.A. Post Office Box 1833 Josepy D. Fleming, Esquire 620 Ingraham Building Marvin Sadur and 25 Southeast Second Avenue Richard J. Potash, Esquires Miami, Florida 33131 2000 L Street NW - Suite 612 Washington, D.C. 20036 Silvia Alderman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner and his father own and operate the Hiland Park Laundry, a laundromat located at 2431 Highway 231, Panama City, Florida. The Petitioner purchased the business in 1975 and has operated continuously since that time. Wastewater from the laundry, as well as a trailer on the property, passes through a "trickling filter" wastewater treatment facility consisting of primary and secondary settling tanks as well as a trickling filter, thus discharging the treated effluent into a drainage ditch adjacent to the Petitioner's property line, from which drainage ditch the effluent is discharged into Beatty Bayou, a Class III water of the State. The treatment plant and disposal system has been operating since the early 1970's, prior to the Petitioner's purchase of the laundromat and treatment and disposal facility. In 1980, the Petitioner applied for an operating permit for his wastewater treatment facility. Because the discharge from the facility violated the effluent limitations of Chapter 17-6, Florida Administrative Code, the Petitioner was only issued a Temporary Operating Permit on February 2, 1981, which was modified by virtue of the letter from DER on June 8, 1981. The pertinent conditions in the TOP provided that the discharge from the Petitioner's wastewater treatment system must meet the requirements of Chapter 17-6, Florida Administrative Code, as to the quality of its effluent prior to its expiration. Failure to meet that condition would result in a denial of a Permanent Operating Permit and the denial of any further TOP. The pertinent effluent limitation which the TOP (and rules) required the facility to meet was 90 percent removal of biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids. Since the issuance of the TOP, the discharge from the plant has seldom met those standards. Upon applying for the TOP, which is the subject of this proceeding, the Petitioner failed to present any concrete plans for improving the quality of the effluent from his plant. He merely stated his acknowledgment that, although the system does not comply with current DER requirements, that it will be dismantled upon the Bay County Regional Sewage Treatment and Disposal System becoming available at his location. It is not established, however, that there are any current plans to extend public sewer service to the vicinity of the Petitioner's property at the present time. (DER Exhibit 9) Upon the issuance of the Notice of Intent to Deny the request for the TOP, the Petitioner requested a formal proceeding and the cause was set for hearing before the undersigned on September 24, 1982. At the time of the hearing, the parties agreed on the record to a continuance on the basis that the Petitioner would submit within 60 days a plan certified by an appropriate engineer for a design to bring the discharge effluent into compliance with the effluent parameters of Chapter 17-6, Florida Administrative Code. It was suggested at that time to the Petitioner that his plant and system might comply with the permit exemption contained in Rule 17-4.60, Florida Administrative Code, which provides that such plants are exempt from permitting requirements if they incorporate a trickling filter, a sand filter, as well as a drain field. The Petitioner elected to avoid purchasing a sand filter unit inasmuch as a civil engineer he consulted informed him that the purchase and installation price for such a unit would be approximately $17,000.00, with the attendant drain field estimated to cost an additional $13,000.00. It was established contrarily however that because of the actual peak and average flows of the plant which equate to a daily hydraulic loading on the proposed sand filter of 7,000 gallons per day and 6,000 gallons per day, respectively, that a much smaller sand filter would be required, at a much reduced price. Thus, it was established that a figure of $9,000.00 to $10,000.00 would be the appropriate cost of installing the sand filter which would exempt the facility from the permitting requirements. The concrete slab proposed to be used by the Petitioner's engineer at a cost of in excess of $4,000.00 would not be necessary with a properly designed sand filter with underdrains and grated gravel courses. Based upon his own engineer's estimate of approximately $30,000.00 for the required upgrading, the Petitioner informed the Department that he was not able to underwrite such a high expense and would prefer to find some other solution to the problem. As of the date of the hearing, the Petitioner still was desirous of the Department conferring with him to find a less expensive solution to the problem, but failed to adduce any evidence to establish that such a less expensive solution (less than the solution proposed by the Department) existed. During the period the case was held in abeyance for 60 days after the scheduling of the first hearing in September, 1982, during which time the parties had agreed to seek a solution to the problem involving denial of the permit application, and thereafter until the subject hearing, the Petitioner made no substantial efforts to confer with the personnel of DER and attempt to arrive at a feasible solution to the treatment and disposal problem upon which the denial of the permit application was based. Carol Daugherty is a chemist whose firm supplies the Department with the Petitioner's monthly operating