The Issue The issue is whether Florida Petroleum Markers and Convenience Store Association (Florida Petroleum) is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Section 120.595(2), Florida Statutes, and if so, in what amount.1
Findings Of Fact Introduction Florida Petroleum is the prevailing party in the underlying rule challenge and requests an award of reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to Section 120.595(2), Florida Statutes.2 Florida Petroleum prevailed in DOAH Case No. 05-0529RP on one of two challenged proposed rule revisions to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-770, which governs cleanup of petroleum contamination. Proposed rule 62-770.220(3)(b) was held to be an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority." Proposed rule 62-770.220(4), was "not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, except insofar as notice must be given every five years to persons other than 'local governments and owners of any property into which the point of compliance is allowed to extend,' as provided in Section 376.3071(5)(b)2., Florida Statutes."3 The Department argues that its actions were "substantially justified" because there was a reasonable basis in law and fact at the time its actions were taken. The proposed rules were approved by the Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC) on February 2, 2005, which is the time when the Department's "actions were taken." The Department does not argue that special circumstances exist that would make the award of fees unjust. Department Contamination Programs The Department's Division of Waste Management is comprised of the Bureau of Petroleum Storage Systems, the Bureau of Waste Cleanup, and the Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste. The Bureau of Petroleum Storage Systems administers the state's petroleum contamination cleanup program. This cleanup program encompasses the technical oversight, management, and administrative activities necessary to prioritize, assess, and cleanup sites contaminated by discharges of petroleum and petroleum products from petroleum storage systems. There are approximately 23,000 petroleum-contaminated sites statewide. Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-770 establishes petroleum contamination site cleanup criteria. These criteria are established for the purposes of protecting the public health and the environment and for determining, on a site-specific basis, the rehabilitation program tasks that comprise a site rehabilitation program and the levels at which a rehabilitation program task and site rehabilitation program may be deemed complete. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-770.160(8). The petroleum contamination cleanup program incorporates risk-based corrective action (RBCA) principles to achieve protection of human health, public safety, and the environment in a cost-effective manner. The phased RBCA process is iterative and tailors site rehabilitation tasks to site-specific conditions and risks. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-770.160(8). The Bureau of Waste Cleanup administers the state's drycleaning solvent cleanup program. This program is for the cleanup of property that is contaminated with drycleaning solvents as a result of the operations of a drycleaning facility or wholesale supply facility. Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-782 establishes drycleaning solvent cleanup criteria, established for the purposes of protecting the human health, public safety and the environment under actual circumstances of exposure and for determining, on a site-specific basis, the rehabilitation program tasks that comprise a site rehabilitation program and the levels at which a rehabilitation program task and site rehabilitation program may be deemed complete. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-782.150(1). The drycleaning solvent cleanup program, like the petroleum contamination cleanup program, the brownfield site rehabilitation program, and the global RBCA contamination cleanup program mentioned below, incorporates RBCA principles to achieve protection of human health and the environment in a cost-effective manner. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-782.150(1) and 62-785.150(1). In 2003, the Legislature adopted Section 376.30701, Florida Statutes, which authorizes the Department to adopt rule criteria for the implementation of what is referred to as "global RBCA," which extends the RBCA process to contaminated sites where legal responsibility for site rehabilitation exists pursuant to Chapter 376 or Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. Global RBCA is a cleanup program for contaminated sites that do not fall within one of the Department's other contamination cleanup programs. Department Rulemaking Efforts After the passage of Section 376.30701(2), Florida Statutes, the Department initiated rulemaking to develop Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-780 (global RBCA). Section 376.30701(2) established July 1, 2004, as the date the Department was to adopt rule criteria to implement the global RBCA contamination cleanup program. At the same time, the Department initiated rulemaking with respect to revisions to Florida Administrative Code Chapters 62-770 (petroleum), Chapter 62-782 (drycleaning solvents), and Chapter 62-785 (brownfields). This decision was predicated on the similarities among the four waste cleanup programs and the Department's desire to ensure a consistent approach across the four programs and pursuant to one large rulemaking effort. As such, the Department sought to include the same notification provisions in each rule for consistency purposes. (T 33-34, 55). However, the Department also recognized at the time that the notice provision for RBCA for petroleum contamination cleanups, i.e., Section 376.3071(5)(b)2., was different from the notice provisions for RBCA cleanups for the drycleaning solvent (Section 376.3078(4)(b)), brownfields (Section 376.81(1)(b)), and global RBCA (Section 376.30701(2)(b)) programs. (T 69, 115, 126-129). In each of these three statutes, the Legislature expressly expanded the class of persons to whom notice is required to be given and expressly referred to a specific type of notice to be given (actual or constructive) depending on the class of persons designated to receive notice. Each of the latter statutes was enacted after, and presumably with knowledge of Section 376.3071(5)(b)2., which was materially amended in material part in 1996 to add, in part, the notice provision. See Ch. 96-277, § 5, at 1131, 1135-1136, Laws of Fla. In May 2004, the Department became aware of concerns with regard to on-going efforts to assess the groundwater contamination at the former American Beryllium plant in Tallevast, Manatee County, Florida. (The party's refer to the city as Tallavast, whereas the Transcript (T 36) and DEP Exhibit 1 refer to the city as Tallevast.) For approximately two years, the owner of the plant, Lockheed Martin, had been conducting an on-going assessment of the extent of the solvent (trichloroethylene) contamination. The Department was concerned that there were residential areas located adjacent to and in the immediate vicinity of the former industrial plant. In May 2004, it became apparent that there were problems with certain assumptions concerning the assessment of the groundwater contamination. First, there had been an erroneous assumption that the contamination plume was small and located predominantly on-site. Second, based on well surveys, there was an assumption that there were no human health exposure points in the form of contaminated off-site potable water wells. Significant concerns arose when it became apparent the contamination plume was more extensive than anticipated and had migrated off-site. These concerns were exacerbated when it became apparent that groundwater contamination was impacting off-site potable water wells. Tallevast residents raised concerns that they were being exposed to contamination and that they were never properly notified by the Department, upon the initial discovery of the groundwater contamination. Tallevast residents were also concerned about whether the Department had failed to properly notify then once it was discovered the groundwater contamination had migrated off-site. The problems experienced at Tallevast emphasized to the Department the need to explore available avenues to enhance public notification procedures as a whole.4, 5 The Department asserted as to a reasonable basis in fact for the proposed rules, that contamination affecting Tallevast residents provided an impetus for the Department in May 2004 to address notification of contamination to affected off-site property owners. The situation in Tallevast arose because well surveys failed to indicate the extent of the contamination plume and that residents were using private wells for potable water. The Department's objective was to make sure that if there was exposure potential, the potentially affected parties should be notified. The Department seems to agree that the failure to discover the contamination of the potable wells in Tallevast occurred during the assessment phase of the cleanup and that it had not yet gotten to the stage of determining the remediation strategy. (T 45-46). The Department's stated concerns regarding Tallevast are not specifically addressed by proposed rule 62-770.220(3)(b) and (4). (T 74-75, 95-96). The Department’s procedure for granting a temporary extension of the point of compliance is that the responsible party will propose such an extension in its remedial action plan. (The four cleanup programs provide for the establishment of a TPOC.) The Department will then issue its notice of intended agency action, notice of the agency action will be provided to the enumerated persons, and the persons receiving notice will have a 30-day comment period. (T 149-155). (Pursuant to proposed rule 62-770.220(3)(a), the person responsible for site rehabilitation (PRSR) "shall provide" actual notice "to the appropriate County Health Department and all record owners of any real property into which the point of compliance is allowed to extend . . . ." In this regard, as Mr. Chisolm testified, the process is "similar to a permit.") Mr. Sole testified that, in the course of rulemaking, Florida Petroleum argued to the Department that the "petroleum statute under 376.3071 is different as it addresses the temporary point of compliance. It's not as prescriptive as the other statutory provisions for Risk-Based Corrective Action and the dry-cleaning, the Brownfields, and now the Global RBCA [statutes]. And their concern was that because it's not as prescriptive, [the Department] should not be establishing these additional notice provisions, such as constructive notice . . . But their fear was or concerns . . . were that you're going to engender a lot of litigation that's unnecessary because, as soon as you say the word 'contamination,' somebody is going to want to sue me . . . . And I understood that position. But at the same time, the lessons that we learned were that failure to provide that notice, unfortunately, can cause exposure and can cause a public health concern; and [the Department] needed to balance the two." (T 63-64, 122). Mr. Chisolm testified, in part, about the development of the constructive notice provision in proposed rule 62- 770.220(3)(b) and explained that the global RBCA, brownfields, and drycleaning solvent statutes required constructive notice to residents and business tenants of impacted properties.6 Mr. Chisolm further explained: So, if you're going to give notice to the legal owners of a piece of property, many cases there are tenants there. And they may not get the word, and they may be the ones that are drinking the water. The same with business tenants. So the idea was let's give notice to the people who are going to be or potentially going to be affected by this contamination, which is, after all, under the property which they may be inhabiting and using. So that was the purpose for the rule change in this case. Let's give notice to everybody who could potentially be affected by the rule, by the contamination beyond the property boundaries . . . . The whole idea behind RBCA, Risk- Based Corrective Actions, is that, if there's no exposure, there's no risk. There's no danger to the individual, to any individual. (T 116-117).
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is the reasonable cost to be reimbursed Petitioner, under the provisions of Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes, for the development of a Monitoring Only Plan (MOP) program for the Dagam Oil Company (DEP Facility No. 138504146), at 331 23rd Street, Miami Beach, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner, Panhandle Industries, Inc., is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of consulting, engineering and construction. George M. Hidle, a professional geologist licensed in the State of Florida, is the president and sole owner of the Petitioner corporation. In September 1992, Dagam Oil Company, doing business as Sierra Fina, employed Petitioner to do environmental assessment work and prepare a Contamination Assessment Report (CAR) under the then existing Rule 17-770.630, Florida Administrative Code, for a site located at 331 23rd Street, Miami Beach, Florida (DEP Facility No. 138504146).4 That CAR was submitted to DERM (Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Environmental Resources Management) July 13, 1993. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1.) Pertinent to this case, the CAR provides the following background or historical information: . . . PHYSICAL SETTING . . . Sierra Fina is located at 331 23rd Street in Miami Beach, Florida . . . The facility is bordered to the north by Collins Canal, to the east by the light commercial properties, and to the south/southeast by property that once contained Chevron and Fina service stations. . . . * * * . . . FACILITY HISTORY AND OPERATION Sierra Fina was built in 1963. The station originally operated as a Sunoco service station with a 3 bay garage. Dagam Oil Company purchased the facility in March 1981 from Charles Rosenblatt. At the time the station had five underground fuel tanks. . . . * * * . . . PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS Dagam Oil Company contracted with another environmental company in November 1988 to collect groundwater samples from . . . five monitoring wells at the facility. Groundwater samples were collected on November 9, 1988 and analyzed by EPA Method 602. Monitoring well MW-3 was also analyzed by EPA Method 610. All five of the wells had hydrocarbon contaminant concentrations in excess of state guidelines. . . . A discharge notification form was mailed to the DER and DERM on December 9, 1988, the date of receipt of the analytical results from the November 9, 1988 groundwater sampling event. . . . * * * . . . INITIAL REMEDIAL ACTIONS [IRA] [The F]ive underground storage tanks [and associated piping] were removed from the facility during March and April 1989 [, and replaced with four new cathodically protected underground petroleum storage tanks]. Approximately 400 cubic yards of contaminated soil was also removed at that time. On March 31, 1989 a composite sample of the soil was collected for analysis . . . Because of limited space at the station, the contaminated soil was hauled to a Metro Trucking Inc. storage yard located at 112th Avenue and 143 Street in Miami. The contaminated soil was landfarmed at this Metro Trucking facility for a period of seven months, during which time the soil was spread onto visqueen and tilled on a regular basis. On November 21, 1989 the soil was resampled and analyzed . . . Results of this second round of analyses met clean fill criteria. Also at the time of tank replacement, a sheen of free floating hydrocarbons was observed on water in the tank pit. A vac truck was used to skim this product from the pit prior to tank replacement. Approximately 2100 gallons of oily water were removed, transported, and disposed of by Cliff Berry, Inc. . . . Other than these IRA activities, no other assessment or remediation work had been performed at the facility until Petitioner was employed in September 1992. Petitioner's CAR concluded that: Soil and groundwater at Sierra Fina are contaminated with gasoline and diesel hydrocarbons. Excessively contaminated soil is confined to an area at the western end of the station building that is approximately 20 feet in width by 30 feet in length, extending down to a water table of between 6 and 8 feet below land surface. No free phase floating product is present on the groundwater underlying this facility. However, dissolved hydrocarbon contamination is present in the groundwater. A dissolved hydrocarbon plume is present in the western half of the site. This plume measures 80 feet in length by 60 feet in width and extends to a depth of less than 22 feet below land surface, yielding approximately 134,640 gallons of hydrocarbon contaminated water. Volume calculations are based on an average depth to groundwater of 7 feet below land surface and an effective soil porosity of 25%. The highest benzene (53.3 ppb) and total napthalenes (752 ppb) concentrations were detected in MW-12. * * * Groundwater within the Biscayne Aquifer beneath Sierra Fina is nonpotable because of salt water intrusion from the Atlantic Ocean. For this reason there are no private or public potable wells in the area. Contamination at Sierra Fina is limited onsite to the western half of the station, and poses no threats to sensitive receptors in the area, with the possible exception of Collins Canal. The cause of hydrocarbon contamination was never determined; however, the most probable source, i.e. previous petroleum tanks and lines, were removed in March and April of 1989. Based on these findings and the data presented about or elsewhere in this report, it is known that soil and groundwater contamination does exist at this facility in concentrations that exceed guidelines specified in Section 17- 770.730(5)FAC; however, the levels of contamination may not warrant the need for any extensive remediation activities at this site. Petitioner's CAR was approved by DERM on October 8, 1993, and Petitioner was directed to submit a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) within 60 days.5 At the time, Mr. Hidle (Petitioner) was aware that the levels of contamination were low or near target levels, and that it was likely that the contamination levels would decrease naturally over time. Consequently, Petitioner elected to seek approval of a Monitor Only Plan (MOP), as opposed to a RAP. Such choice was favored based on the nature and location of the contaminants. In this regard, it was observed that the soil contamination consisted of both gasoline and diesel fuel, with much of the contaminated soil abutting or underneath the building. Excavation and removal of the soil was not an alternative because it would undermine the structural integrity of the building. Moreover, given the fuel mix, vapor extraction was not a viable option. Given Petitioner's choice to pursue approval of a MOP, it gave notice to the Department and DERM on October 18, 1993, as well as November 12, 1993, and December 2, 1993, of its intention to undertake groundwater sampling and soil sampling on the site. Groundwater sampling was undertaken by Mr. Hidle between 1:30 p.m., November 30, 1993, and 2:30 a.m., December 1, 1993,6 at which time he drew water samples for laboratory analysis from 10 monitor wells (MW) and one deep well (DW). A duplicate sample was also retrieved at MWs 12R and 14, and equipment blanks were also obtained for laboratory analysis. Between 8:25 p.m., December 4, 1993, and 3:40 a.m. December 5, 1993,7 Mr. Hidle and a senior technician (Martin Hidle) augured 6 soil borings for use in preparing the MOP and collected one soil sample for laboratory analysis. Petitioner delivered the water samples to the laboratory (Envirodyne, Inc.) on December 2, 1993, and the soil sample on December 6, 1993, for analysis. The laboratory completed its analysis of the water samples on December 13, 1993, and of the soil sample on December 14, 1993, and rendered its written reports (analysis) to Petitioner.8 Upon receipt of the laboratory data, Mr. Hidle completed his preparation of the MOP. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4.) That MOP contained the following conclusions and recommendations: The initial dissolved hydrocarbon plume dimensions were based on data from groundwater sampling events of January and February 1993. Laboratory results from a more recent sampling event (11/30/93) indicate that plume size and hydrocarbon compound concentrations therein have decreased substantially (Table 4-2). Maximum groundwater contaminant concentrations decreased as follows: benzene from 53.3 ppb to 11.1 ppb; BTEX from 111.7 ppb to 20.6 ppb; total naphthalenes from 752 ppb to 246.1 ppb. During the contamination assessment program task a small area of contaminated soil was found to be abutting the western end of the station building (CAR, Fig. 3-1, p. 35). Because of the presence of diesel compounds in the groundwater, it was assumed during preparation of the CAR that the soil too was contaminated with diesel. In early December 1993 PI Environmental personnel installed six additional soil borings (Figure 3-1, SB-16 through SB-21) and collected one soil sample for laboratory analyses. The soil borings were augered in the immediate area of the previously defined contaminated soil plume, and soil samples were analyzed in the field by using a Foxboro OVA 128. Soil samples were collected vertically every two feet, beginning at one foot below ground surface and continuing until the water table was encountered. A soil sample was collected from boring SB-17 at a depth of six feet below land surface. A net OVA reading of 160 ppm was observed from a duplicate sample taken from the same depth. The soil sample was tested by EPA Methods 3540/8100 (diesel compounds) and 9073 (TRPH). Laboratory results indicated that all diesel compounds were below laboratory detection limits, and the TRPH concentration was below normal background readings. Soil contamination was reclassified as being gasoline in origin, because no diesel compounds were detected in the soil sample from SB-17. Section 17-770.200(2) Florida Administrative Code defines excessively contaminated soil, associated with gasoline contamination, as those that have a net OVA/FID reading equal to or greater than 500 ppm. From December 1993 sampling event, a maximum net OVA/FID reading of 316 ppm was obtained from a sample that was collected at five fee below land surface in SB-17. Based on these results, no excessively contaminated soil was found during the most recent sampling event. It is the recommendation of PI Environmental Inc. that a Monitoring Only Plan be implemented at Sierra Fina. This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1) Absence in the study area of any potable water wells within the Biscayne Aquifer because of salt water intrusion from the Atlantic Ocean 2) Absence of free phase hydrocarbons 3) Absence of excessively contaminated soil 4) Substantial decrease in concentrations of dissolved hydrocarbon compounds within the groundwater during the last year, and 5) relatively low levels of hydrocarbon contamination in the groundwater, i.e., based on the November 30, 1993 sampling event, maximum benzene of 11.1 ppb, maximum BTEX of 20.6 ppb, and maximum total naphthalenes of 246.1 ppb. It is our recommendation that groundwater from monitoring wells MW-8, MW-12R, MW-6, and MW-17 be sampled on a quarterly basis. Groundwater from the source area wells, MW-8 and MW-12R, should be analyzed quarterly by EPA Methods 602 and 610. Groundwater from the perimeter wells, MW-6 and MW-17, should be analyzed quarterly by EPB Method 602 and semiannually by EPA Methods 602 and 610. Petitioner submitted the MOP to DERM on January 24, 1994. Pertinent to this case, it is observed that the MOP was a brief document, consisting of only 13 pages of textual material, much of which was a restatement of material contained in the CAR. The balance of the report consisted of 5 "Figures" (three of which were contained in the CAR and one of which is an updated version of a CAR Figure); 2 "Tables" (an update of the Water Table Elevation table contained in the CAR to include the November 30, 1993, data, and an update of the Summary of Groundwater Analyses contained in the CAR to include the November 30, 1993, and December 1, 1993, data); 6 "Geologic Log[s]" (a restating of the soil boring results noted in the field notes for December 4 and 5, 1993); copies of the laboratory (Envirodyne, Inc.'s) reports of groundwater analysis; and the laboratory's report on the soil analysis. In all, while apparently adequate and nicely presented, the MOP does not address a complex or unique issue, and does not evidence the expenditure, or need to expend, an inordinate amount of effort to produce. Petitioner's MOP was disapproved by DERM on May 11, 1994, for the following reasons: A complete round of groundwater analyses, no greater than six months old, is required. Therefore, all wells at this site must be sampled for EPA Method 418.1, and monitoring wells numbered MW-6, MW-9, MW-10, MW-11, MW-13, MW-16, and MW-17 must be sampled for EPA Method 610. Because diesel contamination is present at this site, soil OVA readings above 50 ppm are considered to indicate excessively contaminated soil. Based on this OVA readings obtained for your Contamination Assessment Report (CAR) and this MOP, excessively contaminated soil does exist at this site. Since this coil could be a continuing source of contamination, it must be removed prior to the approval of a MOP. Consequently, Petitioner was directed to submit an addendum to the MOP to address those issues. On June 1, 1994, Petitioner gave notice to the Department and DERM of its intent to collect groundwater samples to address issues raised by DERM's MOP review letter. These samples were collected by Mr. Hidle and a technician (Leo Iannone) between 1:15 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., June 15, 1994.9 Petitioner delivered the water samples to the laboratory (Envirodyne, Inc.) on June 16, 1994. The laboratory completed its analysis and delivered its written reports to Petitioner on or about June 23, 1994. Upon receipt of the laboratory data, Mr. Hidle completed the Monitoring Only Plan Addendum (Petitioner's Exhibit 8), and submitted it to DERM on July 5, 1994. The addendum addressed the additional groundwater analysis that was performed, and with regard to the diesel contamination it observed, as follows: Soil analytical results (MOP, Page 62) are below laboratory detection limits for EPA 610 compounds; however, because groundwater at this facility is contaminated with both gasoline and diesel, we are concurring with DERM by reclassifying excessively contaminated soil as any soil that exhibits net OVA/FID readings of 50 ppm or greater, per Chapter 17-770 FAC. OVA/FID soil analyses were performed in accordance to Panhandle Industries, Inc. approved Comp QAP. Net OVA/FID soil results obtained during the CAR program task are shown in Figure 1-5. A maximum net OVA/FID reading of 887 ppm was obtained during CAR soil assessment activities which ended on November 29, 1992. Figure 1-6 shows net OVA/FID results obtained during the MOP program task. These MOP analyses are current through December 5, 1993. A maximum net OVA/FID of 316 ppm was obtained during this latter event. As is shown in comparison of Figures 1-5 and 1-6, it can be seen that the size of the soil contaminant plume and OVA/FID net soil readings therein have decreased significantly since initiation of the CAR. Also, by observing Figure 1-6, which has a scale of 1" = 20', it is evident that very little soil, if any can be excavated without jeopardizing the structural integrity of the station building. Furthermore, there exist the possibility that some soil contamination may underlie the building itself; therefore, soil excavation would most likely result in only partial removal of the contaminated soil plume. The addendum concluded by recommending that the MOP be implemented as originally proposed, but with additional monitoring to assure a continuing decline in contamination. The addendum, like the MOP, was a brief document and contains only 6 pages of textual material. The balance of the addendum contains 6 "Figures" (all of which appeared in the CAR or MOP); 2 "Tables" (an update of the Water Table Elevations table contained in the MOP to include June 15, 1994, data, and an update of the Summary of Groundwater Analyses contained in the MOP to include the June 15, 1994, data); and the laboratory reports of groundwater analyses. As with the MOP, the addendum did not appear to address any complex or unique issues, and did not evidence the expenditure, or need to expend, an inordinate amount of time to produce. On August 16, 1994, and August 26, 1994, DERM and the Department, respectively, approved the "monitoring only" proposal. The request for reimbursement Petitioner submitted its reimbursement application on or about August 23, 1994, and it was apparently complete on or about April 18, 1996. (Petitioner's Exhibit 11). That application sought recovery of the following sums for the items noted: 6. REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN [MOP and MOP Addendum] PREPARATION . . . Personnel 31442.55 Capital Expense Items Rentals 1127.45 Mileage 68.05 Shipping 35.00 Well Drilling Permits Analysis 3680.00 Miscellaneous 1601.25 REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN PREPARATION TOTAL 37954.30 * * * 13. REIMBURSEMENT APPLICATION PREPARATION Supplementary Forms Personnel 795.00 Capital Expense Items Rentals 15.00 Mileage .80 Shipping 86.81 Well Drilling Permits Analysis Miscellaneous 60.75 APPLICATION PREPARATION TOTAL 958.36 CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT REVIEW FEE 500.00 APPLICATION GRAND TOTAL 39412.66 By letter (Order of Determination of Reimbursement) of June 27, 1996, the Department responded to Petitioner's reimbursement request as follows: We have completed review of your Reimbursement Application for expenses incurred during the Remedial Action Plan/Monitoring Only Plan program task at this site and have determined that $13,198.70 of the total $39,412.66 requested is allowable for reimbursement. This amount will be paid to the person responsible for conducting site rehabilitation when processing is completed by the Comptroller's Office. Some adjustments to the amount of reimbursement requested have been made. The following list details these adjustments. Citations refer to the specific sections of the enclosed Reimbursement Application Summary Sheets: 1. $24,766.25 in Section 6A, $259.95 in Section 6C, $28.20 in Section 6D and $63.25 in Section 6I were deducted because the total personnel hours (413.15 hours) and the total cost of $39,412.66 claimed for performing a limited scope of work consisting of 78.34 hours of field activities, two rounds of analyses (59 samples) and two letter reports have been determined to be excessive. However, actual field activities (including a reasonable amount of preparation), two rounds of analyses and a reasonable amount of personnel time to prepare two letter reports have been allowed. 2. $162.50 in Section 6A, $9.00 in Section 6E and $331.15 in Section 6I were deducted for costs associated with providing backup for the Contamination Assessment reimbursement application. These costs are not reimbursable in this application which is for the Remedial Action Plan/Monitoring Only Plan program task. $184.80 in Section 6A and $394.56 in Section 6I were deducted for field supplies, ice, conducting database modifications and purchasing office supplies, which are considered to be overhead. These costs are not justified in addition to the loaded personnel rates which already include overhead and profit. $11.76 in Section 6I was deducted because the rate for reproduction ($0.99 per page) has been determined to be excessive. However, $0.15 (per page) has been allowed based on the predominant rate claimed in other reimbursement applications for similar rates. $19.56 in Section 13E was deducted for costs added to the application preparation claimed as a markup. Reimbursement for application preparation is limited to actual costs only. $17.02 was added to the application grand total to cover the cost of reproducing the reimbursement application and invoices and shipping the replacements to the Department. (Petitioner's Exhibit 12.) Petitioner filed a timely challenge to contest the Department's decision. That challenge disputed the Department's action, as set forth in paragraphs numbered 1 through 4 of the letter, but Petitioner did not then, or at hearing, dispute the Department's action with regard to the matters contained in paragraphs numbered 5 and 6 of the Department's letter. (Petitioner's Exhibit 13). Subsequently, at hearing, Petitioner withdrew its request for reimbursement regarding the items contained in paragraph 3 of the Department's letter. (Transcript, page 101). The claim for the cost of preparing the reimbursement application Petitioner's claim for the cost of preparation of the reimbursement application totalled $1,458.36 (including the certified public accountant review fee). The Department proposed to deduct $19.56 (in Section 13E), and to add $17.02 to cover certain costs, as noted in the Department's letter. (Petitioner's Exhibits 12 and 13). Petitioner offered no objection to the Department's decision and, therefore, Petitioner should be awarded $1,455.82, without the need for further discussion, as the cost of preparing the reimbursement application. The claim for the cost of preparation of the MOP and MOP Addendum Petitioner's application for reimbursement claimed 413.15 personnel hours ($31,442.55) were dedicated to the development of the MOP (329.42 hours/$25,500.95) and the MOP Addendum (83.73 hours/$5,941.60). (Respondent's Exhibit 7, and Transcript, pages 188-190). In its initial review, the Department approved 55.67 hours ($3,790.45) for the MOP and 41.92 hours ($2,538.55) for the MOP Addendum, for a total award of $6,329.00. Subsequently, the Department resolved to accept as reasonable, 89 hours ($6,308.00) for the MOP and 83.73 hours ($5,941.60) for the MOP Addendum, for a total award of $12,249.60 for personnel costs.10 The 83.73 hours ($5,941.60) agreed to by the Department for the MOP Addendum was the precise amount Petitioner requested in its reimbursement application; however, the 89 hours ($6,308.00) accepted by the Department for the MOP is clearly less than the 329.42 hours ($25,500.95) Petitioner had requested. With regard to the difference, the Department views the request as excessive. In contrast, Petitioner contends the time requested was reasonable. Here, the Department's view has merit. To support the reasonableness of the hours (labor) claimed, Petitioner pointed to the "Daily Time Log[s]" which were contained within the reimbursement application, and which it contended contain an accurate recording of the hours worked and the task performed. (Petitioner's Exhibits 11, and Transcript, pages 29 through 31). According to Mr. Hidle, all employees of the company were required to keep a notepad on which they were to record the job (customer), hours worked, and task performed. At some future date, perhaps up to a week or more, those entries were ostensibly transferred to the "Daily Time Log." (Transcript, pages 29 through 31, and page 84). Consequently, Mr. Hidle contends Petitioner's "Daily Time Log[s]" may be relied upon to accurately reflect the hours actually worked, and that those hours were reasonably expended. Here, considering the record, Mr. Hidle's testimony is rejected as not credible or, stated otherwise, inherently improbable and unworthy of belief. In so concluding, it is observed that there is nothing of record, either in the exhibits or testimony offered at hearing, that could possibly explain the dichotomy between the number of hours claimed for development of the MOP (329.42) and the number of hours claimed for development of the MOP Addendum (83.73). Notably, neither project was particularly complex, and the tasks performed were reasonably alike. Similarly, it is inherently improbable, given the limited field work and the product produced (the MOP), that production of the MOP could require 329.42 hours or, stated differently, eight and one-quarter weeks, at 40 hours per week. Finally, most of the entries for which substantial blocks of time are assigned contain only vague or general terms to describe the task, such as "literature review," "MOP/RAP preparation," "file review," and "schedule/plan/coordinate RAP/MOP." Such practice renders it impossible to determine what work was actually done, whether the work was duplicative, and whether the time was actually expended or reasonable. Given the record, it must be concluded that the proof offered by Petitioner to support the number of hours claimed for development of the MOP is not credible or persuasive, and that it would be pure speculation to attempt to derive any calculation or meaningful estimate based on such proof. In the end, Petitioner must bear the responsibility for such failure. While Petitioner's proof offers no credible basis upon which to derive the number of hours dedicated to the MOP and their reasonableness, Petitioner obviously dedicated time to the MOP, and to the extent the record provides a reasonable basis on which to predicate an award, it is appropriate to do so. Here, given the lack of credibility of Petitioner's "Daily time Log[s]," as well as the testimony of Mr. Hidle, to provide a basis on which to derive the number of hours actually worked, and then test those hours against the standard of reasonableness, the only option is to award the 89 hours or $6,308.00, which the Department agrees were reasonably expended. Finally, with regard to the miscellaneous cost items, as opposed to personnel hours, rejected by the Department's letter of June 27, 1996, it must be resolved that Petitioner failed to offer, at hearing, any compelling proof that the items rejected by the Department were reasonable expenditures incurred in development of the monitor only program. Consequently, the following sections of Petitioner's reimbursement application have been reduced by the sums stated: $295.95 deducted from Section 6C; $28.20 deducted from Section 6D; $9.00 deducted from Section 6E; and $800.72 deducted from Section 6I. The award for reimbursement Given the proof, Petitioner should be awarded the following sums, for the items indicated, as reimbursement for preparation of the MOP and MOP Addendum: Personnel $12,249.60 Capital Expense Items Rentals 867.50 Mileage 39.85 Shipping 26.00 Well Drilling Permits Analysis 3680.00 Miscellaneous 800.53 TOTAL 17,663.48 For expenses involved in preparation of the reimbursement application, Petitioner should be awarded the following sums for the items indicated: Personnel $ 795.00 Capital Expense Items Rentals 15.00 Mileage .80 Shipping 67.25 Well Drilling Permits Analysis Miscellaneous 77.77 APPLICATION PREPARATION TOTAL 955.82 CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT REVIEW FEE 500.00 TOTAL FOR APPLICATION PREPARATION 1,455.82 In all, Petitioner should be accorded a total reimbursement of $19,119.30.