The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent, S.M.G., Inc. (SMG), has provided reasonable assurance that its existing air curtain incinerator will be operated in accordance with applicable statutory and rule provisions.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state agency responsible for receiving applications for, and the issuance of, permits for the construction and operation of air curtain incinerators in the State of Florida. SMG is a contracting company, with residential, trucking, agricultural, and commercial driver's license divisions. SMG is the applicant for a permit to operate an air curtain incinerator. Petitioners reside in Citrus County, Florida, in the vicinity of the constructed and operational air curtain incinerator. For the most part, Petitioners reside northeast, east, or southeast of the site. The Petitioners demonstrated their standing in this proceeding. SMG's Construction Permit On May 23, 2001, SMG submitted an application for an air construction permit to the Department's Southwest District Office. The application sought authorization to construct an air curtain incinerator "[o]n the east or west side of 6844 N. Citrus Avenue, Crystal River," Citrus County, Florida. 1 The general purpose of pursuing this permit was to burn wood waste. On July 9, 2001, the Department issued SMG a Notice of Intent to Issue the Proposed Air Construction Permit (Permit No. 0170360-001-AC). A copy of the Notice of Intent was published in the Citrus Times in Citrus County on July 19, 2001. On August 6, 2001, the Department issued SMG an air construction permit for the proposed air curtain incinerator. The construction permit authorized the construction of a McPherson Systems, Inc. - Model M30E air curtain destructor (incinerator) with under fire air at a natural non-Title V facility. Pursuant to the terms of the construction permit, in November 2001, SMG constructed an air curtain incinerator on approximately 500 acres of land on the east side of State Route 495 north of Crystal River in Citrus County, Florida, on property owned by the Gerrits family. See Endnote 1. Pursuant to the construction permit, SMG installed a McPherson Systems, Inc. - Model M30E air curtain incinerator with under fire air, a refractory lined burning pit, three upper chamber refractory lined walls (ten feet high), and a stainless steel spark arrester screen. The manifold blower and under fire air fans are powered by an electric engine. The manufacture designs and specifications for the McPherson model were submitted with the application for the air construction permit and admitted in evidence. Construction of a portable air curtain incinerator with a blower/fan system powered by a diesel-fired engine was contemplated by the air construction permit. Although cheaper, SMG instead chose to install the McPherson model that would produce the cleanest burn, i.e., one with fewer emissions, that was operated by electricity. The McPherson model used by SMG is recognized as an efficient, reliable model of air curtain incinerator. The diesel-fired blower/fan/engine system contemplated by the construction permit is considered exempt from permitting. An engine operated by electricity has no emissions and therefore does not require an air permit from the Department. The Department could not require a permit for the blower/fan system alone. The operating permit supercedes the construction permit, except as amended. Testing after Construction of the Incinerator On November 23, 2001, SMG began operating the air curtain incinerator. Pursuant to Special Condition 22 of the air construction permit, an initial visible emissions (VE) (opacity test) compliance test was performed on November 23, 2001, by Bernard A. Ball, Jr., an environmental engineer with Southern Environmental Services, Inc. The results of the initial VE compliance test were within the opacity limits contained in the construction permit. Specific Condition 19 of the construction permit requires SMG to maintain daily operating logs of the air curtain incinerator's daily operations. In order to obtain an air operating permit, a permit applicant is required to demonstrate compliance with the Department's rules and with the conditions of the construction permit. The Department requires an applicant for an operating permit to submit copies of recent daily operating records for the facility and copies of the emissions test required by the construction permit. These operating records are submitted in order for the Department to determine whether the applicant is complying with the applicable emissions standards and that the applicant is, in fact, maintaining the required operating logs as required by the construction permit. In order for SMG to obtain the operating permit for the incinerator, Specific Condition 28 of the construction permit required SMG to file an application for an air operating permit with the Department within 45 days of testing and required the application to include a copy of the VE test report and copies of at least two recent weeks of daily operating logs. On March 14, 2002, a second VE test was conducted by Mr. Ball, which also indicated that emissions were within the construction permit's opacity limits. On April 1, 2002, SMG submitted its application for the air operation permit to the Department. The application was signed by Sean Gerrits, and contained copies of the VE test reports for the November 2001 and March 2002 tests, as well as three and one-half months of daily operating logs, certificates showing that the incinerator operators were trained, and photographs of the incinerator in operation. SMG submitted the documentation required under the construction permit. On April 19, 2002, Robert E. Soich, Jr., air compliance inspector for the Department's Southwest District Office, performed an unannounced inspection and conducted a VE test in response to a complaint by Mr. Leonard Kaplan (a Petitioner), complaining of odors present. Excessive visible emissions were observed by Mr. Soich on April 19, 2002. The incinerator did not pass the VE test because of the improper alignment of the blade angle on the manifold of the blower system and because of green leaves and inadequate drying of the materials to be burned in the incinerator. Mr. Soich also observed, in part, that "materials need to be prepared better for burning." As a result of this unannounced inspection and the negative VE test, the Department requested SMG to provide an explanation of the VE test results and of the type of changes SMG planned to implement to correct the problem. On learning of the problem, SMG shut down the incinerator and called a McPherson mechanical contractor to come out and adjust the blade angle. Southern Environmental Services conducted another VE test to ensure the problem had been corrected. On April 22, 2002, a VE test was conducted by Southern Environmental Services on-site which showed compliance with the construction permit. On April 30, 2002, SMG advised the Department that adjustments were made to the baffles to correct the angles. SMG provided the Department with the April 22, 2002, VE test results. SMG also implemented better operational procedures. On May 30, 2002, with Mr. Soich present, SMG, by Byron E. Nelson, performed another VE test. The test results showed compliance with the opacity limits in the construction permit and the results were submitted to the Department.2 Mr. Nelson, an environmental engineer with Southern Environmental Sciences, testified that he has been involved in preparing approximately two dozen applications for air curtain incinerators and has conducted probably "thousands" of visible emissions tests. Mr. Nelson is certified by the State of Florida to conduct VE tests. He has seen "two or three dozen" air curtain incinerators in operation and has conducted VE tests on about 20 of them. Based on his experience, Mr. Nelson testified that SMG employed the same practices and controls to control odor, smoke, and fugitive emissions as other such incinerators he is familiar with. He testified that the amount of smoke and odors from the SMG incinerator is similar to that emitted from other air curtain incinerators, and that the fugitive emissions from the SMG incinerator were probably less than others he is familiar with. Based on his experience, Mr. Nelson opined that SMG has taken reasonable measures to minimize odor, smoke and dust/particulates from the operation of the incinerator. Mr. Nelson likewise opined that the SMG incinerator is well run, perhaps better run than other incinerators. (Mr. Nelson had been on the SMG site twice when the incinerator was operating and burning wood products.) Based on his experience, Mr. Nelson opined that SMG meets the requirements necessary to obtain an air operating permit from the Department and has demonstrated that it has complied with the conditions of its construction permit. Mr. Soich is the air compliance inspector for the Department's Southwest District Office. He testified that he has inspected the operations of other air curtain incinerators over the last 15 years. Mr. Soich testified that SMG is one of the "better operators" of air curtain incinerators he is familiar with. (Mr. Soich visited the SMG site approximately nine times from March 13, 2002, to October 15, 2002.) Mr. McDonald is the Air Permitting Engineer for the Southwest District Office of the Department. He is responsible for reviewing all applications for air curtain incinerators in the Southwest District