reports, and obtains samples of effluent upon which those reports are based. She performs the testing on the samples from the plant's effluent discharge and engages somewhat in operation of the plant. The Petitioner's discharge has consistently failed to comply with the BOD and total suspended solids effluent limitations listed in Rule 17-6.060, Florida Administrative Code, providing for 90 percent removal of those effluent constituents. William Young, accepted expert witness in the field of biology and water quality assessment, visited the site in February, 1982, and in April, 1983, taking water quality samples from a drainage ditch both upstream and downstream of the Petitioner's discharge point. Chemical analysis of the samples reveal that the Class III parameter for bacteriological quality (coliform bacteria) was violated downstream of the discharge point. An imbalance existed in the bayou in natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna establishing there to be violation of permissible nutrient levels in terms of the excessive deposition of nutrients from the Petitioner's plant into the drainage ditch and thence into the bayou. Mr. Pressley's facility is not the only source of discharge into the drainage ditch which discharges into the bayou, but is the primary source of discharge. Rick Bradburn also was accepted as a expert witness in the field of biology and water quality assessment. He has visited the Petitioner's facility on a number of occasions and periodically has reviewed the monthly operational reports supplied by the Petitioner. The Petitioner's effluent, on a regular basis, is characterized by excessive biochemical oxygen demand, excessive total suspended solids and excessive fecal coliform bacteria counts vis-a-vis the standards and the rules cited hereinbelow. The discharge from the Petitioner's facility thus seldom exceeds 85 percent removal of biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids (over the past 23 months) and is characterized by excessive nutrient deposition in the Class III waters of the State. The Petitioner has known, or should have known, since shortly after February 2, 1981, when the original TOP was issued with the subject condition regarding required upgrading of the plant and disposal system, that additional upgrading would be required in order to render the effluent produced by plant less degradory. Since that time he knew, or should have known, that the failure to take steps to achieve such upgrading of the treatment and effluent disposal system would jeopardize his continued operation of his business. The Petitioner has made little effort to arrive at and submit plans to achieve a more qualitative level of effluent treatment and as of the time of the hearing had not yet submitted a reasonable compliance schedule nor any sort of commitment to construct needed additional treatment facilities, even though the parties do not dispute that the effluent produced by the plant does not meet the required standard of 90 percent removal of biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the application of Freddie Pressley for a Temporary Operating Permit allowing continued operation of a wastewater treatment and disposal facility in Bay County, Florida, be and the same is hereby DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 23rd day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Freddie Pressley c/o Highland Park Laundry 2431 Highway 231 Panama City, Florida 32405 Dennis R. Erdley, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether construction permit No. AC41-6819 issued to Manatee Energy Company, dated June 8, 1978, should be amended, as proposed in construction permit No. AC41-6819A, dated November 7, 1978.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to the following facts: The Manatee Chapter of the Isaak Walton League of America ("Isaak Walton League") is a non-profit corporation, organized and existing under Florida law. The Isaak Walton League's address is 5314 Bay State Road, Palmetto, Florida 33561. Manatee Energy Company ("Manatee Energy") is a Florida corporation, whose address is 108 Appleyard Drive, Post Office Box 867, Tallahassee, Florida 32302, and was formerly a subsidiary of Belcher Oil Company. The State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation ("DER") is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the regulation and control of air and water pollution under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, whose address is Twin Towers Office Building, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. The specific agency action at issue in this proceeding is DER's issuance of a revised permit to Manatee Energy to modify a crude oil splitting facility and modified or additional rundown tankage at Port Manatee, Florida. The facility at issue will be located in North Manatee County near the Hillsborough/Manatee County line in Port Manatee. On November 7, 1978, DER issued Manatee Energy Permit No. AC41- 6819A. The validity of the permit is disputed by the Petitioner. Manatee Energy has undertaken construction of the crude oil splitter and associated tankage under either Permit No. AC41-6819 and Permit No. AC41-6819A. (Exhibit 1) On June 8, 1978, after administrative proceedings conducted under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, DER issued construction permit AC41-6819 to Manatee Energy for the construction of a 15,000 BPSD crude oil splitter at Port Manatee, Florida. The permit stated that the oil splitter is to separate crude oil by distillation into three fractions; i.e., LPG, jet fuel and bunker "C." It further provided that combustion