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 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
Findings Of Fact On September 22, 1986, Saint Lucie Incineration (Applicant), filed an application with the Department of Environmental Regulation (Department) for a permit to construct an air curtain incinerator, an air pollution source, in Saint Lucie County, Florida. The permit would have allowed the Applicant to construct, after-the-fact, the subject incinerator within an existing landfill owned and operated by Saint Lucie County. On November 5, 1986, the Department gave notice of its intent to issue the requested permit, and Petitioner, Ryan Sales and Services, Inc. (Ryan), filed a timely request for formal administrative review. The Air Curtain Incinerator The principles underlying the design and function of air curtain incinerators are neither new nor complex; however, their permitted use in the State of Florida is a recent development. The basic components of this type incinerator are a "pit" in which the materials are confined, a blower to deliver air under the materials to increase combustion efficiency, and a plenum from which a high-speed layer of air (an air curtain) is directed at a fixed downward angle across the pit. The air curtain serves as an air pollution control device by substantially limiting the emissions that can escape from the pit and by increasing combustion efficiency. 1/ The integrity of these components is critical if the unit is to function in compliance with the Department's standards. In this case, the Applicant has applied for a permit to construct a 40' air curtain incinerator manufactured by Intervenor, Rabun and Company, Inc. (Rabun). The construction of this unit was completed, with the exception of the installation of its electric supply and a steel trough to be used as a slide plate for materials entering the "pit", before the subject application was submitted to the Department. Consequently, while no tests have been run on the unit, its physical presence permits an objective evaluation of its capabilities. Structural Integrity Of The Rabun Unit Pit The Rabun "pit is erected above ground, and rests on a concrete foundation. Its sides are manufactured of steel refractory panels, 4' wide and 6' high, which are bolted to a steel framework. Its overall dimensions are 40' long, 8' wide at the rear, 8'3 wide at the front, and l2' high from the base of the foundation. The steel framework, including the columns and beams, should provide structural stiffness to the air curtain incinerator's "pit". A lack of structural stiffness will result in movement of the walls during operation, and a resulting loss of an effective air curtain. The steel frame at the front of the Rabun pit, where the doors are located, is not designed or constructed in accordance with good engineering practices. The horizontal beam at the top of the unit, which connects to the vertical beams on both sides of the doors, is secured to each vertical beam by only two bolts. When debris strikes the sides of the "pit", these bolts will have to absorb 2.8 times the load of the bolts holding the vertical beams to the foundation. This unequal load will translate into a twisting of the vertical beams, and a loss of air curtain integrity. The doors at the front of the Rabun pit, which are opened to remove debris from the unit, also do not conform with good engineering practices. The locking assembly of the unit is subject to failure from the impact of materials which may reasonably be expected to be loaded into the unit. The consequences of such failure during operation of the unit would be the emission of pollutants. The design spacifications for the Rabun unit call for the refractory panels to be 5" thick. According to Rabun, such design would sustain operating temperatures up to 3,000 degrees, and a flash temperature of up to 4,000 degrees. The normal operating temperature is expected to be approximately 2,400 degrees. The refractory panels installed on the subject Rabun unit were poured on-site by Rabun, and evidence that little quality control was exercised. The panels are severely pitted and contain imbedded paper debris which, once combusted, will reveal further pitting of the interior surface walls of the "pit". The visible pitting is, in places, as deep as 2". The Applicant offered no proof that the refractory panels, as constructed, could reasonably be expected to maintain their structural integrity under normal operating temperatures or conditions. A failure of any panel during the operation of the unit would result in the emission of pollutants. Structural Integrity And Design Of Rabun Unit Plenum The plenum of the Rabun unit is installed on too of one of the sidewalls, and consists of a 34" diameter cylinder, with a 1" opening (nozzel) down its full 40' length. The plenum rests on five braces, which are welded to the outside frame, and is secured to three of these braces by jacks. Between the plenum nozzel and the sidewall is a gap which Rabun has filled with KAO- wool, a heat resistant insulation material. The structural support design of the plenum on the Rabun unit does not comport with good engineering practices. The braces on which the plenum rests lack important diagonal bracing and the welding is poor. The three jacks which secure the plenum, are inadequate to restrain its movement once an air mass begins flowing from the plenum's nozzel. The poor design of the structural support for the plenum, as well as the failure to adequately secure it, will result in the plenum being dislodged from the unit completely, or at the very least cause a change in the orientation of the nozzel and a disruption of the air current. In either event, pollutants would be freely emitted from the "pit". Further, such movement would also cause the KAO- wool to become dislodged, and emissions would escape through that gap. 2/ In addition to failing to establish that the plenum could maintain a fixed angle on the air curtain, the applicant also failed to demonstrate that the plenum could maintain an equal distribution of air at approximately 120mph throughout its length. The proof established that, as proposed, the velocity distribution of air flow coming out of the plenum nozzel would be approximately 160mph in the center of the unit, and decrease along its length to approximately 10mph at either end of the plenum nozzel. Consequently, due to the Rabun unit's inability to maintain an even air flow at approximately 120mph across the entire length of the 40' pit, the unit's air curtain will be ineffective, and pollutants can be reasonably expected to escape the unit while it is in operation. Design Of The Underfire Ventilation System The under fire system for the air curtain incinerator injects oxygen to super heat the materials and, thereby, increase combustion efficiency. One fan is provided by Rabun to power the underfire blower, and its intake is not screened or protected. The ingestion of foreign materials could interrupt the fan's operation, and the lack of air flow would decrease the efficiency of the burner. The proof failed to establish, however, that such inefficiency would adversely affect air quality. The proof does, however, demonstrate that the injection of cold underfire air into the "pit", which would occur if the blower failed and were subsequently restarted, could precipitate an expulsion of debris and smoke from the unit or a thermal explosion. Neither the Applicant nor Rabun's "operating instructions" addressed this operational problem. Design Of The Air Flow Duct Work To The Plenum The design of the Rabun unit's fan and duct work does not conform with good engineering practices. The intake for the fan, which generates the air flow to the plenum, is located close to the wall of the pit. So sited, the fan will be drawing hot air for the plenum, which will decrease the air flow reaching the plenum. The duct work which connects the fan with the plenum is made of vinyl fabric, and no proof was offered regarding its heat resistant characteristics. This duct work is located immediately behind the KAO-wool filled gap between the plenum's nozzel and the top of the pit wall. When the plenum moves, and this KAO-wool is dislodged, ash, flame and other debris may reasonable be expected to contact the vinyl duct work. If its integrity is destroyed, there would be no air curtain to retain the pollutants in the "pit". Location Of The Unit The subject air curtain incinerator is located a distance greater than 1,000' from an active portion of the landfill, as required by DER rules. A Synopsis The Applicant failed to provide reasonable assurances that the Rabun air curtain incinerator would not cause pollution in violation of the Department's rules. No Rabun unit has ever been tested or its efficiency demonstrated. The professional who certified the subject application did little more than assure that the fan used to drive air to the plenum was sufficient to deliver an adequate volume of air. Beyond that, he assumed the structural integrity of the unit and that its design comported with good engineering practices. The engineer's assumptions in this case were sorely misplaced.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the permit application of Saint Lucie Incinerator be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of April, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of April, 1987.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of its attorneys' fees and costs under section 120.595(3), Florida Statutes, from its successful prosecution of a rule challenge in DOAH Case No. 12-1944RX.
Findings Of Fact In DOAH Case No. 12-1944RX, Petitioner challenged Florida Administrative Code Rules 69O-170.017 and 69O-170.0155 and incorporated forms OIR-B1-1699 (Form 1699) and OIR-B1-1655 (Form 1655). These rules generally relate to fixtures and construction techniques that mitigate wind loss and earn homeowners a discount on the wind portion of their homeowners' insurance premium. The most important of these rules, Form 1699 consists of two matrices: one matrix provides discounts for mitigative fixtures and construction techniques applied to existing residential construction (i.e., predating the 2001 Florida Building Code), and the other matrix provides discounts for mitigative fixtures and construction techniques applied to new residential construction (i.e., subject to the 2001 Florida Building Code or any of its successors). The Final Order invalidates the matrix applicable to existing residential construction, but not the matrix applicable to new residential construction. The Final Order concludes that the omission from Form 1699 of discounts for increased wind resistivity for doors modifies and contravenes the law implemented and is arbitrary. The Final Order finds other omissions from Form 1699--i.e., discounts for increased wind resistivities for windows and increased impact resistivities for doors--but these findings served the purpose of partly justifying the invalidation of the entire form for the omission of a single set of discounts substantially affecting Petitioner--i.e., the discounts for increased wind resistivities for doors. (Findings as to the interdependency of all of the discounts provided the remaining justification for invalidating the entire form for the omission of a single set of discounts.) Form 1655 advises homeowners of the availability of discounts applicable to the wind portion of their homeowners' insurance premiums for various mitigative fixtures and construction techniques. The Final Order invalidates Form 1655 in its entirety. The main reason is that Form 1655 fails to notify homeowners about the availability of discounts for fixtures and construction techniques that increase the wind resistivity of windows and doors. An additional reason is that Form 1655 mentions shutters as the sole fixture to increase the impact resistivity of windows and doors, misleadingly implying that shutters are the sole fixture or construction technique for increasing the impact resistivity of windows and doors. Rule 69O-170.017 incorporates by reference Form 1699. The Final Order denied Petitioner's request to invalidate rule 69O-170.017 because the rule incorporates the still-valid, existing-construction matrix in Form 1699. Rule 69O-170.0155 incorporates by reference several forms. The Final Order invalidates only rule 69O-170.0155(k), which is the subsection that incorporates Form 1655. Petitioner commenced its rule challenge to obtain a wind-premium discount for homeowners who purchased and installed its bracing system on their existing, nonglazed garage doors in order to increase their wind resistivity. The thrust of Petitioner's challenge was thus to the omission from Form 1699 of any discounts for fixtures and construction techniques that increase the wind resistivity of doors. Obviously, the shortcomings of Form 1655--and its adopting rule, rule 69O-170.0155(k)--were almost entirely derived from this omission from Form 1699. Respondents' liability for attorneys' fees and costs thus requires consideration only of its adoption of Form 1699 without any discounts for fixtures and construction techniques that increase the wind resistivity of doors. As noted in the Final Order, the establishment of discounts for all mitigative fixtures and construction techniques is a complicated process. The actuarial expertise necessary to complete this task resides in Respondent Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR), but is itself dependent on engineering expertise that is not found within either respondent, or at least was not in 2006 when Form 1699 was adopted. The engineering work underlying Form 1699 featured computer modeling, among other things, to project the salient features of storms that may be expected to strike various parts of Florida over thousands of years; as for impact resistivity, to project the trajectories and momentum of missiles that will be launched by these storms; to place in the path of these storms and missiles various forms of residential construction with relevant combinations of mitigative fixtures and construction techniques covering several factors, including the protection of windows and doors from impacts and the protection of windows and doors from wind (without regard to impacts); to project the damage states that will result from these modeled storms upon individual hypothesized residential buildings; and to project the economic losses--with particular emphasis on insured losses--that will result from these damages. The relevant timeframe for this case begins with Hurricane Andrew in 1992. As the Final Order describes, the Florida legislature and other federal and state agencies and organizations reacted swiftly and comprehensively to this storm and the catastrophic damage and loss that it caused. FEMA quickly published its analysis of, among