and has reviewed applications for between 25 and 30 incinerators. Mr. McDonald reviewed the SMG permit applications. Based on the latest VE test results, copies of the records attached to the operating permit application, and his experience, Mr. McDonald, for the Department, determined that SMG had demonstrated compliance with the conditions of the construction permit and recommended issuance of the operating permit for the incinerator. He maintained the same position at hearing. SMG provided assurance that the DeRosa Fire Department would respond in the event of a fire at the incinerator. On June 19, 2002, the Department issued the proposed air operating permit. Operation of the Air Curtain Incinerator Emissions from the incinerator are controlled by a curtain of forced air at a very high static pressure over and around the burning pit. The air curtain traps smoke and small particles and recirculates them to enhance combustion and reduce smoke. The underfire air introduces air underneath the air curtain to ensure complete combustion and minimize opacity at start-up. The refractory-tiled ceramic concrete burn pit provides a safe combustion chamber, and the refractory panels keep excess heat from escaping. The upper chamber refractory panels, which surround three sides of the burn pit, allow more retention time in the burner to better control opacity and sparks. The stainless screen spark arrestor also controls sparks and debris from leaving the burner. The operating permit application proposed the use of an air curtain blower along with a manifold to provide forced air to the burning pit. According to the manufacturer specifications, the blower can force air into the pit at velocities of between 100 and 120 mph. This ensures that the flames in the burn pit receive enough oxygen to combust completely. The air circulates inside the burn pit to ensure a complete burn, which reduces smoke and odor. The combustion temperature for the burning pit ranges from approximately 1,800 to 2,500 degrees Fahrenheit. The operating permit allows a maximum charging rate of ten tons per hour on a daily average basis and 31,200 tons per any consecutive 12 month period. The incinerator has been operating below the maximum charging rate. The operating permit limits the hours of operation (charging) to 3,120 hours per year, i.e., ten hours/day, six days/week, 52 weeks/year. According to various SMG operating and maintenance logs, the incinerator has been operated below this limit. The operating permit, in accordance with Rule 62- 296.401(7), Florida Administrative Code, allows the burning of only wood waste, yard waste, and clean lumber, and prohibits the burning/incineration of materials such as sawdust, paper, trash, tires, garbage, rubber material, plastics, liquid wastes, Bunker C residual oil, roofing materials, tar, asphalt, railroad cross ties, or other creosoted lumber, chemically treated or painted wood, and other similar materials. Biological waste shall not be burned in the incinerator. During its operation, the incinerator only burned wood and yard waste, and Mr. Gerrits testified that the waste materials are inspected before being burned in order to ensure that no prohibited materials are burned. If any non-authorized materials are observed, they are removed before the waste is burned. See Finding of Fact 24. The operating permit allows visible emissions during start-up periods (not to exceed the first 30 minutes of operation) of an opacity up to 35 percent, averaged over a six- minute period, as provided for in Rule 62-296.401(7)(a)-(b), Florida Administrative Code. The McPherson model is designed to meet the requirements of the above-referenced rule, and the VE tests run during start-up periods (except one performed by Mr. Soich on April 19, 2002) demonstrated compliance with this requirement. Id. The operating permit limits visible emissions outside of start-up periods (the first 30 minutes of daily operation) to no more that five percent opacity, with visible emissions of up to ten percent opacity allowed up to three minutes in any one hour as provided for in Rule 62-296.401(7)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60, Subpart CCCC, adopted and incorporated by reference in Rule 62- 204.800(8)(b)74, Florida Administrative Code. (Rule 62- 296.401(7)(a) permits up to 20 percent opacity. The ten percent rate is required by the new federal standard. See SMG Exhibit 13, page 3 of 9.) The opacity limits in the operating permit are more stringent than those contained in the construction permit, which allows visible emissions of up to 20 percent opacity up to three minutes in any one-hour period. (By definition, a "visible emission" is "[a]n emission greater than 5 percent opacity or 1/4 Ringelmann measured by standard methods." Rule 62-296.200(278), Florida Administrative Code.) The VE test results submitted by SMG demonstrate compliance with the opacity limits in the operating permit and with the opacity limits in the construction permit for the days tested. See Findings of Fact 18, 22, 27, and 29. The operating permit requires that the incinerator must be attended at all times while materials are being burned and that public access to the incinerator must be restricted. A certified operator is in attendance whenever the incinerator is operated, i.e., when something is burning in the incinerator. A fence has been constructed around the property. The operating permit prohibits starting the incinerator before sunrise and requires that all charging of the incinerator be completely stopped before sunset as required by Rule 62- 296.401(7)(h), Florida Administrative Code. Mr. Gerrits testified that the incinerator is never started before sunrise and is typically started after 8:00 a.m. Mr. Gerrits testified that the incinerator is never charged after sunset and that charging typically stops at 4:00 or 5:00 p.m. See Endnote 4. These practices are consistent with the Operations and Maintenance Guide for the incinerator. The operating permit limits the height of the ash in the burning pit to one-third of the depth of the pit or to a point where the ash begins to impede combustion, whichever occurs first as provided in Rule 62-296.401(7)(m), Florida Administrative Code. The one-third depth line is marked on the outside of the incinerator. Mr. Gerrits testified that ash is regularly removed from the burning pit every third day to keep the ash level low, which helps ensure better combustion and reduces smoke. The operating permit provides that material shall not be loaded into the incinerator in such a way that it will protrude above the air curtain. Testimony established that the SMG incinerator is properly loaded. The operating permit requires that all operators of the incinerator be trained in the proper operation and maintenance of the incinerator and that an operations and maintenance guide be maintained at the facility at all times. All of the operators of the SMG incinerator have taken a four-hour training course to learn how to operate the incinerator in accordance with Department regulations and good operating practices, and certificates attesting to that training were submitted with the application for the operating permit. An Operations and Maintenance Guide was submitted with the application for the construction permit. The operating permit requires the maintenance of a daily operating log. The daily operating log must be maintained at the facility for at least five years and must be available for inspection by the Department upon request. SMG currently maintains a daily operating log that meets the requirements of the construction permit. SMG submits those daily logs to the Department on a monthly basis after the Department requested that SMG do so. The log includes a date and site location, daily operating hours, total charges, total material charged in tons, average hourly charging rate, any maintenance performed, fuel usage in gallons, and the operator's signature. The logs of record contain this information and have been initialed by SMG's operator for each day when the incinerator has been operated. SMG operators responsible for preparing the logs have no incentive to indicate the incinerator is not operating on days or during hours when it is running, as a deliberate misstatement on the operating logs could result in enforcement action by the Department and being fired by SMG. The operating permit requires that all reasonable precautions be undertaken to prevent and control the generation of unconfined emissions of particulate matter in accordance with Rule 62-296.320(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code. SMG takes reasonable precautions to prevent and control the generation of unconfined emissions of particulate matter, including paving the road that leads to the incinerator to reduce dust, wetting the ashes removed from the burn pit, wetting the ash piles and ramp that addresses the incinerator, approaching the incinerator at a slow rate, and placing a charge into the incinerator slowly and carefully. SMG voluntarily added a sprinkler system on all four corners of the burning pit that was not contemplated by the construction permit. The Department witness Mr. McDonald testified that this provided an additional method to control unconfined emissions. Although the construction permit and proposed permit do not contain conditions prohibiting the burning of green wood or wet wood waste, SMG takes precautions at the request of Mr. Soich to ensure that the wood is properly dried