devices were to be fired with LPG or fuel oil with a sulfur content of 0.7 percent or less. Various conditions were attached to the issuance of the permit, including analysis of samples of fuels to be burned in the furnace and boiler, performance testing of stacks after startup of the facility, emission limits for the furnace and boiler, and periodic monitoring and reporting of heat content and sulfur content of fuel oil combusted in the boiler and furnace. In addition, condition 5 required that all fugitive dust generated at the site be adequately controlled, and conditions 12- 13 required that steps be taken in conjunction with the Manatee Port Authority to correct any ambient particulate violations, such as paving of roads, parking lots and the like, prior to issuance of an operating permit. The Chapter 120 administrative proceedings resulted in a determination that the proposed facility would not release air pollutants exceeding ambient air quality standards, or significantly degrade applicable base line air quality. (Exhibits 1-2) On October 27, 1978, Manatee Energy applied to DER for revision of the existing permit. The proposed revision was prompted primarily by the fact that Manatee Energy had been sold by its parent company, Belcher Oil Company, and had become an independent operator subsequent to the issuance of the original permit. This change in ownership created a need for accurate recording and accounting of product volume and quality before its transfer to Belcher's storage tanks which are adjacent to the crude oil splitter facility. To accomplish this purpose, Manatee Energy proposed the addition of two 10,000 barrel JP-4 "rundown" tanks for jet fuel, and one 10,000 barrel diesel "rundown" tank in lieu of previously permitted tank No. 410. Also, a 33,000 barrel slop oil tank to temporarily receive and hold off-specification product, and a 40,000 barrel waste water tank replacing a 35,000 barrel tank previously permitted (tank No. 409), were proposed to be added. In view of the above proposed changes, the nine storage tanks owned by Belcher (tanks Nos. 401-409), four of which are leased by Manatee Energy (tanks Nos. 406-409), will store different products except for tanks Nos. 405 and 407 which will remain unchanged. Under the original permit, two 80,000 gallon tanks were to be used to store JP-4, (tanks Nos. 403-404), but under the new proposed arrangement, only one will be used for that purpose (tank No. 406). Tank No. 403 will be used exclusively by Belcher for asphalt storage. Tank No. 409 will he converted from a waste water tank to a No. 6 fuel oil tank. Based on revised determinations of hydrocarbon emission factors by the Environmental Protection Agency after Manatee's application for the original permit, secondary seals on internal floating roof tanks will be deleted, but existing floating roof tank No. 407 is proposed to be modified by adding secondary seals to reduce such emissions. Revised calculations by the applicant as to hydrocarbon emissions show that the proposed changes in tank service and design will offset expected emissions from the proposed new tanks. Such emissions from the revised facility are expected to be 16.8 tons less than the currently permitted tankage emission rate of 75.4 tons per year. (Testimony of Hutchinson, Borie, Exhibits 4, 6-9) Additional modifications to the existing permit proposed by Manatee Energy are to relocate the emergency flare stack, move the process heater, boiler and control room approximately 150 feet each from their previously contemplated locations, and to raise the crude tower approximately 16 feet. The tower produces no emissions and the change is designed to improve the distillation process. Movement of the flare stack and the other process equipment and control room are proposed for safety reasons and do not alter the process configuration or increase emissions. Finally, a Merox treating unit was added for the purpose of extracting impurities from jet fuel. This process does not involve any emissions. (Testimony of Hutchinson, Borie, Larsen, Exhibits 4, 6, 14-15) The revised permit application consisted of engineering drawings by the firm of Marsco Engineering Corporation, Tyler, Texas which was employed subsequent to issuance of the original permit, and a report concerning the proposed changes prepared by Walk, Haydel and Associates, Inc., an engineering consultant and design firm of New Orleans, Louisiana. A complete DER application form was not submitted or required by DER. Only a revised page 4 of the standard application form was submitted. There was no certification of the project by a professional engineer registered in Florida, although such a certification is required by DER rules. The application was reviewed and recommended for approval to DER by the Manatee County Pollution Control Director. Personnel of DER's Southwest District Office reviewed the application and determined that the applicant's calculations showing that proposed hydrocarbon emissions would be less than those projected under the original permit were correct. They further found that concentrations of sulfur dioxide and particulate emissions would be unchanged by the modifications to the facility. The latter determination was supported by the results of an air quality computer model programed under standard EPA criteria to estimate the impact of such emissions from pollutant sources on ambient air quality standards at ground level. The model determined the maximum impact of sulfur dioxide pollutants which would emanate from the relocated stacks at receptor points approximately .7 to .8 kilometers south of the facility. It was found