other things, the relationship between construction and storm damage. In 2001, the legislature adopted the Florida Building Code (FBC), which required, among other things, new construction to meet wind loads specified in the code, based on projected wind speeds in different regions of Florida. Almost at the same time that the 2001 FBC went into effect, in March 2002, Applied Research Associates, Inc., published the Development of Loss Relativities for Wind Resistive Features of Residential Structures (2002 ARA Report). Procured by the Florida Department of Community Affairs, which, at the time, had considerable responsibilities in the adoption of the 2001 FBC, the 2002 ARA Report was a groundbreaking achievement in modeling the effects, in terms of reduced damage and loss, from various forms of mitigative fixtures and construction techniques, alone and in almost countless combinations. For present purposes, the focal point of the 2002 ARA Report were tables of loss relativities, which provided factors by which to calculate how different combinations of mitigative fixtures and construction techniques reduced wind losses. Taking these data, OIR's actuaries issued in January 2003 an informational memorandum and a precursor to Form 1699, which suggested premium discounts to be used by homeowners' insurers when filing insurance rates. (Then and now, insurers are permitted to use other data sources in setting their rates, but all but two of them use the suggested discounts in Form 1699.) In August 2004, Hurricane Charley struck Florida. A design wind event, like Hurricane Andrew, the timing of Charley, after the adoption of the 2001 FBC, proved the effectiveness of the 2001 FBC in requiring fixtures and construction techniques that demonstrably mitigated wind damage and loss. In 2006, respondents issued Form 1699 in its present form, eliminating a dampening factor that they had included in the precursor form three years earlier. (To allow insurers to adapt to the new rate-setting environment, respondents had halved the discounts in the precursor form.) The 2002 ARA Report claims to adhere to the statutory mandate contained in section 627.0629(1), to determine discounts for fixtures or construction techniques that "enhance roof strength, roof covering performance, roof-to-wall strength, wall-to-floor-to-foundation strength, opening protection, and window, door, and skylight strength." For reasons explained in the Final Order, "opening protection" is limited to the impact resistivity of windows and doors, and the "strength" of windows and doors (skylights being treated as windows) is limited to their wind resistivity. Unfortunately, the 2002 ARA Report collapsed opening protection and the strength of windows and doors into one category--opening protection--so ARA never developed loss relativities for fixtures and construction techniques that increased the wind resistivities of doors or, for that matter, windows. As noted above, respondents were entirely dependent on the work of ARA due to its specialized knowledge of the FBC and, more generally, its expertise in engineering and computer modeling. ARA, not respondents, possessed this highly specialized knowledge, which was necessary to generate the loss relativities, on which respondents, in turn, could rely to generate the legislatively mandated premium discounts. The omission of loss relativities for the strength of windows and doors--as a standalone category or within the category of opening protection--is not apparent in the richly detailed 2002 ARA Report. The above-described facts--coupled with the time- pressured nature of the task assigned to respondents--provide the reasonable basis in fact for the adoption of the portion of Form 1699 that has been invalidated. The factual justification for the adoption of the portion of Form 1699 that has been invalidated is greater than any legal justification that respondents may claim. The statute truly is a model of clarity--and succinctness. Reduced to its plainest terms, the statute calls for discounts for six categories of mitigative fixtures and construction techniques, and ARA and respondents addressed only five. However, some legal justification exists for the adoption of the portion of Form 1699 that has been invalidated. First, the legal mandate of section 627.0629(1) does not exist in a vacuum; it operates in the complex facts of engineers, computer programmers, and actuaries whose work is necessary to lend meaning to the statutory mandate. To this extent, respondents find some legal justification for the same reason that they find ample factual justification for the adoption of the portion of Form 1699 that has been invalidated. Second, the legislature itself missed a clear, early opportunity to remind respondents of their failure--obvious, perhaps, only in hindsight--to address the omitted sixth factor enumerated in section 627.0629(1). The precursor of Form 1699 likewise omitted discounts for fixtures and construction techniques that increased the wind resistivities of doors and windows. When, in 2006, the legislature mandated the adoption of full discounts, without any dampening, it easily could have forcibly reminded respondents that they--and their contractor-- had missed one of the six statutory discounts. The subtlety of respondents' legal error seems to have eluded the legislature, as well. Third, even in hindsight, the legal underpinning of the invalidation of the existing-construction matrix of Form 1699 is sometimes elusive, given the temptation to join ARA and respondents in analyzing wind resistivities under the factor of opening protection. As disclosed at the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge spent a considerable amount of time, in preparing the Final Order, misanalyzing respondents' treatment of the wind resistivities of doors from the perspective of opening protection. Repeated, close readings of section 627.0629(1), in the context of the complex materials presented in the 2002 ARA Report, eventually revealed the now-clear legal principle that the omitted sixth statutory factor--the strength of windows and doors--applied to wind resistivity (and opening protection was restricted to impact resistivity). And Petitioner itself joined in exactly the same misanalysis, both in its pleading and proof at the hearing in the rule challenge. Seeming to yield once more to this misanalysis, even in the fee hearing, Petitioner cross-examined OIR's lone witness with an emphasis on respondents' flawed decision, as described in the Final Order, to omit a discount for doors under opening protection.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Gainesville Renewable Energy Center, LLC (GREC) is entitled to an Air Construction Permit from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for the construction of a net 100-megawatt (MW) biomass-fired electrical power plant in Gainesville, Florida, pursuant generally to state rules that relate to the federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401, et seq. (Clean Air Act), which is administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Specifically, the issues are whether the proposed project satisfies the requirements of Florida's EPA-authorized air program of Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), as set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-212.400, and Florida's EPA-delegated air program of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), as set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-204.800(10) and (11).
Findings Of Fact Introduction On November 30, 2009, GREC filed with DEP an Application for the construction and operation of a net 100 MW (gross 116 MW), biomass-fired electrical power plant at GRU's Deerhaven power plant complex. GREC seeks to place the biomass plant in service on or before December 31, 2013, which is the deadline for eligibility for a federal renewable-energy grant under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. GREC is a subsidiary of American Renewables, LLC, which develops, builds, and operates renewable-energy power plants. American Renewables, LLC, is jointly owned by affiliates of three corporations that develop, operate, invest, and manage various types of energy projects. American Renewables, LLC, recently obtained permits for a similar biomass plant, also net 100 MW, in Nacogdoches, Texas. This plant, which is expected to begin commercial operation in late 2012, has a power purchasing agreement with Austin Energy, a municipal utility owned by the City of Austin. American Renewables, LLC, recently sold the Nacogdoches plant to a subsidiary of Southern Company. GRU is a municipal utility of the City of Gainesville. GRU owns and operates a power generation, transmission, and distribution system to serve its 93,000 retail customers and its wholesale customers, which include the City of Alachua and Clay Electrical Cooperative, Inc. In addition to owning a 1.4-percent share of the Progress Energy Florida Crystal River Unit Three, GRU owns three power supply facilities with a summer capacity of net 608 MW. Of these, the largest is Deerhaven, which generates net 440 MW. A former mayor of the City of Gainesville, Petitioner Bussing served on the utility committee of the City Commission and participated in utility planning for GRU. Petitioner Bussing lives less than 10 miles from the GREC site and regularly walks outdoors, works in his yard, and bicycles in the area. He enjoys canoeing on local waterways and observing wildlife, such as eagles, hawks, and owls. Identifying himself as a "locavore," Petitioner Bussing favors locally grown food. The other petitioners are similarly situated to Petitioner Bussing. Application The findings in this section are generally based on the Application, although some are also based on the Site Application. According to the Application, the GREC site consists of 131 acres within the Deerhaven site in northwest Gainesville and north central Alachua County--eight miles from downtown Gainesville to the southeast and seven miles from downtown Alachua to the northwest. The Site Application states that the Deerhaven site is within a 1146-acre parcel owned by the City of Gainesville. The Site Application notes that the Deerhaven site includes several units. Unit 1 generates 88 MW by a natural gas or oil-fired steam unit. Unit 2, which was certified in 1978, generates 235 MW (sometimes described as 250 MW) by a pulverized coal-fired unit. Unit 3 generates 76 MW by a natural gas or oil-fired, simple-cycle combustion turbine unit. Deerhaven also includes two 19-MW, simple-cycle combustion turbine units. The Application reports that the GREC site abuts the northwest boundary of the GRU's existing generating facilities at Deerhaven. The Site Application identifies the GRU facilities immediately east of the GREC site as an ash landfill, brine landfill, and large stormwater management pond. Abutting these facilities, immediately to their east, are ash settling ponds and a wastewater treatment sludge disposal cell. Abutting these facilities, immediately to their east, is a large coal pile. A spur of the CSX rail line, which is used for coal deliveries to Deerhaven Unit 2, terminates just south of the GREC site. Except for secondary access roads and unpaved trails, no Deerhaven facilities occupy the GREC site. Immediately west of the GREC site is a site used by the Alachua County Public Works Department for an office and other facilities. Also west of the GREC site is a radio tower and undeveloped land. The southernmost extent of the GREC site fronts on U.S. Route 441, which is lined by intermittent commercial and retail uses in this area. Across U.S. Route 441, over one-half mile from the GREC site, is the nearest residential subdivision, which is called Turkey Creek. The Site Application reports that, in the early 2000s, the City of Gainesville purchased an additional 2328 acres of timberland north and east of the Deerhaven site for buffer and potential expansion. The entire area, including the GREC site, was historically devoted to agriculture and pine silviculture, but the GREC site is now occupied by ditches, swales, altered forested communities, and the roads and trails previously mentioned. By groupings from west to east, the proposed improvements on the GREC site are a fuel-storage area, which consists of four separate wood piles; a parking area, offices, a warehouse, a control room, fire pumps, a water treatment facility, and water tanks; a 50-foot wide band of unoccupied land; a switchyard with a transmission line running to a new GRU switchyard at U.S. Route 441, a switchyard control room, steam turbine, fuel day bins connected to the storage area by a conveyor, a boiler, a 230-foot-high stack, a baghouse, and an aqueous ammonia storage area; and a 53-foot-high cooling tower. These components are concentrated on the north side of the site, farthest from U.S. Route 441, and toward the east side of the site, nearest GRU's Deerhaven operations. The boiler, steam turbine, emissions-control equipment, stack, and cooling tower are 3200 feet northwest of U.S. Route 441 and 2200 feet east of the public works facility. The GREC site will also include roads, an administration building, a warehouse, several stormwater detention ponds, water and wastewater treatment facilities, storage facilities for the fly ash and sand from the BFBB, and two emergency diesel engines. The main components of the GREC facility will be a bubbling fluidized bed boiler (BFBB), which will produce steam to power a conventional steam turbine generator for the production of electricity. Except during startup, when the boiler will consume natural gas until it reaches operating temperatures, the BFBB will burn a wide range of clean, woody biomass fuels in a dense, fluidized sand bed at the bottom of the furnace and also in the area above the bed. GREC will obtain the biomass fuel from forest residue (i.e., material remaining after traditional logging), mill residue (e.g., sawdust, bark, and sander dust), precommercial tree thinnings, used pallets, and urban wood waste (e.g., woody tree trimmings from landscape contractors and power-line clearance contractors). Supplementary fuel will be derived from herbaceous plant matter, clean agricultural residues (e.g., rice hulls and straw, but no animal waste), diseased trees, woody storm debris, whole tree chips, and pulpwood chips. However, GREC will not accept any biomass in the form of treated or coated wood, municipal solid waste, coal, petroleum, coke, tires, or construction and demolition waste, about which some doubt arose at the hearing, so GREC represented that it would not accept construction and demolition debris at the facility. The BFBB will combust one million tons per year (tpy) of biomass. To obtain the fuel, GREC will enter into contracts with suppliers within 75 miles of the