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which awards Petitioner the sum of $19,119.30, as reimbursable costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 22nd day of February, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Lee County's Proposed Resource Recovery Facility Lee County has been investigating alternate methods of solid waste disposal since 1979. In 1989, Lee County adopted a Solid Waste Master Plan to guide the County's solid waste management and disposal activities for the next 40 years. The County Commission, consultants and staff concluded that the County's long term needs would be best served by an integrated solid waste management system, which would include an aggressive recycling and materials recovery program, plus composting, landfilling, and the use of a resource recovery (waste-to- energy) facility. In June 1990, Lee County filed an application for site certification with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) for the proposed resource recovery facility (Facility). The County also filed an application with DER for a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit for the Facility. Lee County's Facility will produce electricity from municipal solid waste that otherwise would be discarded in a landfill. Solid waste will be brought into the Facility by truck and deposited in a large concrete pit. The refuse will be thoroughly mixed in the pit and then placed by crane in a charging hopper, which will lead into a furnace. The combustion of refuse in the furnace will create heat, which will be used to produce steam, which will be used in a steam turbine to generate electricity. The County's Facility will include the energy recovery system, a scale house, cooling tower, a stack, a 138 kV transmission line, and a stormwater management system. The Facility will have two combustion units with a combined processing capacity of approximately 1200 tons per day (tpd). Theoretically, the Facility could be expanded in the future with a third 600 tpd combustion unit to reach an ultimate site capacity of 1800 tpd. The Facility will generate approximately 40 megawatts (MW) of electricity at 1200 tpd and approximately 60 MW if expanded to 1800 tpd. The Facility will generate more than 4.28 billion kilowatt hours of electricity during its minimum 20 year life. By using solid waste to produce electricity, the County will save nonrenewable resources such as oil or coal that otherwise would be needed for power production. The energy produced from garbage will offset the need for more than 7,000,000 barrels of oil. Assuming oil is worth $20 per barrel, approximately $140 million worth of oil will be saved. The Facility will help Lee County address its solid waste disposal crisis. The Facility will reduce the volume of waste materials up to 90%. With less waste, less landfill space will be required and less land will be used for landfills. The threat of groundwater contamination also will be reduced because the ash from the Facility will be much less toxic than municipal solid waste (MSW). The leachate from ash will be much less toxic than leachate from MSW. The Facility will compliment Lee County's aggressive recycling and materials recovery programs. The Facility will only process those waste materials that are left after recycling is completed. Moreover, ferrous metals will be recovered at the Facility and recycled. The Facility will provide regional benefits. It will serve the residents of both Lee County and Hendry County pursuant to an interlocal agreement between the two counties. It will serve a combined population of approximately 400,000 people initially, which is projected to grow to approximately one million people within 20 years. The Facility will have positive economic impacts. Over 325 people will be employed during the Facility's construction. The Facility will provide jobs for 54 full-time employees during normal operations. The annual payroll of $2.5 million will contribute more than $33 million to the local economy over 20 years. The construction costs of approximately $130 million will result in a positive regional economic impact of approximately $398 million. The site is undeveloped. It has been heavily impacted by past logging and agricultural activities, including ditching and cattle grazing. The site has been extensively invaded by exotic tree species such as melaleuca and Brazilian pepper. Vegetative diversity is low, offering few habitat niches for feeding or reproduction by wildlife. As a result, the numbers and diversity of wildlife on the site are extremely low due to the poor habitat conditions. There are no DER jurisdictional wetland areas on the site. There are isolated wetlands within the jurisdiction of SFWMD. No jurisdictional wetlands will be affected by the construction of the resource recovery facility structure, which will be constructed in a previously disturbed sector of the site which is vegetated with wax myrtle. No more than 2.7 acres of wetlands will be affected by the construction of the new 138 kV transmission line, which is necessary to connect the Facility to FPL's adjacent Buckingham substation. The proposed location of the new transmission line next to an existing dirt road minimizes potential wetland impacts from the transmission line. The County will provide several forms of mitigation for wetland impacts. Under the agreed conditions of certification, the County will create new wetlands at whatever mitigation ratio SFWMD deems appropriate. In addition, the County will restore the historic hydroperiod to a stressed 9.9 acre wetland tract located on the southeast portion of the site. Finally, the County will eradicate nuisance plant specimens now found on the site and continue removal of new specimens as part of an ongoing program of habitat enhancement. These mitigation activities will improve wetlands and wildlife habitat on the site compared to current conditions. These activities will increase habitat diversity, which should result in an increase in wildlife numbers and diversity on the site. The county plans to construct the Facility approximately 1500 feet from Buckingham Road, maintaining an existing wooded area as a visual buffer between the road and the Facility. Approximately 88% (137 acres) of the site will remain as undeveloped buffer zones. All of the primary activities at the Facility will occur inside a fully enclosed building, which will be maintained under negative air pressure for control of noise, dust, and odors. Based upon experience at similar fully-enclosed resource recovery facilities, it is not likely that noise, dust, or odor levels at the site will be elevated by operation of the Facility. The planned surface water management system for the site includes a wet detention area for stormwater which is eight times larger than that required under the application rules of SFWMD. This wet detention area is supplemented by a dry pretreatment system approximately 4.5 times larger than required. After treatment, stormwater will be discharged into a currently stressed wetland area for additional treatment; the discharge will assist in restoring the original hydroperiod of the area. The primary source of water to be used in the Facility will be the City of Fort Myers' domestic wastewater treatment plant, which currently discharges advanced-treated wastewater to the Caloosahatchee River. The Facility's cooling tower will use approximately 1.1 million gallons per day (mgd) of treated wastewater. DER and SFWMD strongly encourage reuse of wastewater in this fashion, and the use will reduce the levels of nutrients which would otherwise be discharged into the Caloosahatchee by the City of Fort Myers treatment plant. The Facility will use approximately 15,000 gallons per day (gpd) of potable water for boiler makeup and household-type uses. This water will be drawn from two wells located on site, which can also supply backup water for use during emergencies. Use of potable water as backup for cooling is limited to ten days per year. The Facility will not discharge any wastewater into groundwater or surface waters. Wastewater generated at the Facility will be recycled to the extent practicable and then routed by pipeline to the City of Fort Myers' wastewater treatment plant. The Facility is not expected to cause or contribute to groundwater contamination. A groundwater monitoring system will ensure that the Facility does not impact groundwater. Likewise, a surface water monitoring program will ensure that surface water quality is not affected. The Facility will not be authorized to burn hazardous waste, biohazardous waste, medical waste, or sewage sludge. County franchise agreements with waste haulers, the only persons authorized to bring waste to the Facility, prohibit the disposal of such wastes at the Facility. Spotters stationed at the scale house, tipping floor, and charging hopper will inspect the waste stream to ensure that proscribed wastes are not burned. Proscribed wastes will be segregated upon discovery and removed by a licensed hazardous waste hauler. The municipal waste stream contains a number of substances, such as nail polish, paints, pesticides and solvents, which are denominated as "household hazardous waste." It is anticipated that such products will be found in the MSW entering the Facility. The County intends to minimize the volume of such wastes by operating a household hazardous waste collection center open to all of the County's residents. Ash is produced as the by-product of MSW incineration. Ash produced by the Facility will be wetted in a water-filled tank, then taken by conveyor within the building to an enclosed ash-handling area to be hauled away by enclosed truck to a licensed landfill for disposal. The Facility will not be allowed to commence operation until the County identifies a licensed landfill able and willing to accept ash from the Facility. Ash from the Facility is not considered a hazardous waste for regulatory purposes. Status of the Project Lee County will own the Facility. Ogden-Martin (Ogden) will build and operate the Facility for 20 years pursuant to a contract Ogden executed with the County in 1990. Ogden was selected because it submitted the lowest and best bid for these services in a competitive bidding process. Ogden is one of the largest and best vendors of resource recovery facilities in the United States. Ogden currently operates three resource recovery facilities in Florida and twelve in the United States. Ogden uses the Martin technology which has been used successfully at more than 140 facilities around the world. Lee County already has secured $197 million in escrow financing for the construction of the Facility, which will take approximately 27 months to complete. The County hopes to have the Facility in operation in the spring of 1994. EPA's 1991 New Source Performance Standards In February 1991, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated New Source Performance Standards which established stringent minimum requirements for the construction and operation of new resource recovery facilities, including Lee County's Facility. Among other things, EPA's 1991 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS): (a) establish specific emission limits for a wide array of pollutants, including dioxin; (b) require facility operators to be trained and certified; and (c) require resource recovery facilities to install, calibrate and maintain continuous emission monitors that monitor the facility's operations around the clock. The 1991 NSPS are applicable to the Facility. Best Available Control Technology In accordance with DER and EPA procedures, Lee County conducted a detailed evaluation of the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for the control of the Facility's airborne emissions. The BACT analysis included an evaluation of all feasible and available air pollution control technologies at existing and proposed resource recovery facilities in the United States and overseas. The energy, economic, and environmental impacts of each technology were quantified and compared on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. The analysis resulted in a determination of the BACT and appropriate emission limit for each pollutant. The County's analysis demonstrated that the Best Available Control Technology for the Facility is: (a) a spray dryer scrubber; (b) a fabric filter; (c) a selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) system; and (d) good combustion practices. This BACT determination is consistent with EPA's 1991 NSPS, which were established on the basis that spray dryer scrubbers, fabric filters, and SNCR were the best demonstrated technology for resource recovery facilities. The dry scrubber system is used to control sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions as well as those of other acid gases such as hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride. The system involves the injection of slaked lime to neutralize acid gases in the exhaust gas stream. Because the lime injection process effectively cools the gas stream, the scrubber system also effectively removes heavy metals except mercury; these metals adsorb to particulate matter which is removed by the fabric filter baghouse. Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are controlled by SNCR, which involves the injection of ammonia or urea into the post- combustion zone of the boiler to dissociate NOx, which is formed at high combustion temperatures, into nitrogen and water vapor. Good combustion practices minimize emissions of substances produced by incomplete combustion of solid waste, including carbon monoxide (CO), unburned hydrocarbons, soot, and toxic organic compounds such as dioxins, furans, and polycyclic organic matter (POM). The adherence to good combustion practices will assure that emissions of total dioxins and furans will not exceed the NSPS standard. Lee County considered the possibility of using a wet scrubber system, but the wet scrubber was rejected because it suffers from a variety of problems. Wet scrubbers have never been selected as BACT for any resource recovery facility in the United States. Wet scrubbers are not BACT in this case. Control Technology for Mercury The mercury emissions from the Facility will be minimized by at least four factors. First, many sources of mercury in municipal solid waste have been or soon will be eliminated. EPA has banned the use of mercury in paints and pesticides. In addition, there has been a significant national effort to reformulate consumer products and thereby eliminate mercury in the waste stream. For example, battery manufacturers nationwide have substantially reduced the mercury content of household batteries and it is expected that household batteries will be virtually mercury-free by 1995 (i.e., one year after the Facility becomes operational). This development is particularly important because as much as 90% of the mercury in municipal solid waste is contained in household batteries. Second, Lee County has implemented a battery collection program to reduce the number of household batteries in the waste stream and thereby further reduce the amount of mercury that might enter the Facility. The County has 46 drop-off stations at retail stores for the collection of button cell batteries. The County has worked with the School Board to educate students about the need to collect household batteries. The County currently is working on a curbside program for the collection of household batteries. As a result of these efforts, Lee County collected more than 40,000 batteries in just three months in 1991. Third, if there is mercury in the refuse entering the Facility, it will be controlled in part by the Facility's spray dryer scrubber and fabric filter, which may reduce mercury emissions by as much as 70%. Indeed, in a November 1990 case EPA stated that a spray dryer scrubber and fabric filter represented the most stringent control mechanisms for mercury. Fourth, Lee County will utilize an additional pollution control device to control mercury emissions. Specifically, Lee County will use a reagent injection system which will inject activated carbon, sodium sulfide, or other reagent into the flue gases. The mercury will adhere to the reagent and then be removed from the flue gases by the fabric filter. The reagent injection system should be very effective at capturing mercury and it also should reduce some other emissions (e.g., dioxins). The reagent injection system has been used in Europe, but it has never been used on a full-time basis on any resource recovery facility in the United States. This technology is not required under any state or federal regulatory program. The Facility's reagent injection system for mercury will provide the highest degree of mercury control that is technologically possible at this time. As a result of the County's extraordinary efforts to control mercury, the mercury emissions from the facility will be among the lowest in the world. Emission Limits For Mercury In August 1991, EPA completed a series of experiments with a reagent injection system at a resource recovery facility in Stanislaus, California. EPA will use its new test data from Stanislaus and its existing mercury data base to establish numerical limits for mercury emissions from new resource recovery facilities. EPA's new emission limits for mercury must be promulgated by November 15, 1991, pursuant to the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act. The new emission limits will be based on Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT), which will be even more stringent than BACT. EPA's mercury emission limits for "new facilities" are not applicable to Lee County's Facility, but Lee County has stipulated that it will comply with the new EPA emission limits for mercury when they are promulgated. DER's proposed conditions of certification provide that the Facility's maximum mercury emission rate "shall not exceed" 6.0 x 10-4 lbs/MMBtu or the new EPA limit, whichever is more stringent. The conditions of certification also expressly provide that DER can reduce the County's emission limit for mercury if a reduction is shown to be necessary in the future. The mercury emission limit in the conditions of certification is equivalent to approximately 560 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter (ug/dscm). To ensure consistent compliance with DER's "not to exceed" emission limit, Lee County's contract with Ogden-Martin requires Ogden to meet an emission limit of 150 ug/dscm. The County wanted Ogden to guarantee a lower emission limit to ensure that the Facility would never violate the conditions of certification. The County also wanted to ensure that Ogden would use its best efforts to reduce mercury emissions to the maximum extent possible. EPA's new test data from Stanislaus will provide a scientific basis for a new mercury emission limit