that the maximum pollutant impact during the worst twenty-four hour period would not change significantly from the former configuration of the stacks and would be well within state ambient air standards of 260 micrograms per cubic meter. A separate computer model relative to particulates was not required because such emissions when extrapolated from the sulphur dioxide model would result in basically unchanged emissions compared to the originally permitted configuration. Manatee County Pollution Control has operated an air quality monitor at Port Manatee for a number of years. This device, which is used for monitoring emission of particulates, has reflected excessive emissions on a number of occasions during 1978 and 1979. However, it is a "source" monitor which is not located in an appropriate place under EPA standards to monitor ambient air quality and, accordingly, DER does not consider the site to be "ambient oriented" or the data to be usable for determinations involving air quality standards. There have been no violations of ambient air quality revealed by monitoring at other stations in Manatee County during the past year. In fact, Manatee County's annual geometric mean for 1978 for suspended particulates were the lowest ever recorded at 33.8 micrograms per cubic meter which was significantly lower than the air quality standard of 60 micrograms per cubic meter. (Testimony of George, McDonald, Williams, Koogler, Subramani, Exhibits 4, 11-13, 16-21) In 1978, subsequent to the issuance of the original permit but prior to the filing of the revision application, certain rules of the DER contained in Chapter 17-2, Florida Administrative Code, were changed. Rule 17-2.03 required the DER to make a determination of the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) after receipt of an application for a permit to construct an air pollution facility in certain instances under specific criteria stated in the rule, after public notice had been given of an application which required such a determination. DER did not make a BACT determination as to the permit revision application concerning hydrocarbon emissions since it determined that there was an existing emission limiting standard for volatile organic compounds in Rule 17-2.05(5), which required known vapor emission control devices or systems in the processing and use of such substances. DER also determined that Rule 17- 2.04(6) concerning Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) did not require a BACT determination as to hydrocarbon emissions because the Rule does not apply to hydrocarbon emissions. Also, DER determined that neither the BACT nor the PSD rules were applicable to the modified facility as to sulfur dioxide and particulates because the ambient concentration of those emissions would be unchanged by the proposed modifications. (Testimony of Williams, Exhibit 13) On November 13, 1978, DER issued construction permit No. AC41-6819A to Manatee Energy for the proposed modifications. Conditions attached to the permit were the same as those of the original permit, plus conditions setting forth the modifications of the facility. Notification of the issuance of the permit revision was not made to Petitioner who had been a party to the Chapter 120 proceedings involving the original permit. Neither were the public notice provisions of Rule 17-2.04(9) complied with by DER prior to the issuance of the revised permit. The parties stipulated that opportunity for public participation and comment at the hearing held herein would cure any procedural defect in this regard. (Exhibit 5) Condition 12 of the proposed permit provides that before any startup of the facility, steps must be taken in conjunction with the Manatee Port Authority to correct any fugitive particulate problems and condition 13 states that an operating permit will not be issued until such time as the Port Authority has eliminated the "present violation of the ambient air quality standard with regard to particulates." Identical conditions were set forth in the prior permit based on findings that ambient particulate violations existed from fugitive dust created by road traffic at Port Manatee. As heretofore found above, the particulate violations at Port Manatee are not deemed to constitute violation of ambient air quality standards. Nevertheless, since the original permit was issued, various steps have been taken to reduce such emissions in the Port area by the use of a sweeper, paving of roadway, parking and driveway areas, planting of vegetation, grass, and shrubbery in critical areas, and the like. Although these efforts have shown little success, reasonable efforts are continuing to reduce the problem. (Testimony of McDonald, Subramani, Exhibit 18) Eight public witnesses testified at the hearing. Their concerns primarily focused on such subjects as lack of technology to prevent emission of hydrocarbons, oil spills, inefficiency of small facilities, opposition to "dirty industry" in the county, lack of adequate state rules for storage of hazardous waste, and the accumulation of emissions generally in the Tampa Bay area. One witness pointed out the presence of eagle and pelican habitats in the Bay area near the site in question. A statement on behalf of Sarasota County expressed the view that the modified facility should be subject to the review process of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, concerning developments of regional impact prior to the issuance of a modified construction permit. (Testimony of Burger, Chiefari, Fernald, H. Greer, Blankenship, Morris, M. Greer, Lincer, Exhibit 22, Hearing Officer Exhibit 1)