site. GREC will incorporate in supplier contracts requirements of sustainability and incentives for good stewardship in silvicultural practices. At offsite locations, suppliers will sort, chip and grind, and screen the biomass to design size. After this primary processing, suppliers will deliver the processed biomass to the GREC facility in 130-150 trucks per day. On average, the facility will unload 12 trucks per hour, although it will be capable of unloading trucks at double this rate. Typically, the GREC facility will be open for biomass deliveries 15 hours per day, six days per week. On arriving at the GREC facility, the trucks will proceed to a drive-through structure, which contains three truck dumpers and three receiving hoppers. From the hoppers, the fuel will be conveyed to a fuel processing system, where a metal detector and magnetic separator will remove ferrous metals, a disc screen will remove oversized chips, and a hammer hog will reduce the oversized chips to the design size of three inches or less. This equipment will be located in an enclosed building with a dust-collection system. After this secondary processing onsite, the fuel is conveyed outside to the fuel storage area where it is stored in piles. One wood pile will have an automatic stacker/reclaimer that will be able to deposit, churn, mix, and remove nearly the entire pile. Another wood pile, conical in shape, has a fixed stacker, and the material will be moved by bulldozers and front- end loaders. This rolling stock will transfer some of the wood chips to a smaller, manual-reclaim pile that will also be contoured by bulldozers and front-end loaders. A fourth, much smaller pile will be maintained for the delivery of presized material, mainly sawdust. As originally sized, the wood piles are intended to store sufficient fuel for 15-20 days of operations. In the Site Application, the automatic stacker/reclaimer pile is specified to be 85 feet high, but, after consultation with the Gainesville Fire Department, as detailed below, GREC agreed to reduce the height of this pile to 60 feet. The fixed stacker pile is 60 feet high, and the manual-reclaim pile is 35 feet high. The automatic stacker/reclaimer pile is 400 feet by 400 feet, and the manual- reclaim pile is 400 feet by 465 feet. GREC will manage the separate wood piles to maintain the fuel's design moisture content, which is about 50 percent, but also to ensure that no portion of the stored wood remains in the pile for too long. In general, GREC intends to use fuel on the basis of first-fuel-in, first-fuel-out, to avoid problems of odor and spontaneous combustion, the latter of which is discussed in detail below. The high combustion temperatures reached by the BFBB and the implementation of the requirement for clean woody fuel will, the Application reports, limit the generation of pollutants. Within the 179-foot-high boiler, fluidizing air will expand the combustion zone in the boiler with high turbulence, intimate solids-to-gas contact and a high heat transfer rate in the bed. Staging or overfire air will assist combustion through openings in the furnace walls. Fluidized bed temperatures will range from 1350 to 1700 degrees. (All temperatures are in Fahrenheit.) Temperatures in the overfire air will be 200 degrees hotter to vaporize the volatile gases, such as carbon monoxide (CO) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). By staging the combustion in the fluidized bed, the formation of thermally induced nitrogen oxides (NOx) will also be reduced. To enhance the air-pollution controls represented by the effective combustion of clean biomass, the GREC facility will employ three additional measures. First, dry sorbent injection (DSI) will inject into the boiler material that, in addition to the calcium that naturally occurs in the ash, will reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), sulfuric acid mist (SAM), hydrogen chloride (HCl), and hydrogen fluoride (HF). Second, a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system will reduce NOx emissions. The SCR system will use a catalyst and a reactant (ammonia gas) to dissociate NOx into nitrogen gas and water vapor. Third, downstream of the boiler, a fabric filter baghouse will reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM) and particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10). (Discussed below, PM2.5 is particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter.) As described in the Site Application, the baghouse will comprise 12 filter compartments, each containing 250-350 bags that are six inches in diameter and 14- to 26-feet long. At the bottom of the baghouse will be a hopper to collect ash. As PM forms on the bags, it will form a filter cake that increases the filtration efficiency of the bags. But once the air pressure drops to specified limits, high-pressure air pulses will be directed, automatically, into each bag, loosening the caked fly ash and depositing it as ash in the hopper below. Fly ash from the boiler will be captured by the baghouse filter. Periodically, the fly ash will be collected dry and transported pneumatically to an onsite storage silo. From there--if needed, after stabilization with water--the ash will be transported--enclosed, if still in dry form--for use as a soil supplement or, if such use is unavailable, to an approved offsite landfill. When ash is transferred to trucks, the trucks are sealed, and the air in the trucks displaced by the ash is transferred back to the silo through a vacuum system. Coarser than fly ash, bottom ash will be landfilled, if relatively coarser grained, and transferred pneumatically to the silo, if relatively finer grained. Solid waste from the GREC facility will be transferred ultimately to the New River regional landfill in Raiford, which has a projected life of more than 50 years at current filling rates. The cooling tower will contain a drift eliminator. The purpose of this device is to capture PM/PM10 that has passed the baghouse. The GREC facility will also control PM/PM10 fugitive emissions by the use of pneumatic systems for the delivery of sand for the fluidized bed and sorbent for the DSI to their separate onsite storage silos. According to the Site Application, the City of Gainesville has identified numerous benefits from the GREC project. These include enhancing the integrity and reliability of the GRU generating system, reducing the average age of the GRU generating system, producing reasonably priced electricity, diversifying fuel sources, avoiding the price fluctuations of fossil fuels, hedging the risks of anticipated carbon-constraint legislation (if biomass is treated preferentially under such legislation), reducing construction and operation risks, reducing open burning of biomass products in forestry operations, reducing landfilling of woody biomass, and supporting the silviculture industry. In support of sound silvicultural practices and ecosystem biodiversity, GREC will require all biomass suppliers to adhere to sustainability principles by conforming to the best management practices (BMPs) of the Florida Division of Forestry and will refuse delivery of stumps (to avoid erosion in the source area) and biomass generated from the conversion of natural forests to plantation forests or from nonnative species, unless the nonnative-species biomass is generated from a forest restoration project. Additionally, GREC will pay premiums of $0.50 and $1.00 per ton to suppliers that comply with more ambitious forest stewardship practices. Among the socio-economic benefits of the GREC facility, the Site Application states that construction will generate $48 million of payroll, largely for local and regional labor, and $160 million in nonengineered construction equipment purchases. Facility operations will result in the employment of 44 fulltime employees, initially earning $4 million annually. NonGREC employment will include truck drivers and operators of wood-processing equipment. The Site Application explains that ambient air quality is a product of meteorology, atmospheric chemistry, and pollution emissions. Meteorology controls the distribution, dilution, and removal of pollutants. Atmospheric chemistry controls the transformation of primary pollutants into secondary pollutants. Primary pollutants are discharged directly from the source and, for GREC, will include NOx, SO2, CO, and PM, or, traditionally, soot, although, as a fugitive emission, PM is better considered as dust from the biomass fuel or ash residue. For GREC, the most important secondary pollutant is ozone, which forms from the combination of NOx and VOCs in sunlight. According to the Site Application, EPA has developed an air quality index that describes air quality in relative terms. Good is the highest rating and means that air pollution poses little or no risk. Moderate means that air pollution may be a moderate health concern to a very small number of persons. Unhealthy for sensitive groups means just that, and healthy groups are unlikely to be affected. Unhealthy means that air pollution may cause everyone to begin to experience health effects, and sensitive groups may experience more serious health effects. The two remaining classifications are very unhealthy and hazardous. For 2007, the EPA classified the air quality in Alachua County as 315 days of good, 44 days of moderate, and 6 days of unhealthy for sensitive groups. For 2008, the EPA classified the number of good days as only 258. In general, the EPA classifies the air quality of Alachua County as good with the main pollutant adversely affecting air quality as ozone. The Application analyzes air emissions in light of national ambient air quality standards (AAQS), Title I, Part A, § 109, Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7409; New Source Review (NSR) for PSD (NSR/PSD), Title I, Part C, Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7470-7492; New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for sources, by category, that contribute significantly to air pollution, Title I, Part A, § 111, Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7411--in particular, 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts A, DA, and IIII; and NESHAP, Title I, Part A, § 112, Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7412. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, PSD pollutants are subject to best available control technology (BACT), and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are subject to maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The Application reports that the EPA has established national AAQS for six pollutants: SO2, NO2, CO, lead, ozone, and PM, which comprises PM10 and PM2.5. Primary AAQS for these pollutants protect the public health, and secondary AAQS for these pollutants protect the public welfare, such as the environment and physical property. The Application discloses the national and Florida AAQS standards for the six pollutants and reports that the entire state of Florida is in attainment for all six pollutants. This results in the application of the NSR/PSD regulatory framework, rather than a more stringent NSR regulatory framework for areas that are determined to be nonattainment under national AAQS. The Application reports that the GREC facility will be a major facility, under NSR/PSD, because it has the potential to emit more than 250 tpy of a PSD pollutant. GREC must use BACT for all PSD pollutants that will exceed significant emission rates, which are expressed in tons per year by PSD pollutant, and show that its emissions will not violate any national AAQS or PSD increment. If emissions will adversely affect a "Class 1 area," such as a national park or wilderness area, more rigorous protection of the area and national AAQS and PSD increments would be imposed in terms of "air quality related values," but the GREC facility does not impact any of the four Class I areas in Florida. However, all NSR/PSD reviews include assessments of additional impacts on nearby land uses, as well as on soils, vegetation, and visibility. For PSD emissions that exceed their significant emissions rates, GREC must show that a PSD emission, in micrograms per cubic meter, is below what constitutes the PSD's significant impact level, which is, as a measure of ambient concentration, expressed as micrograms per cubic meter. For any PSD emission that exceeds its significant impact level, GREC would have to provide a more elaborate source-impact analysis. According to the Application, the GREC facility is expected to generate the following PSD emissions in the following amounts: NOX--418.1 tpy; SO2--243.9 tpy; CO--715.6 tpy; VOCs--78.1 tpy; PM (filterable)--130.4 tpy; PM10 (filterable and condensable)--281.2 tpy; SAM--5.9 tpy; lead--0.12 tpy; and mercury--0.0084 tpy. (Filterable PM is in a solid or liquid state in the exhaust stream and is subject to capture by a filter. Filterable and condensable PM is in a gaseous state in the exhaust stream and is converted to a solid or liquid state on condensation after passing through a filter.) All of these emissions exceed the significant emission rates except for lead, mercury, and SAM. (Mercury is not a PSD pollutant, but it has a PSD significant emission rate.) Over 95 percent of these emissions are from the BFBB; small amounts are from the diesel emergency generator and firewater pump. As noted below, DEP subsequently determined that GREC could net its SO2 and NOX emissions against offsetting decreases in emissions of these two pollutants by GRU, so that GREC would be required to demonstrate BACT only for CO, VOCs, and PM/PM10. The Application undertakes BACT analysis for PSD pollutants based on a top-down consideration of all available technology, technically feasible control technology in order from the most- to least-stringent, and the applicable control technology, which is both technologically and economically feasible. Because Petitioners' allegations concerning BACT relate only to SO2, NOX, and PM/PM10 emissions, it is unnecessary to consider GREC's BACT analysis for CO and VOCs. The Application also states that GREC will be a major source of HAPs because the GREC facility will emit more than 10 tpy of any individual HAP or more than 25 tpy of total HAPs. As noted below, DEP subsequently determined that GREC's initial projections of HAPs emissions were too high and that, as revised in the February RRAI, discussed below, the HAPs emissions were below both thresholds for a major source, as described below. Because GREC consequently was not required to demonstrate case- by-case MACT, it is unnecessary to consider GREC's MACT analysis. In Alachua County, HAPS are not attributable primarily to stationary fuel combustion. The Site Application states that 86 percent of these pollutants were emitted from mobile and area small sources, such as dry cleaners and gas stations. The