before being burned. See Finding of Fact 24. This helps to reduce smoke and emissions from the incinerator. (Moisture is the primary factor that inhibits burning and causes smoke and potentially odor.) As part of the routine practice in handling the wood waste before it is burned, trucks bringing wood waste to the incinerator are instructed to dump it into a pile. SMG operators then use a loader to flatten out the pile and remove dirt, prohibited materials, and harvestable pieces of wood. Harvestable pieces of wood and dirt are removed to separate staging areas. The remaining wood waste is separated into long windrows, with the oldest row closest to the incinerator. The windrows are flipped or rolled over in the direction of the incinerator, allowing the waste to dry. The waste in the row closest to the incinerator is burned, and subsequent windrows are rolled over in its place. Ash is generally removed from the burn pit every third day; it is wetted on removal to reduce dust, and the ash piles adjacent to the incinerator are also kept wetted by the sprinkler system. The ash is eventually mixed with the dirt in a composter for use as Class-A unrestricted compost. The SMG operator in charge on a particular day decides whether the incinerator will operate that day, in accordance with standard operational practices. The operator checks the weather forecast. If it is raining or if there are high winds (over 20 miles per hour), the incinerator will not be operated that day, and SMG typically waits four days after a rain to begin operating the incinerator again. These procedures are not contained in any permit conditions. The purpose of not operating during or immediately after a rain and taking steps to ensure the wood is dry is to reduce smoke; wet wood smokes more. Rainy weather can also affect odor. The purpose of not operating during windy conditions is to reduce the possibility of fire on SMG's property, but wind can also affect odor and visible emissions. On days when the incinerator is not operating, SMG conducts yard maintenance, maintains the waste windrows, and runs the composter. The composter is a source of noise and is located adjacent to the incinerator and is run when the incinerator is shut down. To ensure that the visible emission limitations are not exceeded and objectionable odors3 not generated, the operating permit requires that the incinerator's fan shall continue to operate after the last charge of the day until all combustion (presence of any flame or smoke) has ceased. Generally, the incinerator keeps burning an hour to an hour and one-half. Mr. Gerrits testified that the fan is kept running until the flames and smoke die out and that a certified operator is present until the fan is switched off. The operating permit requires that the testing of visible emissions must be conducted within 90-100 percent of the maximum allowable charging rate of 10 tons/hour and shall be conducted when the highest emissions can reasonable be expected to occur.4 Testing of the SMG incinerator was conducted at within 90-100 percent of the maximum allowable charging rate of 10 tons per hour, and the May 30, 2002, test results indicated that the incinerator was operating within the opacity limits of its permit even when operating at close to maximum capacity. Evidence established that the May 30, 2002, VE test complied with the specific conditions of both the construction and operating permit. See Finding of Fact 29. The test method for visible emissions required by both the construction permit and the operating permit is EPA Method 9, adopted and incorporated by reference at Rule 62- 204.800(8)(b)74, Florida Administrative Code. (Method 22 is not required pursuant to Department rules for compliance testing of an air curtain incinerator.) Testimony established that Method 9 was the method used for the VE tests conducted on the SMG incinerator. As required by both the construction and operating permits, the incinerator is located in excess of 300 feet from any pre-existing occupied building located off site as required by Rule 62-296.401(7)(j), Florida Administrative Code. The closest residences, that of Mr. Gerrits' father and his tenant, are approximately 1,500 feet away. Petitioners' Challenge For the most part, Petitioners reside northeast, east, or southeast of the incinerator. One Petitioner resides approximately three-tenths of a mile southeast of the incinerator; others reside at greater distances, up to approximately a mile and one-half away from the incinerator. Each of the Petitioners who testified have resided in this area for many years, pre-dating the operation of the incinerator. The Petitioners who testified were credible and well- intentioned. Each of these Petitioners maintained daily logs covering several months when the incinerator was authorized to operate. Some kept logs for several months, while others kept logs for several days. They noted their observations and perceptions in the logs. Admittedly, Petitioners are not experts in the detection of odors or noise levels. Nevertheless, they recorded their own experiences as to what they saw, heard, and/or smelled, believing that the odors and noise came from the incinerator. Some recorded that they smelled the strong odor of smoke, an "acrid smell," a "pungent smell," for example; "it makes your eyes burn and throat burn" said another during the hearing. One witness described the experience as being a prisoner in his house. Another does not go outside when the smell is bad. Generally, the level of odor varied with the weather conditions, i.e., a stronger odor was noticed on foggy and wet days or nights and when the wind blows from the west, which Petitioners contend is the prevailing wind. Some witnesses only smelled the odor during the night and not during the day, and not all of the time. Some complained about the odor and noise, or one and not the other. Some believed the noise coming from the incinerator was a major problem. At least two witnesses who live approximately three-tenths of a mile and 3,500 feet, respectively, from the incinerator site, described the noise as being like a jet airplane. One witness shuts her windows to keep out the noise. (SMG also operates a "wood chipper" or "composter" on site which is loud. Mr. Gerrits stated that he did not think the sound was the same as made by the incinerator fan. He also stated that "[i]t doesn't exceed the noise decibels. It doesn't exceed background noise levels at [their] property line.") Petitioners documented their concerns which are described, in part, above, and also documented their complaints to the Department and local government. It appears that each of the logs prepared by the Petitioners (who kept logs) were given to Petitioner Martha Futscher, who summarized and compiled a hand-written master list of the complaints. Then, Mr. Harvey inputted this data on the master list (spread sheet) of complaints, which appears as Petitioners' Exhibit F1. The master list contains recorded observations from May 2002 through January 2003. The master list contains a representation of when the incinerator started and stopped for various days and when it was operational or not, and this information was derived, according to Mr. Harvey, from the logs maintained by SMG. The master list also provides tons per hour of waste burned on particular days, the observer's initials, and the approximate distance each observer lived from the incinerator, and the comments, with time of observation or perception noted. There are discrepancies between the master list and the actual logs maintained by SMG as to when the incinerator was operational. There also appears to be several differences in observations between the Petitioners' master list and other evidence which indicates when Mr. Soich inspected the incinerator and determined that the incinerator was operating satisfactorily. Compare Petitioners' Exhibit 2 with Petitioners' Exhibit F1. For example, the master list records an observation from May 30, 2002, when the incinerator was operating, when there was noise and smoke noted at 8:00 a.m., and flames at the incinerator and odor at 5:30 p.m. Conversely, Mr. Soich was on-site on May 30, 2002, and observed the scheduled VE test. No problems were noted with the operation on this date by Mr. Soich. Mr. Soich also noted that "wood waste was properly dry and free of debris." The VE test on May 30, 2002, was performed from 10:29 a.m. to 11:59 a.m. and showed compliance with opacity limits. The master list indicates that black smoke was observed (no time given) on May 7, 2002, when the incinerator was operational, yet Mr. Soich inspected the incinerator on that day and there is a notation in the record that the incinerator was operating between 0-5 percent visible emissions. (Mr. Soich opined that it should be very rare to smell objectionable odors if the visible emissions run at a 5 percent level.) For October 15, 2002, there is a notation in the master list that a Petitioner commented that the incinerator was running during the day ("AM/PM Running") and that there was a strong smell at approximately 7:05 p.m. A strong smell at the person's house was also noted at approximately 9:30 p.m. on that day. However, Mr. Soich performed an annual inspection of the incinerator on October 15, 2002, and there is a notation on the master list, Petitioners' Exhibit 2, that the incinerator was not operating due to recent rain. As one Petitioner testified, her point was that the inspectors are not there when she hears