Recommendation That a permit for the construction of modifications to the facility which is the subject of this proceeding be granted to the Manatee Energy Company, subject to the conditions heretofore proposed by the Department of Environmental Regulation, dated November 7, 1978, and with a precondition that the applicant fully complies with the provisions of Rule 17-4.05, Florida Administrative Code, prior to such issuance. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mary F. Clark, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Paul Amundsen, Esquire One Biscayne Tower Suite 3636 Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131
The Issue The ultimate issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether the Department of Environmental Regulation should issue a permit to Broward County authorizing construction of the proposed Cell 14 extension of the Broward County landfill located in the Town of Davie, Florida. Broward County and the Department of Environmental Regulation contend that Broward County has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed facility will meet the requirements of the Department's rules and regulations and not cause pollution in contravention of the Department's standards. The Town of Davie contends that the proposed facility will not meet the Department's requirements and will result in pollution in contravention of the Department's standards.
Findings Of Fact Broward County presently operates a landfill known as the Davie Landfill on a tract of land comprising 200 acres within the Town of Davie, Broward County, Florida. The existing sanitary landfill includes 13 cells which cover approximately 20 acres on the northeastern portion of the site. The landfill had an original design elevation of50 feet. The Department of Environmental Regulation, in a separate permitting proceeding, has authorized an increase to the height of the existing landfill to 90 feet. The permit authorizing increasing the height of the existing landfill has been challenged by the Town of Davie and is the subject of a separate proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings. The site which includes the landfill also has a sludge lagoon and trash landfill located in close proximity to the sanitary landfill. The sludge lagoon was used until sometime in 1981 for disposal of septic tank clean-out, sludges, grease trap waste, and wastewater treatments. The trash landfill was designed primarily for disposal of yard trash. The existing landfill has vertical side slopes of 3.5 to l. In other words, the height of the landfill increases along sides by i foot for every 3.5 feet traveled horizontally. Through this application, Broward County is seeking approval to expand its sanitary landfill by adding a proposed Cell 14. Cell 14 would constitute a Class I landfill since it will receive in excess of 20 tons of solid waste per day. The proposed Cell 14 would be constructed along the existing western face of Cells 1 through 13. It would ultimately be constructed to a height of 90 feet and would be capped with an impervious substance. The western side slope of the proposed cell would also be 3.5 to 1. Cell 14 would cover approximately 11 acres, bringing the total size of the sanitary landfill to just over 30 acres. With Cell 14, the sanitary landfill would continue to operate until approximately 1986. Containing leachate and preventing it from entering surface or ground waters is a most important consideration in determining whether to permit sanitary landfills. Leachate is water that has passed through refuse and been contaminated by the refuse. If significant amounts of leachate from Cell 14 enters into surface and ground waters, violations of the Department's water quality standards would be likely. Several features have been designed into Cell 14 to prevent introduction of leachate into surface and ground waters. The base of the cell would have a high density polyethylene liner to prevent percolation of Leachate that collects at the bottom of the cell into groundwater. A leachate collection system consisting of pipes and manholes has been devised. As leachate collects at the base of the cell, it will be dumped into tank trucks and carried to nearby wastewater disposal plants where it will be treated. A stormwater collection system has been designed so that initial stormwater runoff will be pumped to the leachate collection system and tested. If significant pollutants are contained in the stormwater runoff, it can continue to be pumped into the leachate collection system and ultimately removed to off-site treatment plants. If there are not significant pollutants in the runoff, runoff will be collected in a swale system and ultimately percolate into groundwater. Water that leaves the site in this manner is not likely to cause violations of Department of Environmental Regulation standards either in surface or ground waters. Numerous technological advances have occurred since Cells 1 through 13 of the Davie Landfill were designed and constructed. These cells have a designed-in leachate collection system. The system presently functions adequately, except that the liners under the earlier cells appear to be breaking down. It is apparent that the liner under Cells 1 through 4 has deteriorated to the extent that all leachate from these cells is not collected in the leachate collection system, but enters the groundwater below the landfill. Leachate from a landfill of this sort and magnitude that enters groundwater is likely to cause pollution in violation of the Department's standards. Leachate is presently entering the groundwater from Cells 1 through 4. The nature of the liner under