Site Application reports that stationary fuel combustion generates about 91 percent of the SO2, about 28 percent of the NOX, about 14 percent of the PM2.5, about six percent of the PM10, and nearly none of the CO and VOCs. Applying 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart DA, which applies to electric utility steam generating units, the Application notes that the BFBB will meet all emissions limits for PM, NOx, SO2, and opacity or visible emissions. Also, the Application states that, to conform to Subpart DA, GREC will have to install with the BFBB an opacity monitoring system, a continuous bag leak detection system for the fabric filters, continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) for SO2, NOX, and oxygen or CO2, and conduct initial performance tests for SO2, NOX, opacity, and PM. The Application states that the GREC emissions are below the significant impact levels for PSD Class II areas for all PSD pollutants except PM10, for which the GREC emissions, on a 24-hour average, will be 20.4 micrograms per cubic meter, as compared to the significant impact level, on a 24-hour average, of 10 micrograms per cubic meter. Thus, the Application analyzes national AAQS and PSD increments only for PM10. Including all significant stack sources of PM10 within 60 kilometers of the GREC facility (fugitive emissions being deemed too local to require consideration) and both stack and fugitive emissions from the GREC facility, the Application concludes that GREC should not be required to perform preconstruction ambient air quality monitoring because Alachua County already performs adequate air quality monitoring for PM10, and the modeling for the 24-hour projections, as opposed to annual projections, shows that GREC's PM10 emissions in excess of the significant impact levels will be highly localized and entirely contained within the Deerhaven site. Additionally, for the 24-hour and annual projections, the Application notes that the maximum distance to significant impacts for PM10 emissions will be only 1.1 kilometers. Referring to the nearest ambient PM10 air quality monitoring site, which is 7 kilometers south of GREC, the Application concludes that, based on modeling for cumulative PM10 impacts, the air quality impacts from all sources, including background, will be substantially below the 24-hour and annual PSD Class II increments and national AAQS, so the GREC facility will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the PM10 PSD increments or national AAQS. Finally, turning to additional impacts, the Application reports that the GREC emissions are too low to significantly affect soils, vegetation, or wildlife. In discussing PM10 emissions, the Application advises that Florida's 24-hour and annual averages for PM10 emissions, under state AAQS, are 150 and 50 micrograms per cubic meter. As noted above, the GREC facility's PM10 emissions will result in an increase of PM10 concentrations by 20.4 micrograms per cubic meter, on a 24-hour average; its PM10 emissions will result in an increase of PM10 concentrations by 5.3 micrograms per cubic meter, on an annual average. Both of these increases are obviously below the state AAQS. (The national AAQS for PM10 is the same for a 24-hour average and omits an annual average.) Responses to Requests for Additional Information Attachment A to the February RRAI is a set of BMPs for biomass material handling and storage. Attachment A requires GREC to consult with the Gainesville Fire Department and develop a Fire Management Plan. Key components of the Fire Management Plan will be frequent rotation of the biomass and the prevention of biomass compaction. Attachment A provides for the covering or partial enclosing of drop points and conveyor systems for biomass. The in-ground receiving hoppers will be covered by a divided enclosure with roll-up entry doors, curtained exit doors, and stilling curtains in the upper roof. The fuel processing building, which houses the hammer hog and screens, will have local ventilation ducted to a fabric filter dust collector. Drop points to the wood piles will be minimized by telescoping discharge spouts. Boiler fill bins will have vent filters. To ensure that the dust control measures are effective, daily inspections of the equipment will take place. Also, regular maintenance of the equipment will be performed. All major roads at the GREC facility will be paved to suppress fugitive emissions. Trained GREC personnel will promptly remove excessive mud, dirt, or similar debris from paved roads. Attachment A provides that GREC will maintain the wood piles to avoid excessive wind erosion. GREC will develop a dust management plan for the storage areas. GREC will minimize the use of rolling stock on the wood piles during windy conditions. In a request for additional information, DEP commented that the projections of HAPs emissions seemed high because other biomass projects half the size of GREC had projected HAPs emissions one-quarter of those projected by GREC. Noting that 95 percent of the HAPs emissions from the GREC facility would be in the form of HF and HCl, GREC responded that the BFBB manufacturer, Metso Corporation, had recalculated the projected emissions from its boiler based on a redetermination of the fluorine and chloride content of the biomass fuel, BBFB chemical reactions, increased sorbent in the DSI, and optimization and sizing of the baghouse. Based on these recalculations, the February RRAI reports that the GREC facility will emit no more than 25 tpy of HAPs or 10 tpy of any single HAP. The February RRAI states that, based on these recalculations, the GREC will emit 170.7 tpy of SO2 (down from 243.9 tpy) and the following HAPS: HF--9.7 tpy (down from 71.4 tpy; and HCl--9.7 tpy (down from 35.7 tpy). Lead and mercury projected emissions will be the same, but total HAPs emissions will be 24.6 tpy. Also, the February RRAI projects emissions of PM2.5 to be 278.3 tpy. Due to these recalculations of HAPs, the February RRAI states that it is unnecessary for GREC to provide case-by-case MACT. Attachment D to the February RRAI is the Biomass Quality Assurance and Quality Control Plan (Biomass QAQC Plan). Restating the biomass specifications, the Biomass QAQC Plan requires GREC to contract with suppliers for woody biomass material that conforms to the material described in the Air Construction Permit. The Biomass QAQC Plan notes that the power purchase agreement between GRU and GREC requires GREC to hire two professional foresters to manage the biomass procurement. The Biomass QAQC Plan states that GREC is required to inspect each shipment of biomass, upon receipt, and reject all shipments that fail to conform to the specifications contained in the plan. The February RRAI explains why GREC is not required to perform AQRV analysis for impacts to Class I areas. The February RRAI notes that GREC has relocated several improvements by relatively short distances, but these relocations do not affect the PM modeling. The May RRAI mostly addresses PM. The May RRAI accedes to a DEP request to model fugitive emissions after the relocation of various improvements, as mentioned in the February RRAI. GREC supplied this analysis, which suggests that the GREC facility will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the PM10 PSD Class II increments or national AAQS. Attachment B to the May RRAI describes the dispersion modeling that was undertaken after the relocation of the various site improvements. In response to an EPA comment, the May RRAI adds various offsite sources of PM10, including two simple cycle combustion turbines, three emergency diesel engines, and fugitive PM10 from coal handling at Deerhaven and three simple cycle combustion turbines at another nearby GRU facility. Also, the May RRAI increases the PM10 emission rates for a nearby cement plant. As before, GREC conceded that the PM10 emissions will exceed the PSD Class II significant impact levels, but contended that preconstruction ambient air quality monitoring is unnecessary because adequate data already exist in Alachua County for this pollutant and the 24-hour PM10 impacts will be highly localized and confined with the industrialized areas abutting the GREC site. Additionally, the May RRAI reports the results of cumulative PM10 modeling. Again, the May RRAI states that the result of this cumulative modeling is that the air quality impacts from all relevant sources, including background, will be well below the 24-hour and annual PSD Class II increments and national AAQS, so the GREC facility will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the PM10 PSD increments or national AAQS. Responding to an EPA comment asking for justification for using PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5, Attachment C of the May RRAI, citing an EPA guidance memo issued March 23, 2010, explains why PM10 may be used as a surrogate for PM2.5 for the GREC facility. Using the GREC facility's PM2.5/PM10 emission ratios, Attachment C assures that the GREC facility will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of PM2.5 national AAQS. In generating the PM2.5/PM10 emission ratios, Attachment C states that GREC assumed that all of the PM emissions from the BFBB would be PM2.5 because the baghouse filter would capture the larger PM. For fugitive dust and material handling, GREC relied on an EPA published 0.10-0.15 PM2.5/PM10 emission ratio, which is applicable to fugitive dust from paved and unpaved roads, material handling and storage piles, industrial wind erosion, and material transfer operations. GREC selected the 0.15 factor, which assumes a greater presence of PM2.5 in these emissions. For the cooling tower, GREC assumed the same 0.15 PM2.5/PM10 emission ratio. Noting that drift eliminators are the only technology that control PM2.5 and PM10 emissions for wet cooling towers, Attachment C cites a 2002 article finding that a cooling tower's PM2.5 emissions are less than one percent of its PM10 emissions. For its calculations, GREC assumed conservatively that its tower's PM2.5 emissions would be 15 percent of its PM10 emissions. Attachment C restates that, primarily due to the low elevation for fugitive PM emissions, the maximum PM10 impacts would be at the GREC fenceline. However, again taking a worst- case scenario, GREC assumed that all of its PM10 emissions would be stack emissions and that the BFBB PM emissions would coincide with all other PM emissions from the GREC facility. Adjusting the background PM2.5 data to remove the data for 2007, due to the pollution caused by extensive wildfires, GREC determined that, despite all of its conservative assumptions, in some instances resulting in worst-case assumptions, the GREC facility's PM2.5 emissions, when combined with background levels, would be below the 24-hour PM2.5 national AAQS. For this reason, responding to another EPA comment, GREC rejected the need for more additional impacts analysis. DEP's Technical Evaluation On July 14, 2010, DEP issued its Technical Evaluation. The Technical Evaluation identifies four specific elements for the control of fugitive emissions: the use of the first- in/first-out method for biomass and the telescoping chute to minimize drop lengths onto wood pile, use of BMPs and design features to control fugitive emissions from conveyor system, use of enclosures for dust collectors and (where possible) telescoping chutes, and wetting of wood piles and roads, as needed. For the handling of fly ash, the Technical Evaluation notes that a baghouse or similar filter will control fugitive PM emissions from the fly ash silo, and BMPs will be used to minimize PM emissions while loading trucks. For the BFBB, the Technical Evaluation identifies several elements for the control of emissions. The BFBB design, especially its efficient combustion, will control the formation of PM, CO, and VOCs, as well as HAPs. The fabric filter baghouse will control PM2.5 and PM10 emissions. Because the biomass fuel with be low in sulfur, SO2 and SAM emissions will be controlled. These emissions will also be controlled by reaction with the alkaline fly ash and DSI. The SCR will control NOX and VOCs. Low-chloride biomass fuel will control HAPs. HAPs will also be controlled by reaction with alkaline fly ash, DSI, the fabric filter baghouse, and SCR. And drift eliminators will control PM emissions from the cooling tower. The Technical Evaluation finds that the GREC facility is a major stationary source, under NSR/PSD, because it has the potential to emit 100 tpy of any PSD pollutant and is in one of 28 categories of major PSD facilities. The Technical Evaluation explains that, for major modifications of existing major stationary sources, PSD applicability depends on whether significant emission rates will be met. For net emissions exceeding these rates, an applicant must provide BACT for each pollutant exceeding its significant emission rate. The Technical Evaluation notes that PM2.5 is a PSD pollutant, but its significant emission rate has not yet been set, at least in Florida, so PM2.5 is regulated by its precursors and surrogates, including SO2, NOX, and PM/PM10. For the NOX and SO2 emissions of, respectively, 418.1 and 170.7 tpy, the Technical Evaluation discloses that, on July 12, 2010, DEP issued a permit to GRU imposing enforceable reductions in its Deerhaven NOX and SO2 emissions of, respectively, 418 and 171 tpy. In fact, based on a 2007 permit issued to GRU, DEP and GRU expect future reductions at Deerhaven in NOX and SO2 emissions of, respectively, 7139 and 3262 tpy. The air pollution control system permitted in 2007 will, in the long term, result in reductions of SAM and mercury, in excess of the GREC facility's emissions of these two pollutants, but DEP did not consider these offsets because of the lack of CEMS and enforceability. The Technical Evaluation thus concludes that, on a net basis, the GREC facility will emit PM/PM10, CO, and VOCs in excess of their respective PSD significant emission rates. The unnetted emissions of SAM are slightly below its significant emission rate. Although not shown on the table, the emissions of mercury are more than one order of magnitude less than its significant emission rate. Thus, GREC is subject to PSD ambient air modeling and BACT for PM/PM10, CO, and VOCs. The Technical Evolution relies on GREC's revised projections of HAPs with HCl and HF each at 9.72 tpy and total HAPs at 24.7 tpy. The Technical Evaluation concludes that the GREC facility, without regard to the Deerhaven facility, fails to trigger case-by-case MACT review because it is just under the thresholds of 10 tpy for any single HAP and 25 tpy for all HAPs. The Technical Evaluation notes that the 2007 air pollution control system permitted to GRU would result in reductions of HCl and HF greater than GREC's emissions of these two HAPs, but these offsets may not be considered in