that can be reasonably achieved with MACT. Until EPA's data are published, however, it would be imprudent and inappropriate to establish a mercury emission limit for the Facility that is lower than the level proposed by DER in the conditions of certification. The proposed mercury emission limit for the Facility represents a reasonable upper limit, given the available test data, and it rests on sound engineering judgment. Mercury emission rates of 130 ug/dscm or 80% removal recently were proposed in two pending cases in New York, but there are no reliable data available at this time to confirm that such levels can be consistently achieved. SFCARE contends that the BACT analysis should have set the Facility's mercury emission limit at 50 ug/dscm or 90% removal, however this limit is not supported by the evidence of record. SFCARE's proposed emission limits have never been established as BACT for any resource recovery facility in the United States. SFCARE's witness (Craig Volland) admitted that vendors for air pollution control equipment tend to exaggerate about the capabilities of their products, but no vendor in the world would guarantee that its equipment would meet his proposed emission limit of 50 ug/dscm. No vendor in the United States would guarantee the 90% removal limit. Another SFCARE witness (Richard Cook) conceded that he was unaware of any resource recovery facility that could achieve SFCARE's proposed emission limits for mercury. Nonetheless, SFCARE believes the County's mercury control system can reduce mercury emissions by 90% and limit them to 50 ug/dscm. To the extent that SFCARE is correct, the State of Florida can be reasonably assured that the mercury emissions from the Facility will be far below the levels established in the conditions of certification. Lee County's Air Quality Analyses The County's analyses of the Facility's impacts on air quality were performed in accordance with all of the applicable air quality regulations. Further, the County's analyses demonstrate that the Facility will operate in compliance with those regulations. Lee County's analyses were based on a series of "worst case" assumptions that intentionally maximized and over-predicted the Facility's potential impacts on air quality. For example, Lee County analyzed the air quality impacts associated with an 1800 tpd facility, even though the County only plans to build a 1200 tpd facility. The County also assumed that the Facility would operate 100% of the time, even though resource recovery facilities normally operate only 85 to 95% of the time. The County assumed that the Facility would emit every pollutant at the maximum permitted emission rate, continuously throughout the year, even though it would be impossible for this to occur. The County used a screening analysis to identify the operating conditions (e.g., loading rates, refuse Btu values) that would cause the maximum ground level impacts and then the County used those "worst case" operating conditions in all subsequent air quality analyses. Lee County also utilized a conservative approach (i.e, one designed to over-predict actual impacts) when determining the ambient air quality at the Site. The County used ambient air quality data from areas of heavy urban or industrial growth, which reflect levels of air pollution that are much greater than the levels expected at the County's Site. The County used EPA and DER approved computer models to evaluate the Facility's air quality impacts. These computer models have been tested extensively in the field to confirm that the models will over-predict a facility's maximum impacts. In accordance with DER's recommendation, the computer models used five years of consecutive hourly meteorological data from Fort Myers to calculate the Facility's impacts on air quality. As a result, the models will over-predict the Facility's maximum potential impacts at any time under any meteorological conditions. Ambient Air Quality Standards Primary ambient air quality standards are established by EPA to protect public health "with an adequate margin of safety." Primary standards are designed to protect the health of the most susceptible groups of the population, including children, the elderly, asthmatics and those with respiratory problems. Secondary ambient air quality standards are designed to protect the public welfare against "any known or anticipated adverse effects" from air pollution. Florida has adopted the national ambient air quality standards, except in some instances where Florida has adopted standards that are more protective. The Facility's maximum impacts are extremely small when compared to the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and Florida ambient air quality standards (FAAQS). The Facility's maximum impacts are less than one percent of any NAAQS or FAAQS. For example, the maximum impact from an 1800 tpd Facility would be only 0.8% of the health-based standard for lead. The County analyzed the Facility's maximum predicted impacts together with the maximum background levels for the ambient air, which take into account the impacts of all existing sources of air pollution. In the worst case, the combined impact of the Facility and all existing sources is only 60% of the standard for particulate matter, and only 0.05% of the impact results from the Facility's emissions. In all other instances, the combined impact of the Facility and all existing sources ranges from 7% to 46% of the NAAQS and FAAQS. Non-Criteria Pollutants Non-criteria pollutants are those substances for which EPA has not adopted ambient air quality standards. Non-criteria pollutants include mercury and dioxin. DER has identified certain levels (i.e., "no threat" thresholds) below which no adverse impacts are anticipated from non- criteria pollutants. In this case, the Facility's maximum impacts for non-criteria pollutants are 10 to 100 times less than DER's no-threat thresholds. The Facility's maximum impacts were compared to health-based standards and guidelines adopted by New York, North Carolina, Kentucky, and the American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists. The Facility's maximum impacts for non-criteria pollutants were far below all of the applicable criteria. The dioxin emissions from the Facility will be well below all of the health-based standards and guidelines that have been established by DER, EPA, the World Health Organization, and the European Community. The Facility's maximum impacts will be about 1,000 times less than the ambient air quality standard for dioxin that was established by Connecticut, the first state to adopt an ambient air quality standard for dioxin. Prevention of Significant Deterioration EPA and DER enforce the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program, which is designed to protect existing air quality. The PSD program limits airborne emissions by establishing maximum allowable increments that can be consumed in Class I, II, and III areas by potential sources of air pollution. Lee County and all adjacent areas are designated as PSD Class II areas, except for the Everglades National Park, which is a Class I area. The Facility will consume no more than 2.8% of any of the applicable PSD Class II increments. It will consume between 0.02 and 3.2% of the PSD Class I increments at the nearest location in the Everglades National Park, which is approximately 88 kilometers (55 miles) south-southeast of the Site. At the request of the National Park Service, Lee County evaluated the Facility's impacts on the closest border of the Big Cypress National Preserve, which is 61 kilometers (38 miles) southeast of the Site. The Facility's maximum impacts in the Big Cypress area will range from 0.02 to 4.4% of the Class I increments. Health Risk Analyses The environmental and human health effects of resource recovery facilities have been studied extensively. In 1987, EPA evaluated the data from resource recovery facilities around the world and then submitted a nine volume report to Congress, including a one volume health risk assessment. EPA conducted another comprehensive evaluation of resource recovery facilities when preparing the 1991 New Source Performance Standards. Based on these studies, EPA has concluded that well-designed, well-constructed and well-operated resource recovery facilities pose no unacceptable levels of risk to human health or the environment. The World Health Organization has reached the same conclusion. Similarly, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and the California Air Resources Board funded an extensive "worst case" health risk assessment of Pinellas County's 3000 tpd resource recovery facility. They concluded that the impacts from the Pinellas County facility were "minimal." In light of this extensive data base, EPA and DER do not require applicants to conduct health risk assessments for proposed resource recovery facilities. Nonetheless, Lee County analyzed the potential health impacts of the Facility's emissions. The County's analyses demonstrated that the maximum predicted impacts from the Facility will be far below any level that might cause any human health problems. Lee County evaluated the Facility's effects on human health and the environment by using standard health risk assessment techniques that were developed by EPA and other agencies. The evaluation was performed by Dr. Paul Chrostowski, a nationally recognized expert who teaches courses concerning health risk assessments for EPA and state regulatory agencies. Lee County's evaluation was based on a series of very conservative assumptions about the project that were intentionally designed to greatly over-predict the potential risks associated with the Facility's emissions. For example, the County's evaluation was based on the assumption that the Facility will operate at 1800 tpd, 100% of the time, for 70 years, even though Lee County only intends to build a 1200 tpd facility, which will operate approximately 85-95% of the time, over a useful life of approximately 30 years. The Facility's maximum impacts will occur relatively close to the Site in an undeveloped agricultural area, but the County assumed that hypothetical people would be located at the point of maximum impact for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for 70 years. The County assumed that these hypothetical individuals would never leave the area of maximum impact or even go indoors, where air conditioning would reduce the Facility's impacts. The County also used EPA's potency factor for dioxin when evaluating the Facility's potential impacts, even though EPA's value is too high and is approximately 200 times greater than the potency factor used by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Health risk assessments result in a statistical probability that a hypothetical person might get some form of cancer (not a fatal cancer). For regulatory purposes, EPA considers acceptable risks to range from 1 in 10,000 up to 1 in 1,000,000. Even after using all of its conservative assumptions, the County found that the probability of a person getting any type of cancer from dioxin inhalation was only 3 in 100,000,000. The health risk would be reduced by a factor of up to 100 if the County used more reasonable exposure assumptions. The calculated risk would be reduced by an additional factor of 200 if the County used the potency factor for dioxin that is used by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. In any event, a risk of 3 in 100,000,000 indicates that the Facility will not cause any cases of cancer from dioxin inhalation. In general, there is a 10:1 ratio between all potential exposure pathways and the inhalation pathway for dioxin. Accordingly, the risk from all exposure pathways for dioxin would be 3 in 10,000,000. This risk is well below any level of concern for regulatory purposes. To put these risks in perspective, it should be recognized that a 1 in 1,000,000 risk would be experienced if a person smoked two cigarettes at any time during his or her life. A risk of 1 in 1,000,000 also would be encountered if a person drank one liter of wine during his or her entire lifetime. Hence, the risk from drinking one liter of wine or smoking two cigarettes during a person's lifetime is approximately 10 times greater than the risk that would be experienced if a person located at the point of maximum impact received 70 years of uninterrupted exposure to the maximum predicted dioxin emissions from an 1800 tpd facility. When the risks are considered in this context, it is clear that the Facility's dioxin emissions will pose no meaningful risk to human health. Similarly, the Facility's mercury emissions pose no threat to human health. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) has developed "minimal risk levels" for short term and long term exposure to mercury. If a person's exposure is below the minimal risk level, the CDC does not anticipate any adverse health effects. In this case, the maximum short-term impact from the Facility's mercury emissions at 1800 tpd will be about 1,000 times less than the CDC's minimal risk level for short term exposure. The Facility's maximum annual impact will be many thousands of times lower than the CDC's minimal risk level for long- term exposure. Environmental Impacts of Mercury Emissions The County also conducted a very conservative "worst case" analysis of the Facility's maximum impacts on Florida's ecosystems. Using standard EPA approved techniques, the County identified two environmentally sensitive areas where the Facility's impacts might have the greatest effects: (a) Lake Tarpon in the Ding Darling Refuge on Sanibel Island; and (b) the northern reaches of the Caloosahatchee River in Lee County. Since the Everglades National Park (Everglades) and Big Cypress Refuge (Big Cypress) are much further away from the Site, the potential impacts on the Everglades and Big Cypress will be much smaller than the impacts on the areas selected for study. The Facility's potential impacts on the Everglades and Big Cypress also will be minimized because the prevailing winds normally will blow the Facility's emissions away from those areas. The County identified the wildlife species of greatest concern to be the Florida panther, the bald eagle, the wood stork, and the snail kite. The County selected the snail kite and wood stork for the closest scrutiny because they are the species that are the most likely to be affected by the Facility's emissions. Here, too, Lee County's analyses were based on very conservative assumptions. Among other things, the County assumed that: the Facility will operate continuously at 1800 tpd for 70 years; Lake Tarpon and the Caloosahatchee River will receive the Facility's maximum impacts; (c) virtually all of the Facility's emissions will be deposited on the soil and then washed into the water bodies under investigation; (d) the snail kite and wood stork will only feed in the two areas that are under investigation; (e) the birds' food (i.e., snails for the snail kite; fish for the wood stork) will stay in one location where it will receive maximum exposure; and (f) the fish and snails will live 70 years and accumulate mercury over that period. The County also used the lowest sensitivity levels that could be found for any bird species and then applied a toxicological safety factor of 20. The County's analyses demonstrated that after 70 years of Facility operations at 1800 tpd, the mercury concentration in snails would be three times less than any levels that might cause an impact on the snail kite. Wood storks would be exposed to even less risk than snail kites because the bioaccumulation of mercury in fish would be less than the bioaccumulation of mercury in snails. Since eagles also eat fish, this same conclusion is true for eagles. Bald eagles and panthers would be at even less risk than snail kites or wood storks because they feed over a larger range than snail kites or wood storks. Panthers and eagles would not get all of their food from the area of maximum impact near the Site. Panthers and eagles are very mobile and they would not remain for a long period of time in the areas where the Facility's maximum impacts would occur. Panthers can range over hundreds of square miles of land. Indeed, one young panther once moved through the general area near the Site, but since then it has spent most of its time roaming through Hendry County and Collier County. The panther's activities have taken it approximately 20 miles northeast and 50 miles southeast of the Site. Since the Facility's impacts will be lowest to the southeast and east, the Facility's impacts will be much smaller in those areas where the panther is located than in the areas that were studied by Lee County. Parenthetically, dioxin concentrations resulting from the Facility's emissions would be up to one billion times less than the levels of concern for dioxin in snails, fish, or their predator species. The County's analyses demonstrate that the Facility, when considered individually or when combined with other existing sources of mercury, will not have any adverse impacts on threatened or endangered species in southwest Florida. There is a very wide margin of safety for these species because the Facility's emissions will be extremely small. Soil Deposition Lee County evaluated the possibility that the Facility's emissions would be deposited on the soil and accumulate over time. To evaluate this issue, the County assumed that there would be 70 years of soil deposition resulting from the Facility's maximum emissions at 1800 tpd. The Facility's maximum impact on lead concentrations in the soil after 70 years would be 2 x 10-4 parts per million (ppm). In the southeastern United States, lead occurs naturally in the soils at levels up to 40 ppm. Children do not experience any effects from lead until soil concentrations reach at least 200 ppm. EPA sets a safe level of 500 ppm. Similarly, after 70 years of worst case impacts, the Facility's contribution to arsenic concentrations in the soil would be 3 x 10-6 ppm. Naturally occurring levels of arsenic in Florida's soil range up to 15 ppm. The Facility's maximum contribution to beryllium concentrations in the soil would be about 1,000,000 times less than the levels that naturally occur in Florida soils. The Facility's maximum contribution to mercury levels in the soil would be 2 x 10-4 ppm. By comparison, sugar cane contains approximately 1.2 ppm of mercury. In all of these worst case analyses, the 1800 tpd Facility's maximum contribution to soil concentrations would be at least 100 times below any level that the EPA or CDC has associated with health impacts. Indeed, the Facility's contributions to these soil concentrations could not be measured with any known analytical technique. Air Quality Monitoring Lee County will utilize sophisticated operational safeguards to ensure that the Facility is operated properly. The Facility will have continuous emission monitors (CEM) to continuously measure the levels of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and oxygen in the Facility's emissions. Opacity and other parameters also will be monitored with CEMs. These monitors will be connected to visible and audible alarms in the Facility's main control room, which will alert the Facility operators to potential problems. The data collected by the CEMs will be reported regularly to DER. Shortly after the Facility completes construction, Lee County will conduct an initial stack test to demonstrate