the noise, sees smoke, and smells the odor. Mr. Soich confirmed that he does not inspect the facility in the evening. Petitioners also provided, as evidence in support of their position, six videotapes of the incinerator for September 19, October 3, October 23, November 25 (2 tapes), 2002, and January 10, 2003. (Mr. Harvey took the videotapes from the same location, across the street and west of the incinerator.) Each tape, except for September 19, 2002, showed smoke emanating from the operational incinerator. On September 19, 2002, the incinerator was not running according to the SMG log. There was a malfunction which was reported to the Department. The SMG log indicates that the pit was cleaned out, site cleared and rows moved. There is also a notation in the SMG log for this date that there was a power failure/malfunction at the incinerator at 9:00 a.m., and that the power was out. According to Mr. Gerrits, the malfunction caused smoke. (One Petitioner observed smoke from ashes on September 19, 2002.) While the Petitioners proved that there was smoke emanating from the operation of the incinerator on the days which were videotaped, with the exception of September 19, 2002, this did not necessarily prove that the emissions exceeded the requirements of the Department rules or that there was an objectionable odor emanating therefrom. Mr. Stoich observed the videotapes played during the hearing. In particular, with respect to the January 10, 2003, videotape, Petitioners' Exhibit 12, Mr. Stoich stated that a level of opacity cannot be determined from photographs and videotapes. He also noted that there was "a lot of white smoke," an atypical situation according to him, emanating from the incinerator and that he, as a compliance inspector, would have investigated further and performed an inspection, including a VE test, to determine if there was a violation, had he seen this smoke. However, he stated that without actually seeing the operation, he could not determine whether a violation had occurred. There was persuasive evidence that compliance with the opacity limits of a permit can only be determined through VE tests conducted using the Department-approved EPA Method 9. The VE test takes into account wind, the angle of the plume, the position of the sun, and other factors, and must use appropriate averaging to ensure that the test is valid. A smoke plume can look quite dense at the wrong angle or if the light is reflecting off the plume in a certain way, when in fact it is in compliance with Department rules. The VE tests for the incinerator have, with one exception, see Finding of Fact 24, demonstrated compliance with the opacity limits in the construction permit. As noted herein, upon receipt of notice that one VE test failed, SMG implemented corrective actions, and two VE tests conducted after the time showed the incinerator was operating in compliance with the opacity limits of the permit. See Findings of Fact 27 and 29. The Department relies on its compliance inspectors, such as Mr. Soich, to make a determination of whether an air emission source is causing an objectionable odor. There does not appear to be an approved Department method for measuring odors from incinerators. (Mr. Nelson stated that odors are difficult to test and that "odor is done collecting samples." No samples were taken or analyzed.) On the other hand, Mr. Soich testified that, based on his years of experience, he has developed certain methods for determining whether a facility is emitting an objectionable odor under the rules. If he receives an odor complaint, which he has in this case, he goes to the site and checks the prevailing winds. He also travels around the facility to determine the source of the odor. An odor can be deemed objectionable if it is very strong and overpowering, such that he cannot stay on- site and breathe in the odors. An odor can also be deemed objectionable if, after being on-site for some extended period of time, he begins to develop symptoms such as runny eyes, a scratchy throat, or a headache as a result of the smell. Finally, he may bring along another Department employee to determine whether the other individual finds the odor objectionable. Enforcement actions can be taken if objectionable odors are detected. Mr. Soich testified that he has inspected the incinerator at least nine times in the past year and never detected an objectionable odor. On some of the visits, the incinerator was not operational. On rebuttal, several residents of the area testified that they had not experienced objectionable odors from the incinerator. David Stevens, the Chief of the DeRosa County Fire Department, testified that an open land-clearing burn emits black smoke, more so than he observed from the incinerator. This fire department only had to respond to false alarms at the incinerator. Mr. Stevens personally inspected the operation of the incinerator and thought it was a very safe operation. Randy Morgan, a wildlife firefighter and certified burner with the Division of Forestry with over 16 years of experience in fire control, testified that approximately 50,000 acres of the state land burns occurred in Citrus County last year. These land burns can be a significant source of smoke and odor. In addition, approximately 50 open burn authorizations are issued each day. He also testified that controlled burns of approximately 15 fires of approximately 50 to 2,000 acres a day occurred in 2002 in proximity of the SMG incinerator which is a source of smoke and odor. The state also conducts open burns of some kind approximately ten months out of the year. Other witnesses testified that, given the rural nature of the community, open burning of trash, wood, and leaves occurs on a regular basis. Ultimate Findings of Fact Credible evidence established that SMG meets or exceeds the requirements in the construction permit to reduce smoke, dust, and odor, and these requirements are carried over to the operating permit. Credible evidence established that SMG employs the same, if not better, practices and permit conditions to control smoke, dust, and odor as other air curtain incinerators in the state. Credible evidence established that the SMG incinerator is operated in accordance with its construction permit. Credible evidence established that the SMG incinerator can be expected to be operated in accordance with its operating permit. Credible evidence established that the SMG incinerator is operated in accordance with Department rules. In light of the foregoing, SMG has demonstrated reasonable assurance that its air curtain incinerator has been operated in compliance with the construction permit and that the incinerator can continue to be operated in accordance with the conditions of the operating permit.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order granting SMG's application and issuing Permit No. 0170360-002-AO, as amended, and subject to all conditions, including but not limited to the Specific Conditions set forth in the Department's Notice of Intent to Issue, for the operation of an air curtain incinerator in Citrus County, Florida. It is further recommended that Petitioners' challenge to the amendment to the operating permit be dismissed. See Preliminary Statement. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.5 CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 2003.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER, or the Department) should grant the request of Medico Environmental Services, Inc. (Medico) for a one-year extension of the expiration date for air construction permit AC52-184546 for a biological waste incinerator located at 13200-58th Street North, Clearwater, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Prior and Related Proceedings.-- Medico holds an air construction permit issued by the DER on March 8, 1991, for the construction of a biological waste incinerator in Pinellas County, Florida. The permit contains general and special conditions, including prohibitions against the incineration of non-exempt amounts of radioactive and hazardous wastes, a requirement that all operators be trained in a DER-approved training program, and a requirement that the facility undergo compliance testing after it is constructed to assure that its operation complies with emission standards established by DER rule. Several weeks after the grant of the air construction permit, on March 29, 1991, the DER changed the equipment model number on the permit, but the change in model number represented no change in the actual equipment described in the application. Local government building and construction permit procedures, and negotiations with potential investors, delayed construction of the facility. By letter dated November 14, 1991, Medico requested an extension of the expiration date of the permit from January 7, 1992, to January 7, 1993. No other change in the permit was sought. On or about December 6, 1991, the Department issued a second air construction permit for a biological waste incinerator in Pinellas County to Bayfront Medical Center (Bayfront). Bayfront has since requested two extensionns on the expiration date of its permit. The second request is currently pending challenge in Division of Administrative Hearings Case Nos. 92- 6879 and 92-6880. The Applicant and Principals.