calculating the HAPs increases from the GREC facility due to the lack of a netting procedure in NESHAP. Reporting that GREC requested that the Air Construction Permit limit NOX and SO2 emissions even though, after netting, such limits were no longer required, the Technical Evaluation compares the GREC facility's emissions caps of these two PSD pollutants with the emissions caps of these two pollutants by other facilities. The GREC facility's emissions caps are lower than most other facilities, including the Nacogdoches biomass plant and another biomass plant in Ft. Gaines, Georgia, which are similar in size to the GREC facility. The biomass for the GREC facility will contain two orders of magnitude less sulfur than the coal burned at Deerhaven. For SAM, DEP imposed a limit of 6.6 tpy because the GREC projection of 5.9 tpy was close to the significant emission rate for SAM of 7 tpy. For the PSD pollutants requiring BACT, the Technical Evaluation observes that GREC has adopted a strategy in the BFBB of emphasizing the control of NOX, even where this means reduced control of VOCs and CO. Noting that the addition of an oxygen catalyst could reduce VOCs and CO, the Technical Evaluation reports that GREC chose instead SCR, which is superior to another system that its affiliate used at the Nacogdoches facility. With the ensuing reductions of NOX, GREC was able to retune the BFBB to back off the NOX control in order to gain additional control of VOCs and CO, which are emitted at slightly lower rates than the rates at the Nacogdoches and Ft. Gaines facilities. Due to the ongoing need to fine tune the BFBB combustion processes and the SCR, the Technical Evaluation notes that GREC agreed to tiered limits of VOCs and CO emission rates. Also, the Technical Evaluation provides that CO compliance will be measured by a CEMS, and VOCs compliance will be measured by an annual test. For PM/PM10/PM2.5, the Technical Evaluation reports that burnout of the constituents of these pollutants is superior in a BFBB than a stoker furnace. Because more-complete combustion reduces the risk of fires in the pollution control equipment, the BFBB permits GREC to use a baghouse to produce lower PM/PM10 limits and to minimize direct emissions of PM2.5. The Technical Evaluation states that the most effective control technologies for PM are fabric filters and electrostatic precipitators, but the former provide better control of fine PM. The Technical Evaluation identifies as supplementary control strategies the minimization of PM2.5 and visible emission precursors by limiting SO2, NOX, ammonia, VOCs, and chlorides. The Technical Evaluation notes that GREC's BACT proposal for filterable PM/PM10 is the NSPS of 89 tpy based on a fabric filter baghouse. The Technical Evaluation adds that GREC estimated 250 tpy for total PM/PM10, including filterable and condensible PM/PM10. Given the BFBB, baghouse, DSI, and SCR, DEP did not expect the emissions of filterable and condensible PM/PM10 to be as high as projected by GREC and expected these emissions to be below those of the Nacogdoches and Ft. Gaines facilities, which projected PM/PM10 emissions at rates about 75 and 43 percent, respectively, of the rate of these emissions at the GREC facility, even though it would emit less NOX and SO2 and would be equipped with a superior catalytic control system. DEP elected the NSPS limit for PM/PM10, but warned that the GREC facility will eventually need to comply with a filterable PM NSPS limit that, when initially proposed by EPA, was about half the emissions rate proposed by GREC. The Technical Evaluation requires compliance by initial and annual stack testing using EPA Method 5 or 17 for filterable PM/PM10 emissions and EPA Method 202 for filterable and condensible PM/PM10 emissions. The Technical Evaluation adds that a visible emissions limit of 10 percent opacity over a six-minute average, except for one six-minute period of not more than 20 percent opacity, which is BACT, will be demonstrated by the continuous opacity measurement system. The Technical Evaluation states that GREC has incorporated BACT into its proposal concerning PM2.5. This finding is based on the BACT limits for PM/PM10, CO, and VOCs; low emissions of SO2 and NOX; enforceable reductions in PM2.5 precursors from Deerhaven; the visible emissions limit, which controls the fraction of PM2.5 that interferes with light transmission; and limits on ammonia and HCl. Controlling SO2, NOX, CO, VOCs, chlorides, and ammonia controls PM2.5 because these pollutants are PM2.5 precursors. For HCl, the Technical Evaluation acknowledges that DSI and the fabric filter will control emissions, for which DEP will require a CEMS. For HF, the Technical Evaluation notes that the fly ash interaction, DSI, and the fabric filter will control emissions, for which DEP will also require a CEMS. For the four metallic HAPs, phosphorus, chromium, manganese, and lead, and nine organic HAPs, which exclude dioxins or furans, DEP will require initial and annual stack tests. For PM, the Technical Evaluation reviews the BMPs for biomass fuel delivery, preparation, storage, and handling. As for the quality of the biomass accepted at the GREC facility, the Technical Evaluation notes that GREC will contractually obligate its suppliers to provide biomass that conforms to the biomass described in the Air Construction Permit. The Technical Evaluation states that GREC must inspect each shipment of biomass and reject nonconforming biomass. GREC must document each shipment and document rejected shipments, including the ultimate disposition of such shipments. Discussing the three PSD pollutants--VOCs, CO, and PM/PM10--that the GREC facility will emit in excess of PSD significant emission rates, the Technical Evaluation approves of GREC's use of PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5, especially due to the enforceable reductions at Deerhaven of SO2 and NOX. The Technical Evaluation reports that, between 2007 and 2009, Florida's power plants reduced their SO2 and NOX emissions by 38 percent and 54 percent, respectively. Agreeing with GREC that the only pollutant emissions to exceed their significant impact levels will be PM/PM10 for Class II areas, but not Class I areas, the Technical Evaluation also agrees with GREC that no purpose would be served by requiring preconstruction air monitoring for PM because of the low emissions of these pollutants by the GREC facility and the existence of adequate monitoring for PM in Alachua and Putnam counties, which disclose attainment with national AAQS for PM10 and PM2.5. In its multisource PSD Class II increment analysis, the Technical Evaluation explains that the PSD increment is the amount by which new sources may increase ambient ground level concentrations from a baseline concentration. For PM10, the Technical Evaluation agrees with GREC's modeling that the 24- hour and annual averages would not come close to the maximum allowable increment. Likewise, the Technical Evaluation agrees with GREC that its PM10 impacts would not come close to national or state AAQS for this pollutant. Lastly, the Technical Evaluation agrees with GREC in terms of additional impacts. The Technical Evaluation states that the GREC facility will not have an adverse impact on soils, wildlife, or vegetation. The Technical Evaluation reports that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not require an AQRV analysis due to the facility's low emissions. Based on its analysis, the Technical Evaluation found that the Application, as amended and conditioned by the Air Construction Permit, meets all federal and state air pollution control requirements. Air Construction Permit Draft Air Construction Permit Section 1 highlights the GREC facility's pollution control technology: the efficient combustion of clean woody biomass in the BFBB to minimize formation of PM/PM10/PM2.5 (which is referred to as PM in the draft Air Construction Permit), NOX, CO, and VOCs; limitation of biomass to clean woody biomass to minimize the formation of SO2 and HAPs, including HF and HCl; injection of ammonia into the SCR to SCR to destroy NOX; use of DSI and alkaline fly ash to control SO2, HF, and HCl; installation of fabric filter baghouse to control PM and remove injected sorbents; implementation of BMPs to minimize fugitive PM emissions from biomass handling, storage and processing, ash handling, storage and shipment and alkaline sorbent handling, storage, and processing; and appropriate design of draft cooling tower to minimize drift (PM). For emissions monitoring, draft Air Construction Permit Section 1 identifies the following: CEMS for CO, SO2, NOX, HCl, and HF and a continuous opacity measuring system for visual emissions. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 1 notes that GRU's Deerhaven facility is a major source of HAPs, but the GREC facility itself is not a major source of HAPs. The draft Air Construction Permit states that the GREC facility is a major stationary source under the NSR/PSD program and is subject to NSPS and NESHAP, under the Clean Air Act. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 2, Specific Condition 11 provides: No person shall cause . . . or allow the emissions of unconfined particulate matter from any activity, including vehicular movement; transportation of materials; construction, alteration, demolition, or wrecking; or industrial related activities such as loading, unloading, storing, or handling; without taking reasonable precautions to prevent such emissions. . . . Appendix BMP . . . provides a Best Management Plan of reasonable precautions specific to the GREC facility to control fugitive PM emissions. General reasonable precautions include the following: a. Paving and maintenance of roads, parking areas and yards; b. Application of water or chemicals to control emissions from such activities as demolition of buildings, grading roads, construction, and land clearing; c. Application of asphalt, water, oil, chemicals or other dust suppressants to unpaved roads, yards, open stock piles and similar activities; d. Removal of particulate matter from roads and other paved areas under the control of the owner or operator of the facility to prevent re- entrainment, and from buildings or work areas to prevent particulates from becoming airborne; e. Landscaping or planting of vegetation; f. Use of hoods, fans, filters, and similar equipment to contain, capture and/or vent particulate matter; g. Confining abrasive blasting where possible; and h. Enclosure or covering of conveyor systems. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.A applies to the emissions unit of biomass delivery, preparation, storage, and handling. Section 3.A describes the unit as consisting of three truck dumpers, two sets of screens and hogs, and automatic and manual stackers to maintain, on average, a 15-20 day supply of biomass based on full load operation and average biomass fuel moisture content. Noting that suppliers will initially chip, ground, and otherwise process the biomass at offsite locations before trucking it to the GREC facility, Section 3.A reports that 130-150 fuel truck deliveries are expected daily, six days per week. During peak periods, the GREC facility is expected to handle 24 truckloads of biomass per hour. By design, the maximum processing rate is 600 tons per hour with a maximum yearly rate of 1.395 million tons. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.A describes the four wood piles. The automatic stacker/reclaimer pile will be 85 feet high--the draft Air Construction Permit does not incorporate the 60-foot height restriction added at the hearing--with a storage capacity of 125,000 cubic yards of fuel. The stock pile will be shaped like a cone, 60-feet high, and capable of storing 8500 cubic yards of fuel. This pile will be fed with a fixed stacker, including a telescoping chute to minimize drop distances. The second storage pile will be 35 feet high with a storage capacity of 79,000 cubic yards of fuel. Rolling stock will transfer fuel from the stock pile to the second storage pile. A fourth, small pile will be for sawdust, which will be delivered, moist, by trucks to an open area adjacent to the second storage pile. Front-end loaders will reclaim the sawdust. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.A.1 authorizes the construction of biomass delivery, unloading, and processing equipment consisting of truck scales, a fully enclosed building containing surge bins, size disc screens and hogging equipment, three drive-through truck dumpers with receiving hoppers, six conveyors to transport the biomass from the truck dumpers to the fuel handling and storage system, a metal detector and self- cleaning magnetic separator on the conveyor entering the screen/hog building, two surge bins and two reclaimers within the screen/hog building to accept the biomass from the conveyors from the truck dumpers, two sizing discs in the screen/hog building to screen any oversized biomass and send it to the hogs for reduction to design size, and two hogs in the screen/hog building to reduce the size of any oversized biomass. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.A.2 authorizes the construction of biomass fuel handling and storage system equipment consisting of a stacker/reclaimer system for the first storage pile, a telescoping chute for the stock pile, two conveyors to transport the fuel to the stacker/reclaimer pile, a telescoping chute for the stock pile, five conveyors to transfer the fuel from the two storage piles to the BFBB bins, and scales and magnetic separators for some of the conveyors. The two BFBB bins will store sufficient biomass for 45 minutes of boiler operation and will be equipped with bin vent filters to control PM emissions. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.A.3 provides for the control of fugitive PM by the use of enclosed conveyors, where practical, and installation of dust collectors on conveyor drop transfer points, also where possible. One exception to the enclosure of the conveyors is a small section near the truck dumpers to allow visual inspection of biomass to ensure that the GREC facility has accepted conforming loads. Section 3.A.3.a requires the addition of a baghouse to the screen/hog building to control PM emissions, and the installation of a screw conveyor to transfer the PM captured in the baghouse to the conveyor taking the biomass to the biomass fuel handling and storage system. Section 3.A.3.b requires the installation of bin vent filters to control PM emissions from the boiler bins. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.A.4 requires a BMP plan to control fugitive emissions from this emissions unit. The BMP plan will include provisions to ensure that the biomass conforms to the qualitative standards imposed by the draft Air Construction Permit. A draft BMP plan is attached to the draft Air Construction Permit, but GREC must provide DEP with a final BMP plan at least 180 days prior to opening the facility. The draft BMP plan addresses fugitive emissions, pile management, and fire prevention. After reciting the clean woody biomass materials that are permitted, as noted above, the draft BMP plan prohibits wood that has been chemically treated or processed, yard trash, paper, treated wood such as CCA or creosote, painted wood, and wood from landfills. The draft BMP plan does not explicitly prohibit the acceptance of construction and demolition debris, although GREC offered at the hearing to add this prohibition. The draft BMP plan requires the covering or partial enclosure of conveyor systems and drop points for biomass. The hoppers into which biomass trucks deliver their loads must be covered for dust control. The hoppers will be in a divided enclosure with roll-up entry doors, slitted curtains at the exit doors, and stilling curtains in the upper roof area. Processing equipment will be in an enclosed building, identified above as the screen/hog building, which will be equipped with local ventilation and ducted to a fabric filter dust collector. Drop points to the wood piles will be designed to minimize the overall exposed drop height by using telescoping discharge spouts. Boiler fuel bins must be equipped with bin vent filters. GREC staff will conduct daily observations of the conveyor system and drop point integrity to ensure proper operation. All major roads at the GREC facility will be paved. GREC staff will promptly remove excessive mud, dirt, or similar debris from the paved roads. All paved roads and gravel areas will be wetted as needed to minimize fugitive dust emissions. GREC shall manage and maintain the biomass storage areas to avoid excessive wind erosion. Ninety days after the plant becomes operational, GREC shall submit to DEP a fugitive dust management plan for the biomass storage area. Front-end loaders and other equipment will minimize movement of the biomass on high wind event days. When necessary to minimize fugitive dust emissions, GREC will wet the biomass before moving it with front-end loaders and other equipment. GREC staff shall observe the biomass storage areas daily to determine if they need to implement elements of the fugitive dust management plan. GREC staff will work with the Gainesville Fire Department to develop a Fire Management Plan. GREC will avoid spontaneous combustion and odors by rotating the biomass in the wood piles. The stacker/reclaimer pile will be divided into zones to facilitate the removal of the oldest biomass first. The fuel yard manager will do the same with the manual pile. Compaction of the biomass will be minimized. To assure that the qualitative biomass specifications are met, GREC will require that suppliers perform most of the processing offsite. For each shipment of biomass, GREC must record the date, quantity, and description of the material received. GREC must inspect each shipment for nonconforming materials, and GREC must reject or segregate such material, if it is discovered. GREC must maintain records of rejected shipments and their disposition. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.A.6 specifies the qualitative standards for the biomass. GREC may receive only "in-forest residue and slash," which are defined as "tops, limbs, whole tree material and other residues from soft and hardwoods that result from traditional silvicultural harvests"; "mill residue," which is defined as "saw dust, bark, shavings and kerf waste from cutting/milling whole green trees; fines from planing kiln-dried lumber; wood waste material generated by primary wood products industries such as round-offs, end cuts, sticks, [and] pole ends; and reject lumber as well as residue material from the construction of wood trusses and pallets"; "pre-commercial tree trimmings and understory clearings," which are defined as "tops, limbs, whole tree material and other residues that result from the cutting or removal of certain, smaller trees from a stand . . .; and forest understory which includes smaller trees, bushes and saplings"; "storm, fire and disease debris," which are defined as "tops, limbs, whole tree material and other residues that are damaged due to storms, fires or infectious diseases"; "urban wood waste," which is defined as "tree parts and/or branches generated by landscaping contractors and power line/roadway clearance contractors that have been cut down for land development or right-of-way clearing purposes"; "recycled industrial wood," which is defined as "wood derived from used pallets packing crates; and dunnage disposed of by commercial or industrial users"; and "supplementary fuel material," which is defined as "herbaceous plant matter; clean agricultural residues (i.e. rice hulls, straw, etc.: no animal wastes or manure); and whole tree chips and pulpwood chips." Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.A.8-13 describes visible emissions limits and opacity testing that GREC must perform. The description conforms to the limits described above. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.B applies to the BFBB. Section 3.B provides that the maximum heat input capacity is 1358 mmBTU per hour on a four-hour average basis. The BFBB's steam production capability will be 650,000 to 930,000 pounds per hour. Section 3.B repeats the description of the pollution-control technology contained in the introduction of the draft Air Construction Permit, adding only that the fabric filter baghouse will have a design efficiency of 99.99 percent to control PM and visible emissions. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.B describes the stack as 12 feet in diameter and at least 230 feet tall. It will release flue gas with a temperature of about 310 degrees at a volumetric flow rate of 520,600 actual cubic feet per minute. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.B requires CEMS for CO, NOX, SO2, HCl, and HF, as well as continuous opacity monitoring systems for visible emissions. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.B.1 describes the BFBB. Section 3.B.2.a requires the addition of a fabric filter baghouse to control PM and visible emissions. Section 3.B.2.b requires the addition of an ammonia-based SCR to reduce NOX emissions. Section 3.B.2.c requires the addition of DSI to control the emissions of SO2 and HAPs, particularly HCl and HF, although there seems to be no mention of the trona sorbent that GREC selected, after submitting the original application, to achieve greater pollution control. The 24-hour average from CEMS of SO2, HCl, and HF will be monitored daily by trained staff to determine if adjustments are required to DSI to assure that emissions of these pollutants do not exceed the limits stated in the draft Air Construction Permit. GREC must report these emissions data quarterly to DEP. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.B.9 states the emissions limits for the BFBB and the applicable tests. Selected limits are: NOX--416.4 tpy--12-month CEMS; SO2--170.7 tpy--12-month CEMS; SAM--1.4 lb/hr--initial and annual stack test; CO--0.12/0.18 lb/mmBTU--30-day CEMS; HCl--9.72 tpy-- 12-month CEMS; HF--9.72 tpy--12-month CEMS; HCl, HF, organic HAPs, and metallic HAPs--24.7 tpy--12 month CEMS plus initial and annual stack tests; visible emissions--10 percent opacity-- continuous opacity monitoring system and initial stack test; VOCs--0.01/0.009 lb/mmBTU--initial and annual stack test; and heat input rate--1,358 mmBTU/hr--four-hour average. "Lb/mmBTU" means pounds per million BTU heat input. The alternative values for CO and VOCs state the limit for the first 360 calendars after certification of the CEMS followed by the limit thereafter and allow GREC time to fine tune the BFBB and air pollution control technology. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.B.13 requires GREC to install, calibrate, maintain, and operate CEMS for SO2, NOX, CO, HCl, and HF, as well as a diluent monitor for either CO or oxygen, from the boiler stack to show compliance with Section 3.B.9. This section provides the standards for certification, operation, maintenance, and recordkeeping for each CEMS. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.B.18 provides that the initial and annual stack tests shall be conducted between 90 and 100 percent of maximum heat input rate. A note states that the initial test must be done at 90 to 100 percent of permitted capacity, but the draft Air Construction Permit will be modified to reflect true maximum capacity, as constructed, so, implicitly, the annual tests will be based on the adjusted maximum heat input rate. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.B.19 provides similarly for HAPs. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.B.20 identifies the EPA Method stack tests and calculations for various emissions. EPA Method 320 is for the measurement of Vapor Phase Organic and Inorganic Emissions by Extractive Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy. EPA Methods 5, 5B, and 17 are for the measurement of PM. EPA Methods 201 and 201A are for the measurement of PM10. All but one of the EPA Methods are specified in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A. Despite the statement in the Technical Evaluation that DEP would require GREC to use EPA Method 202 to measure filterable and condensible PM emissions, the draft Air Construction Permit omits this test, as well as any other test for filterable and condensible PM emissions. Draft Air Construction Permit Sections 3.B.22 and 23 require GREC to continuously measure and record pressure drops across each baghouse compartment controlling PM boiler emissions. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.B.25 specifies the information to be contained in the stack test reports submitted to DEP. Section 3.B.26 provides that GREC will submit to DEP monthly records of the hours of operation of the BFBB, tons of woody biomass burned, cubic feet of natural gas burned (for start-ups), pounds of steam, total heat input rate, hourly heat input rate to the BFBB, and the updated 12- month rolling results for each of these parameters. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.B.27 provides that GREC will submit to DEP quarterly records of CO, NOX, SO2, HCl, HF, and opacity emissions. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.C pertains to ash handling, storage, and shipment. Section 3.C states that about two-thirds of the ash created by the combustion of the biomass will leave the BFBB as fly ash and the remaining one- third will leave as bottom ash. Fly ash from the boiler connective pass and baghouse hoppers will be collected dry and transported pneumatically to a single fly ash storage silo by means of two vacuum blowers. The transferred fly ash will first pass through a receiver/collector that will separate the fly ash from the conveying air stream. After passing through an air lock valve, the fly ash will be deposited into the storage silo, which will be vented through a baghouse to control PM emissions. The fly ash will either be stabilized with water or loaded dry into a receiving truck. If stabilized with water, the ash will be transferred by chute into covered trucks, which will haul it offsite for reuse or disposal. If transferred dry, the ash will be transferred by an enclosed process by chute into sealed trucks. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.C states that bottom ash from the bed will consist primarily of noncombustible materials (e.g., rocks, glass, sand, and metal) from the biomass fuel. The coarse bottom ash will be removed from the BFBB through ash hoppers and chutes. The coarse material will be sieved in a rotating screen prior to conveyance to the bottom ash container. The contents of this container will be taken offsite for disposal at a properly licensed landfill. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.C.1 authorizes GREC to construct an emissions unit consisting of the above-described equipment for the handling, storage, and shipment of fly and bottom ash. Section 3.C.2 requires GREC to install and operate, where practical, enclosed conveyors for bottom and fly ash to minimize fugitive PM and, where practical, dust collectors on the bottom and fly ash transfer points, drop points, hoppers, and chutes. Section 3.C.2 requires GREC to design, install, and maintain a baghouse to remove PM from the fly ash storage silo exhaust. This baghouse will achieve a PM emission rate of 0.15 grains per dry standard cubic foot. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.C.4 provides that the maximum design transfer rate of the fly ash handling system will be 3.2 tons per hour with a maximum annual design transfer rate of 27,594 tpy. Section 3.C.5 provides that the maximum design transfer rate of the bottom ash handling system will be 1.5 tons per hour with a maximum annual design transfer rate of 13,140 tpy. The overall ash handling, storage, and shipment system will have a maximum annual design transfer rate of 40,734 tpy. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.C.7 imposes a 10 percent opacity limit from the bottom and fly ash conveyors, transfer points, drop points, hoppers, chutes, and dust collectors, except for a 20 percent rate for one six-minute period per unspecified period of time. Section 3.C.8 limits PM emissions from the baghouse of the fly ash silo to 0.15 grains per dry standard cubic foot. Draft Air Construction Permit Sections 3.C.11 and 12 pertain to initial and annual testing for visible emissions. Section 3.C.13 provide that these tests sill serve as a surrogate for PM emissions tests. If the visible emissions standard is unmet, a PM test using EPA Method 5 must be conducted on the baghouse stack to show compliance with the PM emissions standard specified in Section 3.C.8. Section 3.C.14 requires GREC to maintain continuous operation of bag leak detection systems on the fly ash storage silo baghouse. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.D describes the cooling tower as a four-cell, mechanical, draft-type tower with high efficiency fill and drift eliminators. Cooling tower evaporation loss at maximum load is estimated to be 1.34 million gallons per day. GREC will obtain makeup water from two onsite wells drilled to the Floridan aquifer. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.E describes an emergency diesel generator with a maximum design rating of 564 kW. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.F describes an emergency diesel firewater pump engine with a maximum design rating of 275 hp. In addition to the draft BMP plan, described above, the draft Air Construction Permit contains several other appendices. Appendix CEMS requires GREC to evaluate the acceptability of each CEMS by conducting a performance specification. Appendix CEMS Section 8 provides: for CO CEMS, GREC will use EPA Performance Specification 4 or 4A; for NOX and SO2 CEMS, GREC will use EPA Performance Specification 2; for HCl, GREC will use EPA Performance Specification 15, Method OTM 22, or alternative specification approved by DEP; and for HF, GREC will use EPA Performance Specification 15, Method OTM 22, or alternative specification approved by DEP. The EPA performance specifications are found at 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B. Appendix CEMS Section 9 requires GREC to implement EPA quality assurance procedures found at 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix F. These apply to each pollutant mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Appendix CTR covers common testing requirements. Appendix CTR Section 1 requires that emissions tests take place with the emissions unit, such as the BFBB, operating at permitted capacity, which is defined as 90 to 100 percent of the maximum operation rate allowed by the final Air Construction Permit. Appendix CC covers common conditions. Appendix CC Section 10 provides that GREC will comply with changes in Florida statutes and DEP rules after "a reasonable time for compliance." Other Findings Dioxin Petitioners claim that GREC has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed facility protects public health and the environment from emissions of dioxins, including furans and PCBs, and the draft Air Construction Permit fails to impose emissions limits for dioxins. Dioxins are not among the pollutants covered under national AAQS. Dioxins are classified as HAPs, but, unlike the situation with HCl and HF, Petitioners do not contend that DEP incorrectly concluded that dioxin emissions would be under 10 tpy. Instead, Petitioners claim that the projected emissions of dioxins by the GREC facility, although indisputably well under 10 tpy, are nonetheless high enough to endanger public health and the environment. Dioxins are compounds that result from the combustion of chlorine-containing materials, including wood. The family of "dioxins" includes furans and polychlorinated biphenyls (more commonly known as PCBs), which all are within the family of persistent organic pollutants. Common sources of dioxins include boilers, electrical power plants, municipal and medical waste incinerators, crematoriums, cement kilns, forest fires, household fireplaces, cigarette smoking, pulp production, and open burning. Dioxins have been associated with cancer and disorders of the immune, skin, digestive, and reproductive systems, where dioxins may act as endocrine disruptors. Work with rats suggests that a major effect of excessive dioxin exposure in utero is upon the reproductive system of the fetus. Dioxins are persistent. Their half lives in the environment range from 30 to 40 years. Because they are hydrophobic and accumulate in fatty tissue, dioxins enjoy half lives of 7-12 years in humans. Humans acquire dioxins by breathing, skin contact, consuming water, consuming food, breastfeeding, and transplacental movement while in utero. The last three means are the principal routes of human exposure. The virtually safe dose, or reference dose, for dioxins is low: one picogram per kilogram per day. One picogram is one-trillionth of one gram. An EPA work in progress may lower this reference dose to 0.7 picograms per kilogram per day. For the late 1990s, the EPA estimated that the average American acquired 6-10 picograms per kilogram per day, later reducing this estimate to 6-8 picograms per kilogram per day. The EPA estimate for children, including breast-fed infants, is five to seven times higher, around 40 picograms per kilogram per day. This is about 60 times higher than the virtually safe dose. However, the trends for dioxin levels are good. In its 2006 reassessment of dioxin, the EPA reported that dioxin levels in the environment had decreased by over 90 percent since the late 1980s. Over roughly the same period, the Centers for Disease Control reported that dioxin concentrations in human blood had decreased 80 percent, although decreases in dioxin concentrations in human fatty tissue over the same period of time are likely less. To some extent, dioxin emissions will be limited by the pollution control equipment, especially the redesigned fabric baghouse and SCR catalyst, which, according to the Technical Evaluation, will help destroy VOCs and is a documented strategy for dioxin control. Also, the temperature of the air leaving the stack will be about 310 degrees--90 degrees below the temperature at which dioxins form. GREC has provided reasonable assurance that the GREC facility will not emit dioxins in significant amounts. Thomas Davis is the principal engineer of GREC's consultant, ECT. Mr. Davis, who has considerable experience in air pollution control technology, analyzed the potential for dioxin emissions from the GREC boiler. Mr. Davis found five, operational fluidized bed boilers for which relevant data were available on the rate of dioxin emissions. He then applied the derived emissions rate to the GREC boiler. Mr. Davis determined that the GREC boiler will likely emit .11 grams per year of all dioxins and about .012 grams per year of 2,3,7,8 TCDD, the most potent dioxin. Expressed in another way, the .11 grams per year of total dioxins emitted by the GREC boiler is 110,000,000,000 picograms per year or 301,369,860 picograms per day. If the average person--young and old--weighs 50 kilograms, this emission rate translates to about 6 million picograms per kilogram per day. If the population of Alachua County were 250,000 persons, then the daily exposure, without regard to dispersion patterns, would be 24 picograms per day. For many reasons, 24 picograms of dioxins per kilogram per day of exposure represents only a starting point in the calculations necessary to grasp the limited extent of the dioxin exposure posed by the GREC boiler. An adjustment of one order of magnitude is suggested by the fact that Mr. Davis calculated the emissions rate of most toxic 2,3,7,8 TCDD at one- tenth the rate of the dioxins family. This means that the most toxic dioxin is produced at the rate of only 2.4 picograms per kilogram per day. A larger adjustment is required because the GREC biomass plant will displace substantial open burning that presently takes place in North Florida. The result will be a large net reduction in dioxin emissions. How much and over what area is hard to say, partly due to the replacement of dispersed burning with point-source combustion. The record supports an estimate that about half of the biomass to be combusted by GREC would have been open burned. Using this estimate, the open burning of this biomass would have produced dioxin emissions of 3-8 grams per year. GREC has effectively replaced these dioxin emissions with .11 gram per year. And, if the dispersed dioxin emissions displaced by the GREC facility were closer to agricultural areas, given the role of food consumption, not inhalation, as the primary means of consumption, another adjustment downward in effective dose would be necessary. Calculations by two witnesses support GREC's reasonable assurance of the insubstantiality of the impact posed by the GREC boiler in terms of dioxins. Mr. Davis calculated dioxin dispersal patterns for air and deposition and found that the average annual maximum concentration was .000000000149 micrograms per liter of air per and the average annual wet and dry deposition rate was .0000000000206 grams per square meter. These are reassuringly low numbers. Making more elaborate dioxin calculations, Dr. Christopher Teaf, an expert in environmental chemistry, toxicology, and human health risk assessment, performed a large number of calculations in the most conservative manner possible, such as by assuming that all dioxins were 2,3,7,8 TCDD and treating the emissions from the GREC boiler as new emissions (i.e., disregarding the fact that GREC's dioxin emissions displace far higher dioxin emissions from open burning). Dr. Teaf showed that air concentrations and wet and dry deposition rates were well below--usually, by one or more orders of magnitude--recently published EPA regional screening levels for air, water, and soil. Petitioners' contention for a limitation on dioxins emissions in the Air Construction Permit misses a couple of points. The GREC boiler will result in a net reduction in dioxin emissions, and, even without regard to the netting, GREC has provided reasonable assurance that the GREC facility's dioxin emissions are not, themselves, significant. GREC has provided reasonable assurance that the GREC facility adequately protects the public health and environment from emissions of dioxins, including furans and PCBs, and, based on the circumstances of this case, the Air Construction Permit is not required to contain a dioxins emissions limit. Mercury Petitioners claim that GREC has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed facility protects public health from emissions of mercury. Mercury is not among the pollutants covered under national AAQS. Although not a PSD pollutant, as noted above, NSR/PSD sets a significant emission rate for mercury, and the mercury emissions of the GREC facility will not exceed this rate. Although a HAP, mercury, like dioxins, is not emitted at rates anywhere near the 10 tpy threshold. Instead, as with dioxins, Petitioners claim that the projected emissions of mercury by the GREC facility, although indisputably well under 10 tpy, are nonetheless high enough to endanger public health and the environment. The biomass fuel contains trace amounts of mercury. Combustion at 1500 degrees vaporizes the mercury into gaseous elemental mercury. Subsequent cooling may produce elemental mercury, particle-bound mercury, and oxidized mercury compounds, which is also known as reactive gaseous divalent mercury (RGM). The baghouse filters might capture some of these mercury emissions, although GREC's analysis conservatively assumed that they would not. Of the 16.7 pounds per year of all forms of mercury projected to be emitted by the GREC biomass plant, about 70 percent of it, according to GREC's conservative assumptions, will be elemental mercury and 30 percent of it will be RGM. The former has long residence time in the atmosphere and travels long distances, and the latter deposits locally and regionally. By comparison, annual anthropogenic emissions of mercury in the United States were 145 tons in 2005, including 48 tons from power plant emissions. In 1999, mercury emissions from Florida coal-fired plants were 1923 pounds. Worldwide, anthropogenic emissions of mercury account for two-thirds of total mercury emissions, the remainder being from natural causes, such as volcanic eruptions and oceans. The Site Application considers wet and dry deposition rates of mercury in the Santa Fe River basin. After calculating an average areal wet deposition rate from the GREC facility, the Site Application concludes that it is 6000 times less than the average areal wet deposition at the nearest location for which such data are available. The Site Application also concludes that the wet plus dry deposition rate of mercury from the GREC facility will be 400 times less than the wet-only rate at the comparison location. Additionally, as noted above, the air pollution control system installed at Deerhaven will reduce mercury emissions by more than the increases caused by the GREC project. Because these decreases will not be subject to CEMS and will not be enforceable, DEP's NSR/PSD analysis could not net the GREC facility's mercury emissions against the corresponding decreases in mercury emissions at Deerhaven. However, the GREC facility will emit mercury at a rate over one order of magnitude less than the PSD significant emission rate for mercury. And, to the extent that Petitioners have questioned the safety of GREC's projected mercury emissions outside of NSR/PSD and NESHAP, then the limitations on netting do not preclude attaching significance to the fact that, when considered in conjunction with roughly contemporaneous pollution control improvements at Deerhaven, the GREC facility's mercury emissions are nonexistent. GREC has provided reasonable assurance that the GREC facility adequately protects the public health and environment from emissions of mercury. Netting of NOX and SO2 To Avoid BACT Petitioners claim that DEP improperly allowed GREC to net its NOX and SO2 emissions against enforceable reductions of NOX and SO2 by GRU at Deerhaven, so as to avoid BACT analysis. On July 12, 2010, DEP issued a permit to GRU imposing enforceable and permanent reductions on Deerhaven Unit 2's emissions of NOx and SO2--418 tpy of the former and 171 tpy of the latter. These reductions were achieved by GRU's installation of more effective pollution control technology. Under NSR/PSD, GREC may net out its emissions of NOx and SO2 by taking into account these offsetting GRU reductions because GREC and GRU constitute one major stationary source, under NSR/PSD permitting. Offsetting the increased emissions of GREC with the decreased emissions of GRU is authorized by the proximity of the two operations and their common operational control. Specifically, GRU controls GREC's operations through their power purchasing agreement, which gives GRU the authority to dispatch the power generated by the GREC facility, to determine when the biomass plant will start up and shut down, to control the amount of electricity that the GREC biomass plant will produce while operating, and to regulate the voltage of such electricity. GRU will supply the switchyard and transmission lines by which GREC-produced power will enter the power grid and will distribute GREC-produced power among GRU customers. GRU will also supply the natural gas that GREC requires for start-up and the electricity that GREC requires for start-up and stand-by operations. GRU even agreed to reduce its groundwater withdrawals by 1.4 million gallons per day, so GREC could withdraw an equal amount of groundwater for its operations. Contrary to Petitioners' contention, this aggregate treatment of GRU and GREC is not a legal fiction designed to circumvent BACT under the NSR/PSD program. On these facts, it would be much easier to prove that the independence of GREC is a legal fiction, or that GREC serves as GRU's contractor, ushering the biomass plant through certification, permitting, the acquisition of supplier contracts, and start-up, perhaps then to sell it to GRU at the same late stage that GREC's affiliate sold the Nacogdoches plant. But whatever the precise relationship between the two entities is, or proves to be, at this stage, without doubt, GRU controls GREC. Contrary to Petitioners' contention, the emissions reduction achieved by GRU at Deerhaven cannot somehow be disregarded in this case and "banked" as a gain