compliance with the various emission limits established in the conditions of certification. Lee County will conduct annual stack tests thereafter, even though annual stack tests are not required at most resource recovery facilities. The Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council suggested that Lee County should monitor mercury emissions on a monthly "or other appropriate basis." There are several reasons why annual, not monthly, stack tests for mercury will be most appropriate for the Facility. First, monthly stack tests at the Facility would cost a minimum of $300,000 each year. Second, there are no resource recovery facilities in the United States that are required to conduct monthly or even quarterly stack tests for mercury. Third, there will be a substantially larger data base for mercury compiled prior to the commencement of operations at the Facility in 1994. Fourth, DER has recommended annual stack tests. Fifth, DER could require more frequent testing in the future if DER concluded that additional tests were necessary. SFCARE contends that ambient air quality monitoring should be conducted on or around the Site. This proposal is rejected because ambient air monitoring would be of no scientific value. The Facility's maximum impacts at 1800 tpd will be so small that they could not be measured with an EPA approved ambient air monitoring system located at the point of maximum impact or anywhere else in Lee County. For this reason, state and federal regulations will not require ambient air quality monitoring at or near the Site. Facility operations can be better evaluated by using CEMs and stack tests to measure the Facility's emissions, rather than ambient air monitors. Lee County's Recycling Programs Lee County has a very aggressive and innovative recycling program. Lee County expects to achieve the state recycling goal of 30% by 1994. Moreover, the County Commission established a county recycling goal of 40% and the County is doing everything practicable to achieve its 40% goal. Lee County's residential curbside recycling program will serve 100% of the County by the end of 1991. The County expects to have 50% of the County's commercial businesses in its recycling program by 1992 and 100% of the businesses by 1994. The County already collects used oil, automobile batteries, and telephone books. The County is implementing a mulching program for horticultural wastes. The County's recycling rates are among the best in the State of Florida. The County's overall recycling program is among the best in the nation. The County received an award from EPA for its innovative approach to recycling. Among other things, the County has a contract with Goodwill Industries that allows Goodwill to process and market all of the recyclable materials collected in the County's curbside program. The County recently awarded $1,200,000 to Goodwill for an automated materials separation facility for recyclables. The County also awarded $600,000 to Goodwill for an intrusion molding plant that will utilize PET and HDPE plastics to create plastic lumber. The County recently used a $100,000 DER grant to construct a facility for the collection and disposal of household hazardous wastes. The County recently received a DER recycling grant for $619,000 and a DER tire recycling grant for $209,000. Although the County has an innovative recycling and materials recovery program, the County only wants to use demonstrated technologies. The County does not want to gamble its public funds on experimental technologies that might not work. The County does not want to invest in a program like the Agripost composting facility in Miami, which was a "dismal failure" and cost more than $25 million. Some citizens suggested that Lee County should recycle 60% or more of the waste stream, but such proposals are not feasible. Some materials cannot be recycled. Other materials are not marketable and cannot be reused. Facility Sizing When the County filed its PSD and PPSA applications in June 1990, the County wanted authorization to construct an 1800 tpd facility that could be expanded to 2400 tpd. On May 1, 1991, the County Commission decided to reduce the size of the Facility to 1200 tpd, with expansion capabilities to 1800 tpd. The County Commission reduced the size of the Facility because the County wanted to maximize its recycling programs and minimize its reliance on the Facility. As a result of the County's decision, it will be very expensive to expand the Facility. The County has created a strong financial disincentive against expansion of the Facility. Resource recovery facilities normally are designed with excess capacity to provide for future growth. In this case, however, the Facility will be full when it begins commercial operations, unless the County achieves a 30% recycling rate. Even if the County achieves a 30% recycling rate, the Facility will be full within two years after it commences operation. Source Separation As BACT SFCARE contends that the BACT determination in this case should require additional recycling or source separation (i.e., the removal of certain materials from the waste stream prior to their disposal at the resource recovery facility). SFCARE's proposal is rejected. Recycling and source separation programs do not significantly affect the emissions from resource recovery facilities, with two exceptions. Removing household batteries from the waste can reduce mercury emissions. Removing lead-acid batteries, as required by Florida law, can reduce lead emissions. In this case, Lee County already has taken steps to remove these two types of batteries from the waste stream. In general, however, recycling and source separation programs have not been demonstrated to reduce emissions from resource recovery facilities and, therefore, such programs do not constitute Best Available Control Technology. In a 1989 case involving a resource recovery facility in Spokane, Washington, EPA concluded that source separation had not been demonstrated to be BACT. In the 1991 NSPS for resource recovery facilities, EPA stated that there are no reliable data to demonstrate that recycling or source separation requirements should be imposed as part of the NSPS. Consequently, recycling, source separation, and similar requirements have never been imposed as part of a BACT determination by EPA or any state agency in the United States. The available data indicate that additional source separation programs (i.e., over and above what the County already proposes) would not be cost effective and would not produce any meaningful reductions in the Facility's emissions. For example, several studies have shown that the removal of plastics from the waste will not reduce dioxin or other emissions. BACT determinations require a quantitative analysis of the energy, economic and environmental impacts associated with any proposed BACT technology. In this case, SFCARE did not perform any analyses of the energy, economic, or environmental impacts of its proposals concerning recycling or source separation. Indeed, SFCARE has not specifically explained what additional recycling or source separation should be done in this case, what these activities would cost, or what environmental benefits (if any) would result. Thus, SFCARE's proposal is fatally defective. SFCARE SFCARE has approximately 600 people on its mailing list, but the actual number of SFCARE members is unknown. The members of SFCARE fish, jog, and otherwise enjoy the natural resources of Lee County; however, SFCARE's President readily admitted that SFCARE's members are just like all of the other citizens in Lee County in this regard. The Facility will be approximately five miles from the nearest home of any SFCARE member. The evidence demonstrated that the Facility's impacts on the public will be negligible. The Facility's impacts on the members of SFCARE will be no different than its impacts on other members of the community. Several members of SFCARE complained of personal illnesses or physical infirmities, but here, too, the members of SFCARE are like any other typical cross-section of the community. The evidence did not demonstrate that any member of SFCARE would be affected in any manner that would be different than the public at large. Notice of Certification Hearing On July 27, 1990, Lee County published a large notice in the Fort Myers News-Press to announce that Lee County had filed its application for site certification. On July 23, 1991, Lee County published a full page notice in the Fort Myers News-Press concerning the Facility and the certification hearing. Notice of the certification hearing was published by DER in the Florida Administrative Weekly on August 2, 1991--37 days before the hearing started. DER issued a news release concerning the certification hearing on August 9, 1991. Substantial public notice of the certification hearing also was provided by the press and media coverage in the area. Notice of the certification hearing and copies of the DER report about the Facility were provided to EPA, the Federal Lands Manager, and other appropriate officials in compliance with DER rules. Notice of the certification hearing and the copies of the DER report were available for public inspection at several locations in Lee County 30 days prior to the public comment portion of the certification hearing. Ultimate Findings of Fact Lee County has utilized all reasonable and available methods to ensure that the location, construction, and operation of its proposed Facility will produce minimal impacts on human health, the environment, the ecology of the land and its wildlife, and the ecology of state waters and their aquatic life. The evidence establishes that the proposed Facility will comply with all of the applicable and substantive environmental regulations of all of the local, regional, and state agencies involved in the PPSA process. The operational safeguards proposed by Lee County, together with the conditions of certification proposed by the regulatory agencies, are more than sufficient to protect Florida's citizens and its environment. The Facility will create electrical power while providing a regional solution to the solid waste needs of Lee County and Hendry County. The beneficial impacts of the Facility are substantial, while the environmental impacts resulting from the Facility's construction and operation are negligible. Indeed, the Facility will not have any meaningful impacts on Florida's air, water, soil, or wildlife. The conditions of certification attached hereto as Appendix A are reasonable and appropriate to ensure that the construction and operation of the Facility will have minimal impacts on the environment and natural resources of the state and on the welfare of the citizens of Florida. Additionally, the County has agreed to comply with these conditions of certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Siting Board enter a Final Order and therein: Grant site certification for the Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility, subject to the conditions of certification attached hereto as Appendix A; Order that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue PSD construction permit authorizing construction of the Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility in accordance with the DER BACT determination and subject to the conditions of certification attached hereto as Appendix A; and Deny and dismiss the Motion to Intervene filed by SFCARE. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of December, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, 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 9th day of December, 1991.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether CJC Properties, Ltd. (CJC), is eligible for state restoration funding assistance under the Petroleum Contamination Participation Program or the Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Insurance Program for one or more discharges of gasoline at DEP Facility No. 378943938 (“the facility”).
Findings Of Fact The Facility CJC is a Florida Limited Partnership. It is the current owner of property located at 5691 U.S. Highway 27 North, in Tallahassee. Prior to CJC’s acquisition of the property, the property was owned by Carolyn J. Chapman, John W. Chapman, Jane Chapman Latina, and Carolyn Chapman Landrum (“the Chapmans”). The property was leased to various entities and operated as a gas station. The tanks and dispensers remained in service until November, 1995. The last operator of the facility was Lake Jackson 76, Inc. There were five underground petroleum storage tanks at the facility. Before 1991, one of the tanks at the facility was used for regular, leaded, gasoline. When leaded gasoline was phased out, the tank was used for unleaded gasoline. Site Assessments and Sampling Data On November 30, 1995, the Chapmans employed Petroleum Contractors, Inc., to remove the five storage tanks. During the tank removal, Environmental and Geotechnical Specialists, Inc. (“EGS”) performed an assessment to determine whether the facility was contaminated with petroleum or petroleum products. The Underground Storage Tank Removal Report prepared by EGS noted that all five tanks appeared to be intact. Soils in the tank pit wall and bottom were not discolored. No significant contamination was observed directly below the tanks. Soil from the tank pit was stockpiled on the site. EGS observed no significant signs of contamination of this soil. The soil stockpile was also screened with a Flame Ionization Detector Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA). No organic vapors were detected. An OVA detects any organic vapor, but is used as a screening tool to find petroleum vapors. Department rules require that an OVA reading be performed both unfiltered and filtered. The filtered reading screens out everything but methane and is “subtracted” from the unfiltered reading to determine the presence of petroleum vapors. Twenty-four soil samples were taken from various depths at nine locations in the tank pit. These samples were tested using an OVA. Nine of the soil samples, taken from four locations, had corrected OVA readings indicative of petroleum contamination. EGS concluded that “soil contamination detected in the tank pit is likely the result of a leak in the piping” between the dispensers and the tanks. Soil samples were also taken from three borings in the vicinity of the dispenser island and OVA-tested. In boring D-2, organic vapors were detected from the surface to a depth of approximately seven feet. The OVA readings from D-2 declined with depth. EGS reported that “some contamination was detected beneath a dispenser; however, it does not ‘appear’ to significantly extend below six (6) feet.” EGS did not report both filtered and unfiltered OVA readings for the soil samples taken from the dispenser area, as it had done for soil samples taken from the tank pit and the stockpile. For the dispenser area soil samples, EGS reported a single OVA reading for each sample, without indicating whether the reading was “corrected” after filtering. For this reason, the Department contends that these data are unreliable. CJC points out that EGS stated in the text of its report that the soil samples were filtered. CJC also argues that, because the filtered OVA readings for soil samples taken from the tank pit area were not different from their unfiltered readings, the OVA readings for the soil samples from the dispenser area would not have changed after filtering. The preponderance of the evidence is that the contamination in the dispenser area was petroleum. Based on EGS’ findings during the tank removal in November 1995, Petroleum Contractors, Inc., filed a Discharge Reporting Form on December 1, 1995, stating that there had been a discharge of unleaded gasoline at the facility. In January 1996, the Chapmans applied to participate in FPLRIP based on the discharge reported on December 1, 1995. By order dated January 26, 1996, the Department determined that the reported discharge was eligible for state-funded remediation assistance under FPLRIP. In 1997, another consultant, Levine Fricke Recon (LFR) conducted a site assessment at the facility and submitted its Interim Site Assessment Report to the Department. As part of its own soil sampling at the site, LFR collected a “direct push” soil boring in the dispenser island area, near the place where EGS had reported organic vapors. The boring data showed no petroleum vapors until the interval 16-to-20 feet below ground surface. LFR also collected and analyzed groundwater samples from the site. It reported that a sample taken from beneath the former diesel dispenser contained lead. Because lead occurs naturally in soils, its presence in a water sample does not confirm that a discharge of leaded gasoline occurred. In 1998, LFR conducted a second assessment of the facility site. It installed and sampled four shallow monitoring wells, designated MW-1S through MW-4S, and three deep monitoring wells, designated MW-2D through MW-4D. Groundwater samples from MW-3S and MW-3D were analyzed for lead, ethylene dibromide (EDB), and 1,2-Dichloroethane. All three substances are usually detected in a groundwater sample contaminated with leaded gasoline. On August 28, 1998, LFR submitted its Interim Site Assessment II to the Department, which shows lead and EDB were found in a sample taken from MW-3S, but not 1,2-Dichloroethane. LFR did not conclude or express a suspicion in either of its two assessment reports that leaded gasoline had been discharged at the facility. The deadline for submitting a Discharge Reporting Form or written report of contamination was December 31, 1998. A site assessment report received by the Department before January 1, 1999, which contained evidence of a petroleum discharge, was accepted by the Department as a “report of contamination.” The petroleum discharge information received by the Department before January 1, 1999, consisted of the Underground Storage Tank Removal Report, the FPLRIP claim, the Interim Site Assessment Report, and the Interim Site Assessment Report II. Post Deadline Site Assessment Data After the statutory deadline, LFR submitted its Interim Site Assessment III. This report includes January 1999 groundwater sampling data from four monitoring wells which show the presence of low levels of EDB. When EDB is found in a groundwater sample, it is a common practice to re-sample the well from which the sample was taken. Of the wells that showed the presence of EDB, only MW- 10D was re-sampled, after January 1, 1999. There was no EDB present in the groundwater when MS-10D was re-sampled. In June 2000, as part of the remediation of the contamination at the facility, an area of contaminated soil was removed to a depth of 14 feet. The area of soil removed included the former dispenser area. In January 2003, the Department notified CJC that the $300,000 FPLRIP funding cap would soon be reached. In March 2003, CJC signed a Funding Cap Transition Agreement, acknowledging that “At no time will the DEP be obligated to pay for cleanup of this discharge any amount that exceeds the funding cap.” CJC further acknowledged that it “is responsible for completing the remediation of the discharge in accordance with Chapter 62-770, F.A.C.” In 2005, CJC re-sampled one of the monitoring wells for lead and EDB. Neither substance was present. The site is not currently being actively remediated. Periodic groundwater sampling indicates that concentrations of contaminants