-- Medico is a corporation consisting of two fifty percent shareholders: Gerald Hubbell; and Robert Sheehan. Hubbel operates a funeral home and Bay Area Crematory, Inc., in Pinellas County; he has less than 50 percent ownership of those businesses. Previously, Sheehan co-founded a medical waste incineration facility in New York known as Medi-Waste, Limited, of which he was one-third owner. In 1986, he sold the company, and it merged with Medi-Gen, Medical Generation Associates, a wholly owned subsidiary of a company known as Legeis Resources (Legeis). Sheehan held two percent of the shares of Legeis and served as an officer of Medi-Gen until he resigned in 1989. Sheehan does not own more than 50 percent of Medico, and he has not had any interest in any other air construction or air operation permit in the State of Florida. Since March, 1991, he has not held an interest in any other entity involved in medical waste incineration. Air Quality. Medico will be capable of incinerating 2,350 pounds of medical waste per hour, which is about ten percent of Flrodia's medical waste. Pinellas County generates about 75,000 pounds of such waste per day but currently has the capacity to burn only 480 pounds per hour. A computer-generated air dispersion model was run on the theoretical maximum impact of Medico, of Bayfront, and of both facilities, on the ambient air in the affected parts of Pinellas County. The model used was the EPA's Industrial Source Complex, Short Term, Version 2, March, 1992. This model is recommended by the DER and preferred by the EPA. It follows the DER's Guideline on Air Quality Models. Average background ambient air was calculated using monitoring data collected by Pinellas County for the EPA criteria pollutants (sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, lead, and particulate matter) and for hydrochloric acid in accordance with the requirements of title 40, part 58, of the Code of Federal Regulations, as reported in the DER's 1991 ALLSUM. (According to EPA publications, hydrochloric acid is the only toxic pollutant on the DER's air toxics list for which medical waste incinerators like Medico's are considered to be a source.) The theoretical maximum impacts of Medico and Bayfront were based on the AP42 emission standards for those kinds of facilities. Meteorological data was taken from the nearest national weather service station (at the Tampa International Airport). The air model shows that none of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for any of the criteria pollutants would be exceeded by adding either the impact of the Medico facility, or the impact of the Bayfront facility, or both combined, to the average ambient air in the affected parts of Pinellas County. (Both Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) and the newer PM10 category of particulates less than ten microns in size cases, which is more relevant to public health concerns, were considered for particulate matter levels.) Testimony indicates that the National Ambient Air Quality Standards would not be exceeded for any of the criteria pollutants by adding either the impact of the Medico facility, or the impact of the Bayfront facility, or both combined, to the maximum ambient air in the affected parts of Pinellas County. Also, even assuming a "worst case" weather scenario, no problematic toxic pollutants are expected, based on a Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Air Quality Division, screening computer model. Lead and hydrochloric acid would be under the EPA's "no threat level" (NTL). (As for the original application, these determinations are based on the scrubber manufacturer's hydrochloric acid efficiency claim of 99.9% and, in the case of lead, on its particulate efficiency claim.) As previously stated, according to EPA publications, there are no other toxic pollutants on the DER's air toxics list for which medical waste incinerators like Medico's are considered to be a source. The theoretical emissions for the Medico facility are below 100 tons per year, and the facility does not have the potential to emit more than ten tons per year of any hazardous air pollutant, as defined by the EPA. Past Conduct and Reliablily of the Principals.-- On or about March 5, 1991, the temperature in the secondary chamber of the biohazardous waste incinerator then operated by Hubbell dropped below 1800o at the end of a burn, and there was still a small amount of waste in the primary chamber and some small amount of flame still visible in the primary chamber. This violation, however, did not result in visible emissions, which would be an indication that there was a combustion or related problem in the incinerator. On or about March 4, 1991, one of the crematory units operated by Hubbell had visible emissions of 44% opacity. Identical warning letters regarding the March 4 and March 5 violations were sent on March 20 and March 27, 1991. Hubbell respondent by telephone on April 1, and in writing on April 5, 1991. There have been no other violation of Florida Statutes or DER rules since the original construction permit issued. Taking these violations into consideration, the compliance history of Hubbell's facilities does not undermine Medico's ability to give the necessary reasonable assurances. Between October, 1981, and October, 1991, Hubbell's facilities have been guilty of only the following violations: On or about March 25, 1987, Hubbell began to incinerate biohazardous medical waste before he was aware that a special permit for incinerating medical waste, in addition to his permit to operate the crematory, was required by law. On or about August 19, 1988, Hubbell's facility was notified that the Pinellas County Division of Air Quality had received a written complaint about smoke, and that a county permit would be required for the infectious waste incinerator along with retrofitting some controls. On or about October 4, 1989, Hubbell's facility apparently had a visible emissions violation. Three annual operating reports for Hubbell's facilities--for 1981, 1985, and 1989--would be considered late under current policy. There was no evidence whether they were late under the policy in effect at the time the reports were filed. Over the course of those ten years, there is no suggestion in the evidence that any of the other annual operating reports may have been late, and there are no other violations recorded in the Pinellas County compliance contact logs. To the contrary, the records indicate that no violations were found on 15 inspections. Hubbell voluntarily has shut down the old, smaller and less sophisticated medical waste incinerator where some of the recorded violations occurred, pending the construction of the Medico facility. Sheehan has not had an interest in any biohazardous waste incinerators in the State of Florida, other than the Medico application, and has not had a controlling interest in, or operational role in, any entity operating a medical or biohazardous waste facility in any state since June, 1989. Although, under the prehearing rulings, it would not even be relevant to this proceeding, the only evidence of any violations by any entity in which Sheehan had a controlling interest in, or operational role in, that operated a medical or biohazardous waste facility in any state, at any time, was evidence of two New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ash container violations and one failure to close up the back of the building housing an incinerator in October, 1988.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order extending the expiration date for air construction permit AC52-184546 for one year from the entry of the final order, subject to a DER determination that construction did not begin by March 20, 1992, and that the Chapter 92-31 moratorium applies. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-0851 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1991), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact. I.1.-3. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, accepted and incorporated. Second sentence, argument and subordinate. Accepted and incorporated. First four sentences, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Fifth sentence, rejected as not supported by the evidence and as contrary to facts found. Fifth sentence, accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found. First four sentences, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Fifth sentence, accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found. (He raised questions but had no answers; other witnesses satisfactorily answered the question.) Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and to the facts found. First sentence, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Second sentence, irrelevant to the extension the expiration date of an air construction permit, and unnecessary. Also, state law and regulations govern some aspects of the handling of these wastes. First two sentences, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Third and fourth sentences, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and to facts found. (Reasonable assumptions can be made, in accordance with EPA publications, based on the nature of the facility.) Also, irrelevant to the extension the expiration date of an air construction permit, and unnecessary. Finally, res judicata. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and to facts found. Also, irrelevant to the extension the expiration date of an air construction permit, and unnecessary. Finally, res judicata. First sentence, accepted but accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found, and unnecessary. Second sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and to facts found. Also, irrelevant to the extension the expiration date of an air construction permit, and unnecessary. Finally, res judicata. First two sentences, accepted and incorporated in part (another reason was that the application passed a screening model both initially and on the extension request and that most of the toxics would not be expected to be generated from this source), but res judicata, and unnecessary. Third sentence, accepted and incorporated. Fourth and fifth sentences, accepted but res judicata, subordinate to facts contrary to those found, and unnecessary. II.9.-10. Rejected as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. III.1.-2. Rejected as being conclusions of law. Medico's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-3. Accepted and incorporated. 4. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 5.-7. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Irrelevant and unnecessary. 11.-23. Generally accepted but largely subordinate. Incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Generally accepted, but largely res judicata, irrelevant, subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. 30.-31 Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Generally, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rest, accepted but subodinate and unnecessary. 34.-35. Generally, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 38.-43. Accepted and incorporated. 44.-45. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but largely subordinate and unnecessary. Some, irrelevant. 48.-49. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 50. Accepted but irrelevant, subordinate and unnecessary. DER's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-9. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 10. The law was signed on March 20, 1992. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 11.-15. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Adrien W. Helm, Esquire 925 Fourteenth Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33705 Sandra P. Stockwell, Esquire Douglas L. Stowell, Esquire Post Office Box 11059 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Dept. of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue Sloan Construction Company, Inc. (Sloan) has applied to the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) for a permit to relocate its drum mix asphalt plant, a source of air emissions, from its current site in Flagler County to Brevard County. The issue in this proceeding is whether that permit should be granted. More specifically, it must be determined whether the proposed activity will meet applicable statutory and regulatory standards. An ancillary issue regarding Respondent, Sloan's entitlement to attorneys fees and costs pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)5., F.S. is addressed in a separate order entered this same date.
Findings Of Fact Sloan Construction Company, Inc., (Sloan) is a highway contractor doing business in the southeastern United States. It operates asphalt plants in South Carolina and in Florida; in addition to the portable plant at issue here, its Florida plants, permitted by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) are in Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and Orlando. On December 9, 1991, Sloan applied to DER to relocate its portable asphalt plant from Flagler County to Brevard County. The company has a contract with the Florida Department of Transportation for work on I-95 and on A-1-A in Brevard County and needs the plant for that work. This same plant was initially permitted by DER's southwest district office on November 9, 1989 for operation in Highlands County. Pursuant to subsequent permits the plant moved to Lake County in 1990, and to Flagler County in 1991. Each time it was moved, the relevant DER district office reviewed the air pollution impact before granting the permit. The permit will expire in November 1994. A consent order was entered in December 1990 between Sloan and DER regarding violations in May and June 1990. The violations described in the consent order were that visible emissions exceeded 20% opacity, and the metal tanks serving as the scrubber final settling basin were low on water with large amounts of particle flotation. The company paid a fine of $7,750 and made the DER-required changes in its maintenance and operation. The company monitors its own system and makes necessary repairs and improvements when problems are anticipated. When the scrubbers fail to operate properly, they are shut down and fixed. The scrubbers do not involve water discharge as they are a closed circuit system. This permit application is not requesting approval to discharge into the waters of the state. For this permit DER requires annual stack testing to determine whether the plant is meeting air emission limitations for particulates (.04 grains per dry standard cubic foot) and opacity (20%). Sloan retains an engineering consultant, Bottorf and Associates, to conduct those tests. The last stack test, May 1991, indicates that the emissions meet the standards. It is anticipated that this same plant will perform just as well in Brevard County. However, a proposed condition of the new permit is that another stack test be performed within 20 days of commencement of operation, in order to assure that equipment is functioning properly after the move. A condition of the existing permit is that unconfined emissions of particulate matter from vehicular movement, loading, construction or demolition be controlled by paving of traffic areas and the sprinkling of stockpiles with water. Sulphur dioxide is considered to be the pollutant of greatest concern in a facility such as this. Sulphur dioxide is generated from the burning of fuel containing sulphur. The applicant has agreed to reduce sulphur content of its fuel from 1.8% to .5%, and to reduce its sulphur dioxide emission limit from 96 tons per year to 26 tons per year. No DER rule requires air pollution source modelling for an asphalt plant or other minor source (defined as less than 100 tons per year of a single pollutant emission). However, because of the proximity of the proposed facility to the existing Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC) power plant, and public concern about sulphur dioxide emissions in the area, DER air permitting engineer, John Turner, ran SCREEN models to predict the combination of emissions from this proposed facility and other sources in the area. The total projected sulphur dioxide ambient air level from the SCREEN models run by John Turner for the Sloan facility at 26 tons per year included four other local sources, and included a more specific model for the nearby OUC plant, which model considered additional sources. John Turner's modelling yielded 241.63 micrograms/ cubic meter on a 24 hour basis. The ambient air quality standard is 260. John Turner's modelling yielded a conservative estimate, that is, it most likely over-predicted sulphur dioxide levels. The model assumed no reduction in sulphur dioxide from aggregate in asphalt plant dryers; tests actually reflect a 70-89% reduction, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assumes a 50% reduction when no tests are available. The model assumed all sources would be operating 24 hours a day, when they actually operate for a more limited period. Moreover, the model assumed all sources would be operating at the same time at their maximum permitted rates. Turner's assumptions also assumed worst case meteorological conditions, such as wind inversions, that would combine plumes from two sources in opposite directions. In the OUC model used by Turner a worst case sulphur dioxide background of 44 was assumed when the normal background level would be much lower. "Downwash" is the effect of wind hitting a large, generally flat, structure or impediment, rising to go over the top and then dropping---an effect which would cause a pollution plume to drop to the earth more quickly. The County's expert conceded that John Turner's modelling was conducted properly, but criticized the model for failing to consider downwash. John Turner and his supervisor, Allen Zahm, did consider downwash but they suggest that it would lower, not raise, the ambient air level, as downwash tends to retain the concentration closer to the stack. The County's expert stated that he did not know that downwash would actually occur on the site. As provided in the permit conditions, the applicant intends to use "on specification" used oil for fuel. "On-specification" used oil must meet standards not to exceed certain allowable levels for arsenic, cadmium, chromium and other substances. There is no allowable level of PCB; that is, the standard level is zero. The sulphur and heavy metal content of the fuel is monitored through certificates of quality required by DER. Sloan has complied with the permit requirements as to its fuel quality. The proposed site for the facility is in Delespine, north of Cocoa in Brevard County, near Highway U.S. 1 and near the Indian River Lagoon. The plant will be approximately 700 meters southwest of an existing mid-sized power plant, OUC, and approximately a mile northwest of a Florida Power and Light Company power plant. Adjacent to the site is a large residential community, Port St. John, with approximately 18,000 residents. The community has expanded rapidly as a result of the availability of affordable housing, and it includes a mix of elderly citizens and young families with children. The residents are genuinely and sincerely concerned for their health and safety and the character of their neighborhoods. They provided anecdotal testimony of increased respiratory problems and negative environmental impacts which they attribute to the power plants and other industrial uses in the area. They are concerned about increased traffic and problems of evacuation in the event of an emergency. They are worried that the traffic and emissions from the proposed facility will cause special problems for students at the nearby elementary schools. As real and sincere as those concerns are, they do not overcome the substantial evidence presented by the applicant that the proposed permit meets the specific requirements of the responsible state agency. The citizens' concerns are classic land use issues, which through zoning and land use regulation, are the jurisdiction of their local governments.