the remaining original cells is not known. It is thought to be made of asphalt. Many forms of asphalt, obviously including the kind that was used to line Cells 1 through 4, are not capable of containing Leachate for an extended period of time. If the liner breaks down, the leachate collection system under all of the original cells will no longer function, and leachate will enter the groundwater, causing violations of Department of Environmental Regulation standards. There will not be an impervious liner between the existing cells of the Davie Landfill and the proposed Cell 14. It has been estimated that the cost of such a liner would be prohibitive. There will be limerock placed between the existing cells and the proposed cell; however, limerock is permeable. Some Leachate from Cell 14 will seep into the existing cells. Some of the leachate from the proposed Cell 14 that enters the existing Cells 1 through 4 will find its way into groundwater under the landfill. Leachate that enters the remaining cells will also find its way into groundwater if the liner under these cells breaks down as the liner under Cells 1 through 4 has broken down. If Leachate from the proposed Cell 14 enters groundwater under the site of the landfill, it is likely to cause pollution in violation of Department of Environmental Regulation standards. Groundwater in the area of the Davie Landfill flows generally from the northwest to the southeast. Some of the groundwater from the site of the sanitary landfill is likely to find its way into a canal which is located just to the south of the site. this is the C-11 Canal. If leachate from the proposed Cell 14 enters groundwater under the site of the landfill, it is likely to ultimately cause violations of Department of Environmental Regulation standards in the C-11 Canal. Except for the fact that the liners under the existing cells of the sanitary landfill are subject to deterioration, the leachate collection system can function appropriately. The leachate collection system for the proposed Cell 14 can also function without allowing introduction of leachate into surface and ground waters. The leachate collection systems utilize pipes that are presently buried under the existing landfill and will be further buried by the construction of Cell 14. The pipes that are presently being used, and are proposed to be used, are designed to withstand pressure greater than would be imposed on them. Furthermore, they are being placed in such a manner (surrounded by rock and utilizing ball joints) as to reduce the pressure imposed upon them. It is possible that one of the pipes could break and that leachate could thus escape from the Leachate collection system. This possibility is not a likely one, however, given the design parameters of the pipes and the nature of their installation. The fact that the leachate collection system for existing cells of the Davie Landfill would be buried under the proposed Cell 14 does not raise a significant danger that the system will break down. Again, the design parameters of the pipes and the nature of their installation render breakage unlikely. The sludge pit that is located just to the southwest of the sanitary landfill and the trash landfill that is located just to the south of the sanitary landfill offer potentially severe threats to the integrity of ground and surface waters on and off of the site. The sludge pit is a hazardous waste site. The trash landfill is not designed to prevent substances placed on the landfill from percolating into groundwater. It does not appear that construction of the proposed Cell 14 addition to the sanitary landfill would increase the risk of pollution that the sludge pit and trash landfill present. It does not appear that construction of the proposed Cell 14 would cause significant additional surface or ground water flows that would increase the risk of material from the sludge pit or the trash landfill from entering surface or ground waters. The applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that its proposed addition to the Davie Landfill will not result in violations of Department of Environmental Regulation standards contained in Chapters 17-3, 17- 4, and 17-7, Florida Administrative Code. While the proposed cell has been designed with appropriate liners and with an appropriate leachate collection system, its location abutting an existing landfill which does not have an adequate liner preventing percolation of leachate into groundwater increases the risk of that occurring. It appears that the only means of preventing or reducing that risk is either to close off the existing cells, or to place a liner between the existing cells and any addition in order to prevent flows of Leachate from new landfill activities into the existing cells.
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 =================================================================
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.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner failed to present any evidence in support of her contention that the permit in question should be issued for 10 rather than 5 years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection issue permit no DO29-221380 to Petitioner herein, Vicki L. Woodward, for a period of 5 years. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of September, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of September, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Vicki L. Woodward Happy Traveler Campground 2710 Fountain Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609 Susan Schwartz, 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