are dropping. No further active remediation has been proposed. The cost to complete remediation is a matter of speculation. The record evidence is insufficient to make a finding about future remediation costs. Eligibility Determinations On September 2, 2003, CJC submitted a PCPP Affidavit to the Department, seeking state funding under PCPP. On October 30, 2003, the Department denied CJC eligibility for PCPP funding on the basis that the contamination was covered under FPLRIP and, therefore, was excluded from funding under PCPP. The Department has never granted PCPP eligibility for the cleanup of a discharge previously being funded under FPLRIP. Apparently, in 2005, CJC hired Glenn R. MacGraw, an expert in the assessment of petroleum-contaminated sites, to review the EGS and LFR assessments. In a letter to CJC’s attorney dated August 19, 2005, MacGraw expressed the opinion that “at least 2 discharges have occurred on this site, one in the former tank area, and one in the former dispenser area.” MacGraw’s opinion that there had been a discharge of leaded gasoline was based on the detection of EDB and lead in the groundwater. He also thought the presence of methyl tetra-butyl ether (MTBE) in groundwater samples taken from the tank pit area showed a tank leak of unleaded gasoline. CJC requested FPLRIP funding for the other alleged discharges at the facility. On March 23, 2006, the Department issued a letter formally stating its disagreement that there were other reported discharges and denying eligibility for FPLRIP funding. On March 30, 2006, the Department issued an Amended Order of Ineligibility under PCPP. The amended order added a second ground for denial, that the reported discharge was not shown to have occurred before January 1, 1995. Whether There Was A Second Discharge Eligible for Funding CJC argues that the presence of lead and EDB in the groundwater sample taken from MW-3S shows that there was a discharge of leaded gasoline at the facility. However, LFR reported that the well screen for MW-3S had probably been damaged during installation, because a significant amount of filter sand was observed in the purge water. The Department contends, therefore, that the source of the lead detected in the groundwater sample from MW-3S could have been (naturally) in the soil that entered the well. The Department also discounts the detection of EDB in the groundwater sample because EDB is an ingredient of some pesticides and can show up in groundwater when pesticide has been applied to the overlying land. Furthermore, EDB was not detected in the groundwater sample taken from MW-3D, a deeper well located near MW-3S. MacGraw does not think the EDB came from a pesticide application, because the EDB contamination at the site occurs in an elongated “plume,” in the former dispenser area, whereas one would expect to see EDB distributed evenly over the site if the source was a pesticide application. MacGraw mapped the plume of EDB by using data obtained after the discharge reporting deadline. Michael J. Bland, a Department employee and expert in geology and petroleum site assessment, believes the data from the facility are insufficient to confirm the presence of EDB or its distribution. LFR reported in its Interim Site Assessment that no significant soil contamination was found near the dispenser island. Groundwater samples from MW-3D, a deep monitoring well near MW-S3, showed no EDB, lead, or 1,2-dichlorothane. Bland opined that, if the detection of EDB in the shallow well was reliable, EDB would have been detected in the deep well, too, because EDB is a “sinker.” EDB is persistent in groundwater, so when it is not detected when a well is re-sampled, reasonable doubt arises about the detection in the first sample. Of all the wells sampled in 1999 that showed EDB, only MW-10D was re-sampled in 2003. When the well was re-sampled, there was no EDB. CJC contends that EDB was not found in the re-sampling of MW-10D because of the soil removal in 2000, but the Department contends that the soil removal would not have affected the presence of EDB in MW-10D, because the well is significantly down-gradient of the area of soil removal. It was undisputed that the presence of 1,2- dichoroethane in MW-S3 was not reliably determined. There is insufficient evidence in the record to establish that the contamination reported in the dispenser area is the source of contamination which persists at the facility. The reported contamination only affected the top six feet of soil. The soil removal to a depth of 14 feet in that area in 2000 should have fully remediated the reported contamination. The data upon which CJC relies in claiming eligibility under FPLRIP or PCPP for a second discharge are, at best, incomplete and ambiguous. CJC failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a discharge of leaded gasoline occurred. CJC also failed to prove that the reported contamination in the dispenser is associated with a discharge that still exists to be remediated with state assistance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order determining that CJC is ineligible to participate in the Petroleum Cleanup Participation Program for the discharge reported to the Department on December 1, 1995, and that CJC has not demonstrated eligibility to participate in the Petroleum Cleanup Participation Program or the Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Program for any other discharges. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 9th day of July, 2008.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's service station site known as Siesta Key Exxon Village, at 5201 Ocean Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida, is eligible for state administered cleanup pursuant to Section 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Weeks Oil Company, Inc., owns and operates a service station, Siesta Key Exxon, located at 5201 Ocean Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida. On December 21, 1988, Petitioner applied, pursuant to the Early Detection Incentive Program (EDI), for state assistance due to a suspected discharge of gasoline at the facility. The application indicated that a manual test of a monitoring well, conducted on December 16, 1988, detected contamination. After free product was discovered in the monitoring wells in December, 1988, subsequent monitoring well reports for the months of January - May, 1989, indicated the presence of free petroleum product. The January, 1989, monitoring report indicates six inches of free product; the February, 1989, monitoring report indicates twelve inches of free product; the March, 1989, report failed to indicate the presence of free product; and both the April and May, 1989, monitoring reports indicate the presence of sixteen inches of free product. Purity Well Company, the monitoring well contractor retained by Weeks Oil, bailed free product out of the monitoring wells once a month during the period January through May, 1989. On May 23, 1989, Richard Steele of the Sarasota County Pollution Control Division conducted an Early Detection Incentive Program Inspection at Siesta Key Exxon, 5201 Ocean Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida, DER Facility #588521170. During the inspection, Mr. Steele examined the monitoring well reports for Siesta Key Exxon for the months of January through May, 1989. Evidence of contamination was indicated by each month's monitoring well report, and the amount of free product indicated by the monitoring well reports increased over time. During the May 22, 1989, inspection, Mr. Steele observed a minimum of two feet of free product in monitoring well number three. As part of the Early Detection Incentive Program inspection, Mr. Steele requested inventory records for Siesta Key Exxon, which records were provided on June 7, 1989. Inventory records for January, February, March and April, 1989, indicated a total shortage of 441 gallons of gasoline. Mr. Steele's inspection report of May 22, 1989, indicates that no initial remedial action other than the bailing of monitoring wells occurred subsequent to the December, 1988, EDI application. During the May 22, 1989, inspection, Mr. Steele was neither provided with any evidence of repairs to the petroleum storage system made for the purpose of acting upon monitoring well reports, nor did he visually observe any evidence of repair. By letter dated May 24, 1989, from Richard Steele to Weeks Oil Company, Mr. Weeks was informed of the presence of two feet of free product in monitoring well number three and specifically requested a tank tightness test. The May 24, 1987, letter requested Mr. Weeks to send the results of the tank tightness test to the Sarasota County Pollution Control Office or the Department of Environmental Regulation district office. Mr. Weeks discussed with Steele the fact that the contaminants appeared to come from tanks no longer in service, which tanks were scheduled for relining. Mr. Weeks did not consider it practicable to test tanks scheduled for relining and thought Steele agreed that he could delay the testing until the tanks were refitted. Mr. Steele never made such a commitment, and the tank test was never conducted. On October 20, 1989, the tanks at Siesta Key Exxon were excavated and fiberglass coated. The August 22, 1989 ineligibility determination cites as the reason for denial, the failure of Weeks Oil to conduct a tank tightness test as requested by Sarasota County or otherwise immediately investigate and repair the contamination source as required by Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code, The ineligibility letter concludes that failure to immediately investigate and repair the contamination source as required by Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code, shall be construed as gross negligence in the maintenance of a petroleum storage system, which precludes participation in the Early Detection Incentive Program. A tank tightness test should be performed by the owner or operator of a petroleum storage system where there are any discrepancies in inventory records or monthly monitoring system checks. Rule 17-61.050(4)(c) 3., Florida Administrative Code, requires upon discovery of an inventory discrepancy that investigation of the system "shall not stop until the source of the discrepancy has been found, the tank has been tested, repaired, or replaced, or the entire procedure has been completed." Pursuant to Rule 17-61.050(6), Florida Administrative Code, the owner or operator of a storage system shall test the entire storage system whenever the Department has ordered that such a test is necessary to protect the lands, ground waters, or surface waters of the state. Specifically, the Department may order a tank test where a discharge detection device or monitoring well indicates that pollutant has been or is being discharged. Given the inventory record discrepancy and the amount of free product continually observed in the monitoring wells at Siesta Key Exxon, it was appropriate for Mr. Steele to request a tank tightness test. The bailing of a contaminated monitoring well is not an appropriate method of determining the source of petroleum contamination. The failure of Weeks Oil Company, Inc., to timely conduct a tank test as requested by Sarasota County, acting on behalf of the Department, creates a risk of or the potential for greater damage to the environment because a continual unchecked discharge leads to the release of more petroleum product into the environment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order denying the application of Petitioner to participate in the Early Detection Incentive Program. ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of May, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Janet D. Bowman, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2400 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 James B. Weeks, Jr. Weeks Oil Company Post Office Box 100 Sarasota, FL 34230 Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Reimbursement Program The Florida Legislature created the reimbursement program to provide for rehabilitation of as many petroleum contamination sites as possible, as soon as possible. Section 376.3071(12)(a), Florida Statutes. The Legislature intended that those responsible persons who possessed adequate financial ability should conduct site rehabilitation and seek reimbursement in lieu of the state conducting the cleanup. Section 376.3071(12)(c), Florida Statutes (1993). When owners and operators of the site or their designees perform site remediation program tasks under any of the programs created by Chapter 376, Florida Statutes, those entities become entitled to reimbursement from the Inland Protection Trust Fund (IPTF) of their allowable costs at reasonable rates. Section 376.3071(12)(b), Florida Statutes. "Allowable" costs are those which are associated with work that is appropriate for cleanup tasks. Section 376.3071(12)(d), Florida Statutes, requires DEP to: Reimburse actual and reasonable costs for site rehabilitation; and Reimburse interest on the amount of reimbursable costs for applications filed after August 14, 1992, at a rate of 1 percent per month or the prime rate, which- ever is less. Interest shall be paid from the 61st day after an application is filed with the department until the application is paid, provided the department determines the application is sufficient; otherwise, interest shall be paid commencing on the date the application is made sufficient until the application is paid. . . . A site owner or operator may engage the services of firms to perform remediation activities on a site and may designate an entity to receive reimbursement for such work. Section 376.301(14), Florida Statutes. Chapter 17-773, Florida Administrative Code (as revised in April of 1993), contains DEP's rules which were in effect at the time Petitioners submitted the instant applications. This chapter is currently located in Chapter 62-773, Florida Administrative Code. Chapter 17-773, Florida Administrative Code establishes procedures and documentation required to receive reimbursement from the IPTF. Rule 17-773.100(4), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 17-773.100(5), Florida Administrative Code, provides in pertinent part: "review and approval of reimbursement applications shall be based upon the statutes, rules and written guidelines governing petroleum contamination site cleanup and reimbursement which were in effect at the time the work was performed or the records of activities and expenses were generated, as applicable. . . . In order to be reimbursable, an applicant must break charges in an application into applicable units and rates. Rule 17-773.100(5), Florida Administrative Code. DEP has a predominate rate schedule to determine whether an allowable cost is reasonable. DEP bases its predominate rates on a study of average rates that contractors charge for a particular task. Requests for reimbursement must apply to costs which are "integral" to site rehabilitation. Rule 17-773.100(2), Florida Administrative Code. "Integral" costs are those which are essential to completion of site rehabilitation. Rule 17-773.200(2)(11), Florida Administrative Code. After integral costs have been identified and incorporated on a units and rates basis in an invoice, the invoice may be marked up at two levels. These markups are subject to certain limitations established by DEP rule: There can be no more than two levels of markups or handling fees applied to contractor, subcontractor or vendor invoices (Rule 17-773.350(9), F.A.C.); There can be no markups or handling fees in excess of 15 percent for each level of allowable markup applied to contractor, subcontractor or vendor invoices (Rule 17-773.350(10), F.A.C.); and There can be no markups or handling fees applied to invoices between any two entities which have a financial, familial, or beneficial relationship with each other (Rule 17-773.350(11), F.A.C.). In order to be reimbursable, costs must have been actually "incurred." Rule 17-773.700, Florida Administrative Code. "Incurred" means that allowable costs have been paid. Rule 17-773.200(9), Florida Administrative Code. When the "person responsible for conducting site rehabilitation" (PRFCSR) has no financial interest in the site, DEP considers the following costs as incurred when the program task is complete: Reasonable rates, including profits associated with the work performed, claimed for the use of their own personnel or equip- ment with documentation pursuant to Rule 17-773.700(7), F.A.C.; and Allowable markups or handling fees applied to their paid contractor, subcontractor, or vendor invoices pursuant to Rule 17-773.350(9), (10), and (11), F.A.C. Rule 17-773.200(9), Florida Administrative Code. Other rules reference limitations on the ability of an entity to take a markup. Rule 17-773.600(2)(d), Florida Administrative Code, provides in pertinent part: . . . If the person responsible for conducting site rehabilitation manufactured the [capital expense item], or a markup is otherwise prohibited under Rule 17-773.350(9), (10) or (11), Florida Administrative Code, no markup of the equipment shall be allowed. Rule 17- 773.700(5), Florida Administrative Code, provides in pertinent part: Costs claimed in a reimbursement application for the employees, equipment or materials of the site owner, site operator or any entity which has a financial interest in the site or a familial or other beneficial relation- ship with the site owner or operator shall be considered to be in house and reimburse- ment shall be limited to actual costs only. No fee, markup, commission, percentage or other consideration shall be allowed. . . . Rule 17-773.700(7), Florida Administrative Code, provides in pertinent part as follows: Pursuant to Rule 17-773.200(9), Florida Administrative Code, reasonable rates, including profits, may be claimed for the personnel and equipment or other allowable expenses of the person responsible for conducting site rehabilitation as well as allowable markups on paid contractor subcon- tractor and vendor invoices and shall be considered incurred for the purpose of reimbursement provided: The person responsible for conducting site rehabilitation does not have a financial interest in the site pursuant to Rule 17-773.200(7), Florida Administrative Code, or a familial or other beneficial relationship with the site owner or operator; The activities performed were integral to the program task claimed pursuant to Rule 17-773.500, Florida Administrative Code; and Detailed invoices are provided by the person responsible for conducting site rehabilitation that include all subcon- tractor and vendor invoices . . . [which] must identify the person responsible for conducting site rehabilitation and clearly distinguish their costs from those for paid subcontractors or vendors. There are no other provisions in the applicable rules which pertain to markups. A contractor must pay all invoices generated by a subcontractor at 100 percent of their face value prior to submission of an application in order to qualify those invoices for reimbursement. When a contractor pays a subcontractor's invoices, the contractor paying those invoices normally may take one of the allowable levels of markup. Prior to submitting a reimbursement application, a funder or PRFCSR involved in the reimbursement chain must pay the contractor for its invoices and markup. Then, the funder may apply the second allowable