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, recommended that the Department grant Sloan's application to amend its operating permit for its asphalt plant (Permit No. 167794) with the change in permit conditions as noticed by the Department (Sloan Ex. #27), and with the condition, as stipulated, that the stack for air emissions from the facility will be 42.5 feet in height above ground level. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 22nd day of June, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Petitioners #92-1801 Thomas Lanham Asst. County Attorney Brevard County Attorney's Office Building C, Suite 346 2725 St. Johns Street Melbourne, FL 32940 #92-1802 Joseph & Katherine Tidwell 4000 Delespine Road Cocoa, FL 32927 #92-1803 Carol L. Harris 6040 Gilson Avenue Cocoa, FL 32927 #92-1804 Harry S. Rice 931 Galleon Street Cocoa, FL 32927 #92-1805 Joseph F. DeBarry 950 Galleon Street Cocoa, FL 32927 #92-1806, 92-1807, 92-1813 (Counsel for Port St. John Homeowners Assn., Jessie Fleming, & Don L. Williams) F. Michael Driscoll, Esquire 1530 S. Federal Highway Rockledge, FL 32955 #92-1808 Bea Polk 101 River Park Blvd. Titusville, FL 32780 #92-1809 Russell Harris 6040 Gilson Avenue Cocoa, FL 32927 #92-1811 Opal Hall 7655 South U.S. 1 - Lot 17 Titusville, FL 32780 #92-1812 John Ferguson 7020 Song Drive Cocoa, FL 32927 #92-1814 First Baptist Church of Port St. John Joseph E. Tidwell 4000 Delespine Road Cocoa, FL 32927 #92-1815 David & Rhonda Tidwell 4530 Robert Street Cocoa, FL 32927 #92-1816 Felicia Cardone, et al. 7230 N. U.S. Hwy. 1, #106 Cocoa, FL 32927 #92-2471 James M. Shellenberger, et al. Sunrise Village Condominium 7040 N. U.S. Hwy. 1, Unit #101 Cocoa, FL 32927 Respondents (for Sloan Construction Company, Inc.) F. Alan Cummings, Esquire Michael Riley, Esquire P.O. Box 589 Tallahassee, FL 32302 (for DER) Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire DER-Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary DER-Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel DER-Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should be issued an air construction permit authorizing its Crystal River steam generating plant Units 1 and 2 to co-fire a five to seven percent blend of petroleum coke with coal.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Petitioner, Florida Power Corporation (FPC), is an investor-owned public utility engaged in the sale of electricity to approximately 1.2 million customers. Among others, it operates the Crystal River Power Plant consisting of five electric-generating units in Citrus County, Florida. Units 1, 2, 4, and 5 are coal-fired, while Unit 3 is a nuclear unit. Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (DEP), is a state agency charged with the statutory responsibility of regulating the construction and operation of business enterprises in a manner to prevent air pollution in excess of specified limits. Among other things, DEP issues air construction permits for a limited period of time to undertake and evaluate initial operations of a business enterprise; long- term approval subsequently is available under an air operation permit. As a part of this process, and pursuant to federal law, DEP engages in a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) review to determine if non-exempt alterations to major facilities result in net emission increases greater than specified amounts. Under certain conditions, however, the use of alternative fuels or raw materials are exempted from PSD review. Intervenor, Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, Inc. (LEAF), is a non-profit Alabama corporation licensed to do business in the State of Florida. It is a public interest advocacy organization whose corporate purposes include securing environmental and health benefits from clean air and water. Intervenor, Sierra Club, Inc. (Sierra Club), is a public interest advocacy organization incorporated in California and doing business in Florida. Its corporate purposes include securing the environmental and health benefits of clean air and water. On December 26, 1995, FPC filed an application with DEP for an air construction permit authorizing it to burn a blend of petroleum coke and coal in its existing coal-fired Units 1 and 2 at the Crystal River Power Plant in Citrus County, Florida. In the application, FPC did not address PSD review since it believed it qualified for an exemption from PSD permitting under Rule 62- 212.400(2)(c)4., Florida Administrative Code. That rule exempts from PSD review the [u]se of an alternative fuel or raw material which the facility was capable of accommodating before January 6, 1975, unless such change would be prohibited under any federally enforceable permit condition which was established after January 6, 1975. After reviewing the application, DEP issued an Intent to Deny on June 25, 1996. In that document, DEP stated that [a]ccording to information in Department files, both Units 1 and 2 operated on liquid fuel prior to January 6, 1975. Very substantial modifications of the boilers and pollution control equipment were implemented thereafter by [FPC] to convert the units to coal-firing mode. Therefore the project does not qualify for the exemption from PSD review claimed by the company. Contending that it was entitled to an exemption from PSD review and therefore a permit, FPC filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing on October 4, 1996. In its Petition, FPC generally alleged that petroleum coke is a product with characteristics very similar to coal; Units 1 and 2 were capable of accommodating coal and petroleum coke as of January 6, 1975; and contrary to the statements in the Intent to Deny, any boiler modifications and pollution control improvements to those units were minor and not substantial. The Permitting Program The PSD program is based on similar PSD requirements found in the federal Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended (the Act). The permitting program is a federally required element of DEP's State Implementation Plan (SIP) under Section 110 of the Act. DEP has fulfilled the requirement of administering the federal PSD program by obtaining approval from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of state PSD regulations that meet the requirements of federal law. The requirements of the SIP are found in Chapters 62-204, 62-210, 62-212, 62-296, and 62-297, Florida Administrative Code. Chapter 62-212 contains the preconstruction review requirements for proposed new facilities and modifications to existing facilities. Rule 62-212.400, Florida Administrative Code, establishes the general preconstruction review requirements and specific requirements for emission units subject to PSD review. The provisions of the rule generally apply to the construction or modification of a major stationary source located in an area in which the state ambient air quality standards are being met. Paragraph (2)(c) of the rule identifies certain exemptions from those requirements. More specifically, subparagraph (2)(c)4. provides that a modification that occurs for the following reason shall not be subject to the requirements of the rule: 4. Use of an alternative fuel or raw material which the facility was capable of accommodating before January 6, 1975, unless such change would be prohibited under any federally enforceable permit condition which was established after January 6, 1975. The rule essentially tracks verbatim the EPA regulation found at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(2)(iii)(e)1. Therefore, in order to qualify for an exemption from PSD review, FPC must use "an alternative fuel . . . which [Units and 2 were] capable of accommodating before January 6, 1975." In addition, FPC must show that "such change would [not] be prohibited under any federally enforceable permit condition which was established after January 6, 1975." Contrary to assertions by Respondent and Intervenors, in making this showing, there is no implied or explicit requirement in the rule that FPC demonstrate that it had a subjective intent to utilize petroleum coke prior to January 6, 1975. The Application and DEP's Response In its application, FPC proposes to co-fire a five percent (plus or minus two percent) blend of petroleum coke with coal, by weight. It does not propose to make any physical changes to Units 1 and 2 to utilize petroleum coke. Also, it does not request an increase in any permitted air emission rates for the units because it can meet its current limits while burning the proposed blend rate of petroleum coke with coal. The application included