in achieving cleaner air. From all appearances, GRU pursued this emissions reduction--and certainly the permit modification enforcing the emissions reduction against GRU permanently--for the same reason that it agreed to reduce its groundwater withdrawals. The reason is not an abundance of good will among corporate partners working shoulder to shoulder in providing America's power needs or a gestalt moment of environmental awareness. GRU effected this emissions reduction as a strategic decision to enable GREC to come online sooner and provide GRU with a reliable source of power from a plant much newer than any that it has in place at Deerhaven. This is the economic reality of the closer-than- armslength relationship that exists between GRU and GREC. The netting of NOx and SO2 emissions means that GREC effectively emits no such pollutants. But to put GREC's offset emissions into context, Deerhaven Unit 2 produces roughly 2.5 times the power that the GREC plant will produce. Even after the July 2010 emission reductions, Deerhaven Unit 2 is permitted to emit 3381 tpy of NOx emissions and 8005 tpy of SO2 emissions. If the GREC plant were scaled up to Deerhaven Unit 2's capacity and the NOX and SO2 emissions could be extrapolated linearly, the GREC biomass plant would produce about one-third as much NOx and one-twentieth as much SO2. Nothing in the record suggests that GREC's relatively low emissions of NOx and SO2--even without regarding to netting--presents a significant risk to human health or the environment. GREC has provided reasonable assurance that its NOx and SO2 emissions properly should be netted against offsetting reductions in these emissions at Deerhaven and that BACT analysis for these pollutants is thus unnecessary. Not Major Source of HAPs So No MACT Petitioners claim that DEP improperly determined that the GREC facility will not be a major source of HAPs, so DEP improperly relieved GREC of the burden of demonstrating case-by- case MACT. As noted above, originally, GREC stated that its emissions of HCl and HF, as well as total HAPs, were sufficiently high to trigger MACT case-by-case review. Originally, the HCl and HF emissions were projected to be 36 tpy and 71 tpy, respectively, and total HAPs were 114 tpy. However, after DEP representatives advised GREC representatives that their HCl and HF projections seemed very high, based on DEP's experience with comparable facilities, GREC representatives met with representatives of the boiler manufacturer, Metso, to determine if they could implement more stringent emission control technology. The purpose was to reduce HAPs emissions to levels more in line with DEP's experience, which would be sufficiently low to avoid triggering MACT case-by-case review. The means by which GREC and Metso achieved this reduction essentially constituted MACT. The difference was that, by following DEP's recommendations, GREC was able to avoid months of formal MACT analysis. On February 2010, GREC presented to DEP a revised set of projections of HAPs emissions that were just beneath the MACT thresholds of 10 tpy for any single HAP and 25 tpy of all HAPS. As noted above, the revised projections are for 9.72 tpy of HCl and HF, each, and 24.7 tpy of all HAPs. GREC justified these revised projections by several means. First, Metso reconsidered the chlorine and fluorine concentrations in the clean woody biomass to be received by the GREC facility, reevaluated the chemical reactions, and reduced its earlier assumptions. Second, Metso and GREC selected for the DSI a more effective sorbent, trona, which reduces the emissions of HF and HCl. Third, Metso and GREC increased the amount of sorbent to be injected into the flue gas system, which will further reduce emissions of HF, HCl, and SO2. Fourth, Metso and GREC changed the catalyst in the SCR, which will remove HAPs more effectively. Fifth, Metso and GREC increased the size and optimized the design of the fabric filter baghouse, which will further reduce stack emissions of PM, but also HAPs to a lesser degree. These are not paper adjustments, but are actual investments in technology that will cost GREC millions of dollars. Petitioners, though, remain skeptical, partly due to the proximity of the revised projections to the regulatory thresholds. For HF, at least, the skepticism is clearly misplaced. The actual projection for HF emissions is much less than 9.72 tpy. Metso and GREC selected 9.72 tpy for HF to allow for a margin of error in the projections. GREC's motivation was obviously to a avoid a sub-threshold breach of a projected emissions limit and the resulting regulatory intervention of DEP. Metso's motivation probably arises from the fact that, to induce GREC to purchase its boiler, Metso provided GREC a guarantee that, at least initially, the boiler will meet these revised HAPs emissions limitations. So, the proximity to regulatory thresholds, at least for HF, is not a ground for skepticism. As revised, the pollution control systems restrict HAPs, and other pollutants, as follows: 1) good combustion practices in the BFBB control PM, CO, VOCs, and HAPs generally; 2) the fabric filter baghouse controls emissions of PM10, PM2.5, and HAPs; 3) clean biomass fuel, reaction with alkaline fly ash, and DSI control SO2 and SAM; 4) ammonia-based SCR controls NOx, VOCs, and HAPs generally; and 5) high-efficiency drift eliminators in the cooling tower control PM. Assurances that these close margins for the HAPs thresholds, as well as the other pollutant limits, will not be breached is also supplied by the CEMS: for SO2 and NOx, 24-hour, 30-day, and 12-month CEMS; for SAM, an initial and annual stack test; for CO, a 30-day CEMS; for HCl and HF, an initial stack test and 12-month CEMS; for HAPs generally, an initial and annual stack test and 12-month CEMS; for PM/PM10, an initial and annual stack test; and for visible emissions and VOCs, an initial and annual stack test, as well as continuous opacity monitoring. Finally, the GREC facility's HAPs emissions are offset by decreases in emissions of HCl and HF, as well as SAM and mercury, as a result of the enhanced pollution control technology adopted by GRU at Deerhaven. Although these reductions, which are all greater than the emissions of these pollutants by the GREC facility, are not enforceable and netting is unavailable under NESHAP, these reductions are relevant in assessing Petitioners' broader claims concerning human health, again outside of the context of NESHAP. GREC has provided reasonable assurance that its facility will not emit more than 9.72 tpy annually of any individual HAP or 25 tpy of all HAPs. Thus, DEP properly determined that case-by-case MACT analysis was unnecessary. Stack and Diesel-Exhaust Emissions of PM/PM10 and Failure to Require BACT Petitioners claim that the draft Air Construction Permit inadequately accounts for stack and diesel-exhaust emissions of PM and PM10 and fails to require BACT for these pollutants. In one respect, Petitioners' claim is correct. The failure of the draft Air Construction Permit to incorporate the provision of the Technical Evaluation that DEP would require GREC to measure filterable and condensible PM with EPA Method 202, in conjunction with the apparent absence of any other test for filterable and condensible PM, is, literally, inadequate accounting for stack emissions of PM/PM10, at least where such a test is commonly enough available to be identified as an EPA Method. But DEP can easily repair this defect by adding this requirement to the Air Construction Permit. In all other respects, though, GREC has adequately accounted for stack emissions of PM/PM10 and provided BACT for these PSD pollutants. As noted in the Technical Evaluation, GREC has provided BACT through the superior combustion of a BFBB, baghouse, DSI, and SCR, as well through the control of SO2 and NOX and visible emissions. GREC's stack emissions of PM10 do not exceed the NSPS limit for this pollutant. Although GREC's stack emissions of PM10 require more elaborate PSD analysis due to their exceeding the PSD significant impact level for PM10, GREC's modeling supports a finding that the these impacts will be highly localized-- restricted to the GREC/GRU site, mostly along the south fenceline--and will require no ambient air quality sampling due to the sampling program already in existence in Alachua County. GREC's modeling also supports findings that the impacts of GREC's stack emissions of PM10, when combined with the air quality impacts from all sources, will be substantially below the 24-hour and annual PSD Class II increments and national AAQS, so the GREC facility will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the PM10 PSD increments or national AAQS. Fugitive Emissions of PM/PM10 Petitioners claim that the draft Air Construction Permit inadequately accounts for fugitive emissions from the wood piles and biomass handling of PM and PM10. The preceding analysis included all of GREC's PM10 emissions--stack and fugitive. The draft BMP plan and other design elements adequately account for fugitive emissions of PM/PM10, and the procedures described in the BMPs plan and other design elements constitute BACT. Spontaneous Combustion of Wood Piles and PM Emissions Petitioner claims that the draft Air Construction Permit fails to adequately protect against spontaneous combustion and the PM emissions that would result from a fire. The wood piles present a risk of fire from spontaneous combustion. Microbial metabolic action within the pile can generate sufficient heat to cause the wood pile to combust. The primary safeguard against this risk is proper fuel management to minimize the heat buildup within the pile. One way to manage the fuel for fire safety is to mix the wood piles to aerate the piles and prevent hot spots. Another way to manage the fuel is to ensure that the fuel is not allowed to remain in the pile too long. GREC's first-fuel-in, first-fuel-out policy limits the age of any part of the wood pile. The implementation of this policy is further assured by the fact that the fuel loses heat value over time, so GREC will gain more burn for the dollar by combusting the fuel sooner, rather than later. The ratio of stored fuel to combustion rates suggests that all fuel will be turned over within 20 days--probably sooner, after the late revision lowering the height of the automatic stacker/reclaimer pile by 25 feet. Anecdotal evidence suggests that 20 days' residence in the wood pile is well short of the age of fuel that has spontaneously combusted in piles in the past. The stormwater management system will also enhance fire safety by draining rainwater and runoff from the piles and discouraging the ongoing saturation of the fuel piles. Excessive, intermittent saturation of the pile may encourage the microbial activity that can lead to combustion. As part of the local review that took place for the GREC facility, Gainesville Fire Department representatives met three times with GREC representatives to address fire safety, as the Development Review Board of the City of Gainesville reviewed the GREC proposal. As a result of these meetings, GREC agreed to a number of changes to assure substantial compliance with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards for the management of wood storage areas. As noted above, one change after consultations with the fire department was to reduce the automatic stacker/reclaimer pile from 85 feet to 60 feet. This reduces the risk of fire by making it easier to mix the entire pile and reduces the volume of fuel stored onsite and, thus, the time that that the fuel may remain unused in the wood pile. Secondarily, this change also reduces the volume of fuel available to burn in an unintended fire. To conform to NFPA standards, GREC also agreed to place low barrier walls between the fuel piles; to drive stakes around the perimeter of the piles, so inspectors could more easily check that the piles are not migrating or expanding; and to insert temperature probes into the piles to allow timely detection and elimination of hot spots that might otherwise develop into fires. A revised site plan, as reflected in Exhibits 50A, 50B, and 50C, incorporates the barrier walls and perimeter stakes identified above, as well as the layout of the fire main and fire hydrants that loop the fuel storage area and some access issues for firefighting equipment, which may weigh as much as 30 tons. After DEP adds to the Air Construction Permit the changes to the above-described changes to the site plan, which do not relocate emissions units so as to require remodeling emissions, GREC has provided reasonable assurance that the draft Air Construction Permit adequately protects against spontaneous combustion and the PM emissions that would result from a fire. Failure To Assure Uncontaminated Supplies of Biomass Petitioner claims that the draft Air Construction Permit fails to adequately assure that the biomass fuel will be free from contaminants prior to its combustion in the BFBB. Draft Air Construction Permit Section 3.A.6 requires clean woody biomass, and the draft BMP plan addresses the means to ensure that only clean woody biomass is burned in the BFBB. Suppliers must perform most of the processing offsite; for each shipment, GREC must record the date, quantity, and description of the material received; GREC must inspect each shipment for nonconforming materials; GREC must reject or segregate nonconforming material, if it is discovered; and GREC must maintain records of rejected shipments and their disposition. At the hearing, GREC agreed to another prohibition--namely, that it may not burn construction and demolition debris. GREC has provided reasonable assurance that only clean woody biomass will be combusted at the GREC facility.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that, subject to the additional conditions set forth in the preceding paragraph, DEP enter a final order granting the Air Construction Permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 7th day of December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Beason, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Mimi Drew, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 David S. Dee, Esquire Young Van Assenderp, P.A. 225 South Adams Street Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1700 Mick G. Harrison, Esquire 205 North College Avenue, Suite 311 Bloomington, Indiana 47404 Jack Chisolm, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Raymond O. Manasco, Jr., Esquire Gainesville Regional Utilities 301 Southwest 4th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32614 Douglas S. Roberts, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams 119 South Monroe Street Suite 300 Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard E. Condit, Esquire 1612 K Street, Northwest, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006