markup and submit the reimbursement application for review by DEP and payment from the IPTF. DEP does not contest the second level of markup in these applications. DEP rules restrict reimbursement when parties within the usual "chain" of reimbursement (PRFCSR or funder, contractor and subcontractor) have financial, beneficial or familial relationships with each other or the site owner. The application form requires disclosure of such relationships through the Program Task and Site Identification Form. Rule 17-773.200(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows: "Beneficial relationship (interest)" means a connection or association, excluding an arm's length contractual relationship, which benefits a person or company by yielding a profit, advantage or benefit, or entitlement thereto, exceeding five percent of the person's or company's annual gross income. Rule 17-773.200(6), Florida Administrative Code, provides in pertinent part: "Familial relationship (interest)" means a connection or association by family or relatives, in which a family member or a relative has a material interest. . . . Rule 17-773.200(7), Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows: "Financial relationship (interest)" means a connection or association through a material interest or sources of income which exceed five percent of annual gross income from a business entity. Banks, lending institutions, and other lenders that provide loans for site rehabilitation activities are not considered to have a financial interest in the site on that basis alone. However, as of the effective date of this rule, guarantors of loans to or co-makers of loans with persons signing as responsible party are considered to have a financial interest if the amount of the loan exceeds five percent of the net worth of either company. As used in this definition, sources of income shall not include any income derived through arm's- length contractual transactions. Rule 17-773.200(13), Florida Administrative Code, states as follows: "Material interest" means a direct or indirect interest or ownership of more than five percent of the total assets or capital stock of any business entity. The rules and written guidelines of DEP do not address activities, including financing arrangements, occurring outside of the usual chain of reimbursement, so long as an applicant does not include charges for such activities in an application. Heretofore, DEP has not deducted finance costs that an applicant does not include as a line item in a reimbursement application. Pursuant to Section 376.3071(l2)(m), Florida Statutes, DEP must perform financial audits "as necessary to ensure compliance with this rule and to certify site rehabilitation costs." Rule 17-773.300(1), Florida Administrative Code. DEP performs this audit function: (a) to establish that the PRFCSR incurred the cost; (b) to determine that adequate documentation supports the claimed costs as incurred; and (c) and to review the reasonableness and allowance of the costs. The audit staff interprets the term "incurred" to mean that the applicant paid the costs included in the reimbursement application. Pursuant to Rule 17-773.350(4)(e), Florida Administrative Code, "[i]nterest or carrying charges of any kind with the exception of those outlined in Rule 17-773.650(1), F.A.C." are not reimbursable. The exceptions to the payment of interest set forth in Rule 17-773.650(1), Florida Administrative Code, are not at issue here. An interest rate charge on short-term borrowed capital from an unrelated third-party source is a "cost of doing business." DEP's predominate rates are fully loaded. They include a variable for all direct and indirect business overhead costs such as rent, utilities and personnel costs. DEP includes the cost of short-term borrowed capital in the direct and indirect overhead components of DEP's fully-loaded personnel rates. Rule 17- 773.700(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code. However, DEP never intended for its predominate rate schedule to create an entitlement to reimbursement of claims which are not otherwise actual and reasonable costs of site rehabilitation. Petitioners PRFCSRs are entitled to make application for reimbursement of allowable markups and costs of site rehabilitation that they incur. In these consolidated cases, the site owners or operators designated either Petitioner ET or Petitioner SEI as PRFCSR. The PRFCSR is typically referred to as the "funder" in the reimbursement chain. Petitioner ET is a trust formed in 1993 and domiciled in Bermuda. It acts as a conduit for funds that finance activities associated with Florida's petroleum contamination site cleanup program. The named beneficiaries of the trust are those contractors and subcontractors entitled to payment of costs for activities integral to site rehabilitation and for allowable markups of such costs. The sole trustee of ET is Western Investors Fiduciary, Ltd. (WIFL). WIFL is also the owner and a beneficiary of ET. Any profit that ET derives from funding cleanup projects flows through WIFL to investors who provide funds to finance site rehabilitation. American Environmental Enterprises, Inc. (AEE discussed below) provided the investment funds for the reimbursement applications at issue here. WIFL is a limited liability corporation created and domiciled in Bermuda. The officers of WIFL are: William R. Robins, President; John G. Engler, Vice-President; and Peter Bougner, Secretary. The directors of WIFL are: William R. Robins, John G. Engler, Paul H. DeCoster, Alec R. Anderson and Nicholas Johnson. WIFL's directors are also its shareholders. Petitioner SEI is a corporation incorporated and operating under Florida law. Organized in 1994, SEI acts as a conduit for funds to finance activities associated with Florida's petroleum contamination site cleanup program. The officers and directors of SEI are: William R. Robins, President; John G. Engler, Executive Vice President; and Paul H. DeCoster, Secretary. William R. Robins is the sole shareholder of SEI. SEI was specifically created to meet the needs of American Factors Group, Inc.'s (AFG discussed below) Florida investors. Respondent DEP is the agency charged with the duty to administer the IPTF and Chapter 376, Florida Statutes. Financing Entities American Factors Group, Inc. (AFG) is a privately held corporation incorporated and operating under New Jersey law. AFG is not a party to this proceeding. AFG, acts as the servicing agent for contracts associated with factoring activities and other types of financing operations. AFG, through one of its divisions, Environmental Factors (EF), entered into financing contracts with entities in the reimbursement process: (a) Petitioners ET and SEI, funders; (b) Gator Environmental, Inc. (Gator), general contractor; and (c) Tower Environmental, Inc. (Tower), prime subcontractor. Through these agreements, EF or its assignee bought the rights of ET, SEI, Gator, and Tower to future reimbursement payments at a percentage of the face value of the relevant invoices. The officers of AFG are: William R. Robins, President; John G. Engler, Vice President; and Paul H. DeCoster, Secretary. Bleak House, Inc. (Texas) owns the stock of AFG. American Environmental Enterprises, Inc. (AEE) is incorporated and operating under Nevada law. AEE is not a party to this proceeding. AEE, as the assignee under the EF contracts, is a third-party provider of capital to various entities in the reimbursement process, including Petitioners. The officers of AEE are: William R. Robins, President; John G. Engler, Vice-President; and Paul H. DeCoster, Secretary. Bleak House, Inc., (Nevada) owns the stock of AEE. Bleak House, Inc., (Nevada) is incorporated and operating under Nevada law. Bleak House, Inc. (Texas) is incorporated and operating under Texas law. Officers of both corporations are William R. Robins, President; John G. Engler, Vice President; and Paul H. DeCoster, Secretary. Magazine Funding, Inc. owns the stock of both Bleak House corporations. Magazine Funding, Inc. is incorporated and operating under Nevada law. Officers of Magazine Funding, Inc. are William R. Robins, President; John G. Engler, Vice-President; and Paul H. DeCoster, Secretary. Family Food Garden, Inc. owns the stock of Magazine Funding, Inc. Family Food Garden, Inc. is incorporated and operating under Massachusetts law. Officers of Family Food Garden, Inc., are William R. Robins, President; and Paul H. DeCoster, Secretary. Six shareholders own the stock of Family Food Garden, Inc. None of these shareholders are related by familial ties to the officers or directors of the aforementioned companies or any relative thereof. Each of these companies -- ET, SEI, WIFL, AEE and AFG (including EF) share common officers and directors. Each of the companies maintain their own books and business records, file their own tax returns, and maintain records in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction in which they were established. They operate pursuant to their respective bylaws or trust agreement. ET, WIFL, and SEI do not have common assets with AEE or AFG (including EF). ET, WIFL and SEI do not have a beneficial, financial, or familial relationship with AEE or AFG (including EF) as Rule 17-773.200, Florida Administrative Code, defines those terms. Despite the facial organizational and structural integrity of ET, WIFL, SEI, AEE and AFG, the officers and directors of AFG and/or AEE created Petitioners, in large part, for the benefit of AFG and/or AEE as a means to invest funds in Florida's petroleum contamination site cleanup program. The primary purpose of each funder is to maximize the profits of AFG and its investors. AFG has other investment vehicles (funders) which it uses at times depending on the needs of its investors. AFG waits until the last instance before deciding which entity it will designate as funder in any particular factoring scenario. AFG usually does not make that decision until the day AFG's designated funder issues a funder's authorization to the general contractor. At the hearing, Mr. Stephen Parrish, a vice president of AFG, testified as the party representative for ET and SEI. WIFL and SEI have no employees. EF or AFG responded to DEP's request for Petitioners to provide additional information about the financing scheme utilized here using stationary bearing EF's or AFG's letterhead. Nineteen of the letters written on ET's behalf refer to ET as an affiliate of AEE. At least five of the letters written on SEI's behalf refer to ET as the funder and AEE as ET's affiliate. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that AFG and/or AEE negotiated less than arms-length contractual agreements with ET, WIFL, and SEI. Petitioners admit that they are "affiliates" of AEE and AFG through contractual agreements. However, there are no written factoring contracts between Petitioners and AFG such as the ones that exist between AFG, Gator and Tower. The only documented evidence of agreements between Petitioners and AFG are transactional based bills of sale representing the sale to AEE of Petitioners' right to receive reimbursement from the IPTF. AFG created these bills of sale for bookkeeping purposes. AFG did not even go to the trouble of tailoring the form for the bills of sale for their stated purpose. For all practical purposes, Petitioners are under the management and control of AEE and AFG. Petitioners and AFG disclosed their affiliation in meetings with DEP staff and through correspondence and other documentation, including but not limited to: (a) letter to DEP dated July 13, 1994 from AFG's counsel; (b) Addendum to Certification Affidavit signed by a Certified Public Accountant in each application; (c) Funder's Authorization; (d) letters sent to DEP between August 14, 1995 and November 19, 1996. Factoring and the Factoring Transactions Factoring is the purchase and sale of an asset, such as an account receivable, at a discount. An account receivable reflects the costs that a business charges after rendering a service but before the entity responsible for payment pays for that service. When a contractor completes a rehabilitation task, the contractor's invoice is an account receivable until it receives payment. In these consolidated cases, AEE provided short-term operating capital to Gator and Tower at an interest rate equal to the discount percentage of the relevant invoice (account receivable). Gator and Tower did not sell their account receivables to AEE. Instead, AEE, as the assignee of EF, purchased a contractual right to receive Gator's and Tower's reimbursement payments. In exchange, AEE advanced Gator and Tower a discounted amount of their invoices. The discounted amount of an invoice represents a loan from AEE to Gator and Tower. The difference between the face amount of the invoice and the discounted amount of the invoice represents interest. A discount percentage and an interest rate are equivalent. The amount of the discount represents interest on the loan or advance provided by AEE. It is an interest expense to the contractor or subcontractor. The Factoring Agreements On or about April 25, 1994, EF and Tower entered into a Prime Subcontractor Factoring Agreement. On or about July 8, 1994, EF and Tower executed an addendum to the Prime Subcontractor Factoring Agreement. The addendum required Tower to sell to EF Tower's right to receive payments from Gator. In return, EF agreed to advance Tower a discounted amount equal to 97 percent of the face amount of Tower's invoices. Tower agreed to repay EF 100 percent of the face amount of the invoices upon receipt of payments from Gator. The discounted amount of each invoice represents a loan from AEE to Tower. A bill of sale evidenced the sale of Tower's right to receive payment on each application. On or about July 8, 1994, EF and Gator entered into a General Contractor Factoring Contract. On or about July 13, 1994, EF and Gator entered into an Addendum to General Contractor Factoring Agreement. This addendum required Gator to sell EF Gator's right to receive payments from ET or SEI. In return, EF agreed to advance Gator a discounted amount equal to 88 percent of the face amount of Gator's invoices. Gator agreed to repay EF 100 percent of the face amount of the invoices upon receipt of payments from the funder. The discounted amount of each invoice represents a loan from AEE to Gator. A bill of sale evidenced the sale of Gator's right to receive payment on each application. The financing of the pending reimbursement applications involved the following interrelated transactions though not necessarily in this order: AEE as the assignee of EF purchased the right of ET, SEI, Gator and Tower to receive reimbursement for their services at a discount. ET, SEI, Gator and Tower agreed to repay AEE in full. Tower prepared and submitted to Gator an invoice for services provided by Tower and its subcontractors. Tower also prepared and submitted to Gator a reimbursement application for the program task. AEE advanced Tower the agreed upon discount amount. Tower used these funds to pay its subcontractors and vendors. AEE advanced Gator the agreed upon discount amount. Gator used these funds to pay Tower. Tower repaid AEE in full. Gator prepared an invoice for services provided by Gator, Tower and Tower's subcon- tractors including a 15 percent markup and submitted it with the reimbursement application either to ET or SEI. AEE advanced ET or SEI the discounted amounts as agreed. ET or SEI paid Gator in the full amount of Gator's invoice plus markup. Gator repaid AEE in full. ET or SEI prepared an invoice for its services plus the services of Gator, Tower, and Tower's subcontractors and a 15 percent markup. ET or SEI submitted the reimbursement application to DEP. When ET or SEI receives reimbursement from the IPTF, they will remit the total payment to AEE. The on-site work on each project was complete or substantially complete prior to Gator's involvement. In regards to some applications, the relevant dates on the subcontract/purchase order, Gator invoice, and Tower invoice are the same. The amount of time between AEE's payment of the advances and Gator's and Tower's subsequent remittance of 100 percent of the face amount of their invoices to AEE varied from a few days to a few weeks. The Agency Statement--Factoring Petitioners submitted the subject applications to DEP between July 18, 1994 and February 17, 1995. The financing scheme utilized in these applications was unique. Prior to the receipt of these applications, DEP never had reviewed reimbursement applications using the type of factoring scheme at issue here. In fact, the instant cases present a scenario never contemplated by DEP when it promulgated its rules and written policies. In the instant applications, the "chain of reimbursement" included: ET and SEI as funders or PRFCSRs, Gator as the named general contractor, Tower as prime subcontractor, and numerous subcontractors and vendors. As stated above, DEP was also aware that AFG and AEE (including EF) were "affiliated" with ET and SEI and would ultimately receive all reimbursement payments from the IPTF. 56 When Petitioners submitted the subject applications, no rule or written policy disallowed reimbursement for the face amount of contractors' and subcontractors' invoices when they sold their right to payments, i.e. the receivables, at a discount. When Petitioners submitted the subject applications, DEP had rules that restricted the ability of an entity to apply markups on invoices when a familial, financial or beneficial affiliation existed between a contractor, subcontractor, PRFCSR and the site or site owner, or when such relationships existed amongst those entities in the chain of reimbursement. However, there were no rules or written guidelines restricting reimbursement, based upon financial transactions occurring outside of the chain of reimbursement, if the applicant did not pass the costs of such transactions to DEP in an reimbursement application. In that regard, DEP usually dealt only with what was apparent in an application. If an application had a line-item claim for interest, DEP would not pay that claim under the rule limiting the payment of interest. Otherwise, DEP generally did not deal with costs, including interest, for which the applicant did not seek reimbursement. The applications in the subject cases did not contain line-item claims for interest. However, the difference between the face value of the invoices and the amount for which Gator and Tower sold their right to receive reimbursement for those invoices clearly represents interest. Tower's invoices appear to represent work that was integral to site remediation which was broken down into appropriate Eunits and rates. There is no evidence that the prime subcontractor, subcontractors and vendors intentionally inflated their invoices to cover the cost of financing. However, they did agree to accept a lesser amount then the face amount of their invoices for their services prior to the filing of the applications. In September and October of 1993, Paul DeCoster wrote letters to DEP describing a proposed financing scheme in which AFG would purchase the account receivables of contractors engaged in site rehabilitation. Mr. DeCoster wrote a follow-up letter dated October 4, 1993. In this letter, Mr. DeCoster proposed that AFG would charge the contractor a finder's fee which would be in addition to the 15 percent financing "markup" taken by the investor providing the