extensive fuel analysis and air emissions data obtained from a DEP-authorized petroleum coke trial burn conducted from March 8 until April 4, 1995. Although it is not proposing to make physical changes to the plant, FPC applied for the air construction permit in deference to DEP's interpretation that such a permit is required when a permittee utilizes an alternative fuel. After completing his initial review, the DEP supervisor of the New Source Review program acknowledged in a memorandum to his supervisor that FPC was "entitled to a permit" but suggested that FPC be asked to "change their minds." Before the permit was issued, however, DEP changed its mind and issued an Intent to Deny on the ground that prior to January 6, 1975, Units 1 and 2 were not capable of accommodating coal or a blend of petroleum coke with coal. The Units Unit 1 has a generating capacity of 400 MW and commenced operation as a coal-fired plant in October 1966. It fired coal until March 1970, fuel oil until October 1978, and then again fired coal from June 1979 to the present. Unit 2 has a generating capacity of 500 MW and commenced operations as a coal-fired plant in November 1969. It fired coal until September 1971, fired fuel oil from December 1971 until October 1976, and then again fired coal from December 1976 to the present. Original equipment installed during the initial construction of Units 1 and 2 included the following: the barge unloader, which removes coal from barges that deliver coal from New Orleans; the stacker/reclaimer, which stacks the coal into piles and then reclaims the coal by directing it from the coal piles to conveyors that deliver it to the units; the crusher house, which has two crushers that crush the coal on the way to units down to nuggets no larger than three-quarters of an inch in diameter; the silos, which store the crushed coal; the feeders, located below the silos, which regulate the flow of coal from the silos to the pulverizers; the pulverizers, which grind the coal in preparation for combustion and then direct the pulverized coal to the burners, which are located on the corners of each unit's boiler; and the boilers, where the fuel is combusted, imparting heat to water contained in the waterwalls and thereby producing steam for electrical generation. The foregoing equipment was reflected in the plant's construction specifications and remains in operation, on site, at the plant. Components and parts of this equipment have been maintained, replaced, and repaired periodically. The original operations manual for the barge unloader, stacker/reclaimer, crushers, and conveyor systems are still kept and utilized on site. The primary fuel utilized in Units 1 and 2 is coal, although these units also co-fire from one to five percent number fuel oil and used oil. The combustion of fuel in Units 1 and 2 results in air emissions. As a result of changing regulatory requirements, there have been substantial improvements to the units' air pollution control capabilities since original construction. Existing Air Permits Unit 1 currently operates under Air Operation Permit Number A009-169341. Unit 2 operates under Air Operation Permit Number A-009-191820. Both permits were amended by DEP on October 8, 1996. Although each air operation permit contains an expiration date that has been surpassed, the permits remain in effect under DEP's regulations during the pendency of the agency's review of FPC's applications for air operation permits under the new Title V program found in Chapter 62-213, Florida Administrative Code. The air operation permits governing Units 1 and 2 contain mass emission rate limitations of 0.1 pounds/million (mm) British thermal units (Btu) or particulate matter (PM), and 2.1 pounds/mmBtu for sulfur dioxide. These mass emission rate limitations restrict the amount of each pollutant (measured in pounds) that is to be released into the atmosphere per million Btu of heat energy by burning fuel. The PM limitation is applicable to Units 1 and 2 under state regulations originally promulgated in 1972. The sulfur dioxide limitation was established in 1978 as a result of a PSD air quality analysis performed in conjunction with the permitting of Units 4 and 5. Prior to 1978, sulfur dioxide limits promulgated early in 1975 imposed a limit of 6.17 pounds/mmBtu on coal-fired operations at Units 1 and 2. Because Units 1 and 2 were subjected to a PSD air quality impact analysis along with Units 4 and 5, the units' sulfur dioxide emission limits were reduced from 6.17 to 2.1 pounds/mmBtu. The 2.1 pounds/mmBtu sulfur dioxide emission limitation applicable to Units 1 and 2 was set with the intention of assuring no adverse air quality impacts. The sulfur dioxide impacts associated with Units 1, 2, 4, and 5, after collectively being subjected to PSD air quality review, were much lower than the sulfur dioxide impacts previously associated with only Units 1 and 2. Is Petroleum Coke an Alternative Fuel? Petroleum coke is a by-product of the oil refining process and is produced by many major oil companies. The oil refineries refine the light ends and liquid products of oil to produce gasoline and kerosene, resulting in a solid material that resembles and has the fuel characteristics of coal. Both historically and presently, it has been common- place for electric utilities to rely on petroleum coke as fuel. For example, during the period 1969 through 1974, regular shipments of petroleum coke were sent to various electric utility companies throughout the United States to be co-fired with coal. In addition, DEP has issued permits for Tampa Electric Company to co-fire petroleum coke with coal. In 1987 and again in 1990, the EPA promulgated air- emission regulations which specifically define "coal" as including "petroleum coke." DEP has incorporated these regulations by reference at Rule 62-204.800(7)(b) 3. and 4., Florida Administrative Code. Given these considerations, it is found that petroleum coke constitutes an alternative fuel within the meaning of Rule 62-212.400(4)(c)4., Florida Administrative Code. Were the Units Capable of Accommodating the Fuel? Petroleum coke and coal are operationally equivalent. Petroleum coke can be handled, stored, and burned with the existing coal handling equipment at Units 1 and 2. The barge unloader, stacker/reclaimer, storage areas, conveyors, silos, crusher house, pulverizers, and burners, all installed prior to 1975, can handle petroleum coke. The equipment comprising Units 1 and 2 does not require any modification in order to burn a blend of petroleum coke with coal. Also, there will be no net impact on steam generator design or operation, and there will be no decline in performance or adverse impacts to the boilers. FPC could have co-fired petroleum coke with coal historically without making physical alterations or derating the units. Similarly, petroleum coke can be fired in Units 1 and 2 now without alterations or derating. These findings are further supported by Petitioner's Exhibits 35 and 36, which are reference books published in 1948 and 1967 by the manufacturer of the equipment installed at Units 1 and 2. They confirm that prior to 1975, petroleum coke was suitable for the manufacturer's boilers and pulverizers. Unrebutted testimony demonstrated that Units 1 and 2 could have co-fired petroleum coke with oil during the oil-firing period. Even when Units 1 and 2 fired oil instead of coal for a period of time in the 1970s, the coal-handling equipment remained in existence on-site and available for use, and both units remained readily convertible to their original, coal-firing modes. Because the plant remained capable of accommodating coal, it also remained capable of accommodating petroleum coke. In light of the foregoing, it is found that co-firing petroleum coke with coal at Units 1 and 2 could have been accomplished prior to January 6, 1975. Are there Post-January 6, 1975, Prohibitions? There is no evidence to support a finding that a federally enforceable permit condition was establshed after January 6, 1975, that prohibits co-firing petroleum coke with coal. I. Miscellaneous By letters dated February 14 and June 2, 1997, the EPA Region IV office replied to inquiries from DEP regarding the instant application. The conclusions reached in those letters, however, were based on a misapprehension of the facts in this case. Therefore, the undersigned has not credited these letters. To prove up its standing, LEAF introduced into evidence a copy of its articles of incorporation and a brochure describing the organization. In addition, it asserted that the air quality for its members would be "at risk" if Units 1 and 2 did not meet PSD standards and air emissions were "increased." Intervenor Sierra Club proffered that a substantial number of members "live, work, or recreate in the vicinity of the Crystal River Units 1 and 2, and in the area subject to the air emissions by those units," and that those members "would be substantially affected by the proposed exemption."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order granting the application of Florida Power Corporation and issuing the requested air construction permit. DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 James S. Alves, Esquire Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Gail Kamaras, Esquire 1115 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6327 Jaime Austrich, Esquire Post Office Box 1029 Lake City, Florida 32056-1029 F. Perry Odom, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