financing. This proposal referenced a funder, FEC, whose parent was AFG. The transactions between the entities in the instant applications did not involve a finder's fee or a funder identified as FEC. In October of 1993, Will Robins met with DEP staff to discuss the manner in which the reimbursement program would apply to a proposed financing scheme. In this proposal, AFG would charge contractors an application/initiation fee and/or a commitment fee. The transactions between the entities in the instant applications did not involve an application/initiation fee and/or a commitment fee. After that meeting, counsel for AFG sent DEP a letter dated November 4, 1993. The letter acknowledges that the existing rules did not "specifically address the types of situations that arise when providing capital for cleanup activities through funding groups such as AFG." The letter identifies ET as the proposed funder through which AFG would finance cleanups. AFG would receive the ultimate reimbursement payment from the IPTF. At that time DEP was concerned that the proposed application/initiation fee was a "kickback" which DEP should deducted from the funder's markup. In January of 1994, counsel for AFG wrote a letter to DEP describing a financing scheme which differs in some respects from the financing scheme at issue here. This letter states that AFG intended to purchase receivables of the funder and the general contractor at a discount. Under this plan, the general contractor and the funder would claim the two markups. The subcontractors would pay AFG a finder's fee. The letter reveals that AFG, its affiliates, and investors would recover the cash equivalent of both levels of markups plus a fee from subcontractors for funding the high costs or risky projects. The transactions between the entities in the instant applications did not involve a finder's fee. On July 13, 1994, counsel for AFG wrote DEP to explain some modifications in the details to the proposed plan for the purchase and sale of receivables at a discount. This letter informed DEP that AFG would have a financial affiliation with the funder (ET) which would exist outside the chain of reimbursement and which would have no effect on either the markups or the overall reimbursement amount reflected in any application. All contracts within the chain of reimbursement (between ET, SEI, Gator, Tower, and its subcontractors) would be negotiated in arms-length transactions. The letter states: In this plan the subcontractors will perform their work on the site and will prepare their invoices in a manner consistent with any publicly or privately financed cleanup. Those invoices will be complied and forwarded to the general contractor for its review and the general contractor will add on the markup allowed by rule to the subcontractor's bills. The reimbursement application will then be forwarded to the funder who will ensure that all bills have been paid and who will be identified as the "person responsible for conducting site rehabilitation" on the reimbursement application. The funder will take the second markup allowed by rule, and will submit the reimbursement application to the Department of Environmental Protection for processing. Reimbursement will ultimately be paid by the Department to the funder in accordance with the reimbursement application. At no step in this process will the Department relinquish any authority to review and approve either the scope and nature of the clean-up or the rates charged by the contractors and subcontractors. Commencing on August 31, 1994, DEP began to develop a policy regarding the use of factoring as a financing mechanism in the reimbursement program. DEP personnel exchanged numerous documents regarding the subject of factoring. In one of those memoranda dated September 2, 1994, Charles Williams, DEP's Reimbursement Administrator, indicated that "we absolutely need to have a Big Meeting to decide what to do once and for all." In November 1994, DEP provided AFG's counsel with an informal opinion of how DEP would handle a factored application as described by Will Robins of AFG in an earlier meeting with DEP staff. The statement was that the difference between the amount that a contractor accepted in payment for his services, which was a discounted amount after factoring, . . . and the face value of the invoice which was claimed and marked up in the application was determined to be a carrying charge or interest, which is specifically disallowed for reimbursement in the reimbursement rule. American Factors Group. Inc. and the Environmental Trust v. Department of Environmental Protection, DOAH Case No. 95-0343RU, Final Order issued July 24, 1995. DEP advised AFG's counsel that it would deal with factored applications involving other entities on a case by case basis. On December 20, 1994, John Ruddell, DEP's Director of the Division of Waste Management, sought permission from DEP's Policy Coordinating Committee to promulgate a rule amendment to Chapter 62-773, Florida Administrative Code (formally Chapter 17-773). A draft rule accompanied the request. Mr. Ruddell developed the draft rule in compliance with Chapter 94-311, Section 6, Laws of Florida, which required DEP to revise its reimbursement rule. The draft rule provided that nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to authorize reimbursement for the face amount of any bill or invoice representing incurred costs when the receivable has been sold at a discount. In all such cases, reimbursement shall be limited to the actual discounted amount accepted by the provider of the goods or services. . . . The draft rule had the effect of prohibiting factoring as a mechanism for financing site rehabilitation work. The draft rule did not single out any other financing mechanism. DEP did not promulgate that draft rule. DEP requested that Petitioners furnish additional information regarding the instant applications. Between March 1, 1995 and November 17, 1995, Petitioners responded to DEP's requests with letters bearing AFG's or EF's letterhead. The letters state that prior to filling the applications, ET (and in some cases SEI) paid Gator for the face amount of the invoices plus Gator's markup. Gator then paid the subcontractors for the face amount of their invoices. Prior to these payments, AEE, an affiliate of ET, purchased the right to receive the amount due to Gator from ET or SEI and the right to receive the amount due to subcontractors from Gator. In each case, AEE bought the right to receive at a discount. According to the financing scheme, ET or SEI received sufficient funds from AEE to make the payments to Gator. ET, in turn, was obligated to pay AEE following its receipt of the funds claimed in the reimbursement application. On or about April 21, 1995, Bruce French, Environmental Manager in DEP's Bureau of Waste Cleanup, developed a memorandum discussing the proper handling of factored and/or discounted reimbursement applications. Mr. French initially sent the memorandum to Charles Williams, DEP's Reimbursement Administrator in DEP's Bureau of Waste Cleanup. The memorandum states that: invoices from subcontractors, vendors, suppliers and/or the general contractor which were paid a factored (e.g., discounted) amount by a third party capital participant (e.g., funder) represents the actual amount incurred by that entity and subsequently by the general contractor. DEP subsequently disseminated the memorandum to all application reviewers to acquaint them with DEP's policy on invoices or applications involving factoring as the financing mechanism. DEP did not direct the policy on factoring towards any individual company. DEP intended it to apply to "any combination of a general contractor, management company, funder and responsible party" in any situation in which a third party capital provider paid those program participants or suppliers a factored (discounted) amount of their invoices. The policy memorandum directed DEP reviewers to deduct costs from an application in an amount equal to the difference in the face value of an invoice and the amount paid for the right to receive payment under that invoice. The language of the policy set forth in the April 21, 1995 memorandum was broad and did not condition DEP's position on factoring on any affiliation between any parties. Between August 14, 1995 and February 2, 1996, DEP took action on the 45 applications at issue here. As reflected in those notices, DEP denied reimbursement of costs claimed in those applications because of the factoring of the supporting invoices and because "the difference between the face amount of the supporting invoices and the amount factored represents interests or carrying charges which are specifically excluded from reimbursement pursuant to Rule 62- 773.350(4), F.A.C." DEP deducted from the cost of each application an amount equal to the amount of the discount on each relevant invoice. When DEP issued the denial letters, it had not adopted the policy against factoring by the rulemaking procedure required in Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. The notices reflected a basis of denial of costs that was consistent with DEP's policy as reflected in the December 20, 1994 Draft Rule and the April 21, 1995 memorandum. This non-rule policy, which generally applied to all factoring schemes was not apparent from the rules in effect at that time. The Agency Statement--Markup/Value Added Policy Funders and contractors are entitled to take a markup of paid contractor and subcontractor invoices for allowable costs at reasonable rates. The invoices must represent actual and reasonable costs which are integral to site remediation. Contractors usually are entitled to a first-tier 15 percent markup for supervising and/or coordinating on-site remediation, for investing capital while awaiting reimbursement by paying subcontractors' invoices, and for assuming liability for the performance of the subcontractors. Funders normally are entitled to a second-tier 15 percent markup as an incentive to provide funds to finance the work. Markups are expressly subject to limitations set forth in Section 17- 773.350(9), (10) and (11), Florida Administrative Code. There are no other specific or implied limitations on markups in the rules or written guidelines. Requiring each entity that receives a markup in the reimbursement chain to pay contractor, subcontractor, and vendor invoices helps ensure that each level in the reimbursement chain pays the entity at the next lowest level in full. In these cases, each level in the reimbursement application chain "technically" paid the entity at the next lowest level. DEP policy in effect at the time Petitioners submitted the instant applications for reimbursement was to allow markups of paid invoices at two levels. However, DEP was not aware of situations where general contractors claimed markups for work that was complete before they ever became involved in the projects. With regard to all of the pending reimbursement applications, Gator applied a 15 percent markup to all of Tower's invoices including the invoices of Tower's subcontractors and vendors. With regard to a minimum of 30 of the 45 sites, Gator clearly did not supervise, manage or direct any of the on-site remediation activities. In fact, Gator did not become involved until after Tower had undertaken and completed these tasks. In at least 30 of the instant cases, Tower was acting as the general contractor when all of the on-site remediation took place. However, Tower could not apply a 15 percent markup to the invoices for its own services. Gator made it possible for Petitioners to claim the markup on Tower's invoices. As to the 15 sites at which Gator allegedly had some type of involvement with on-site remediation activities, the record contains no evidence regarding the specific activities or the level of Gator's involvement on any particular project. Gator performed some type of minimal due diligence review of Tower's site work. Gator allegedly reviewed Tower's technical and administrative files, cross-referenced technical and administrative files with the applications which Tower prepared, made visits to some job sites, and prepared a deficiency letter to determine the appropriateness of the scope of Tower's work. However, all of these functions were repetitious of the work performed by Tower and the certified public accountant attesting to the Certification Affidavit. Tower was a qualified engineering consulting firm that employed its own engineers and geologists. Gator's employee that reviewed the technical information in Tower's files was not a Florida professional engineer. He was not qualified as a certified public accountant to determine whether a charge was within DEP's reasonable rates. The Gator employee was a Florida professional geologist but he did not sign and seal the deficiency letter as such. There is no reference in DEP's rules or written policies to a deficiency letter. AFG required Gator to prepare the deficiency letter within two days of the date on which EF provided Gator with the opportunity to review a completed task. This two-day turn around time allegedly afforded efficiency of payment. The deficiency letters were limited to the question of whether the scope of Tower's services were reimbursable. Gator did not begin its review of an reimbursement application until after Gator received an invoice from Tower. The relevant subcontract/purchase order issued by Gator to Tower, the Tower invoice and the Gator invoice often were prepared on the same day. Gator "technically" paid the invoices at the next lowest level with money that AEE advanced. When Gator received payments from ET or SEI, it immediately repaid AEE before ET or SEI submitted the applications to DEP or soon thereafter. Pursuant to the addenda to the factoring contracts, Tower, not Gator, contributed to a reserve trust account which AEE will use to cover any reimbursement shortfalls. Gator allegedly indemnified the funder and guaranteed its own work but did not assume a risk of loss on Tower's work. On most if not all of the applications, Gator performed no meaningful management or supervisory functions. Gator's primary purpose in these consolidated cases was not to afford AFG a level of comfort as to the appropriate scope of the individual program tasks but to ensure that third-party investors maximized their profits. On September 1, 1994, Restoration Assistance, Inc., an entity under contract with DEP to review reimbursement applications, issued a memorandum to its reviewers directing them to complete their review and do a "total denial" on "Gator Environmental packages." The memorandum advised the reviewers that "Bruce" was drafting canned language to use in DEP's denial statement. On or about April 21, 1995, DEP presented its reviewers with a memorandum setting forth an initial overview of a "value added" policy for markups taken by a "management company" involved in site remediation activities. The memorandum indicated that DEP would allow reimbursement of claims for actual project management work and value-added services. The memorandum further provided that DEP would allow markups to a management company which only provided cash-flow services for a majority of the program task period even if the management company performed no other service. However, DEP would deny a markup if the management company provided such services during a "one month time period." DEP intended for the April 21, 1995 memorandum to acquaint DEP reviewers with the emerging DEP policy on markups. DEP's rules and written guidelines do not address the distinction made in the April 21, 1995 memorandum regarding the timing during which a management company could provide cash flow services and still be entitled to a markup. On October 20, 1995, Charles Williams issued a DEP policy memorandum for reviewers to use in reviewing reimbursement applications. Through that memorandum, DEP finalized and implemented the "value added" policy. The memorandum states that if the "GC" [general contractor] was involved with the management of the project during the course of the actual work by subcontractors, [DEP] rules do not preclude them from applying a markup. However, if the "GC" came along after the work was completed by other contractors and their involvement was more of a due diligence exercise to faciltiate (sic) a funding arrangement by a third party, then the "GC" markup would not be justified, though a markup by the actual funder listed as the PRFCSR could be allowed." Prior to the establishment of the "value added" policy on October 20, 1995, DEP made no inquiry as to whether a contractor provided value added services which were not reflected in an application in order to be entitled to a markup. DEP applied the "value added" policy to all pending applications (including the ones at issue here) resulting in a deduction of Gator's markup in all of the subject cases. The Department of Banking and Finance reviewed and issued a report (Comptroller's Report) on the Petroleum Contamination Site Cleanup Reimbursement Program on November 29, 1994. This report addressed the issue of markups in the reimbursement program. The Comptroller's Report recognized that DEP found the multiple markup structure to be beneficial in that it "attracts the involvement of companies whose role in cleanup projects is limited to providing funds to finance the work [and] attracts investors who provide funds which might not otherwise be available--thus facilitating cleanup of contaminated sites." The report acknowledges that a prime contractor "might have only limited direct involvement in the cleanup, having engaged subcontractors for most or all of the actual work." The Comptroller's Report did not address whether a contractor would be entitled to a markup if it became involved after all site work was complete. The Petroleum Efficiency Task Force's (PETF) final report concerning financing for reimbursement contractors issued on August 17, 1994. This report discussed DEP's policy of allowing two markups on paid invoices. The report recognized that "funders must be able to rely on the skills and knowledge of contractors to minimize reimbursement shortfalls." The PETF recommended for future consideration that "the Department should provide in rulemaking that contractors who take the first-tier 15 percent markup on subcontracted work must adequately supervise the work." When the PETF issued this final report, there was no existing rule that established any level of on site supervision or any other specific criteria for applying one of the two allowable levels of markup, other than paying invoices for integral site rehabilitation work. DEP's rules and written guidelines did not substantively change with regard to the "value added" policy from the April 22, 1993 revision of Chapter 17-773, Florida Administrative Code, to the October 20, 1995 memorandum which established a non-rule limitation on the ability of an entity to apply a markup to paid invoices. The "value added" policy is not reflected in any rule or written guideline, and would not be made available to a participant in the reimbursement program who requested program information. The "value added" agency statement is a non-rule policy which has the effect of a rule. DEP intends to apply the policy in all cases where a contractor's service adds no value to a project. DEP did not anticipate the need for such a rule when it promulgated the current rules. The Agency Statement Standard During the 1994 Legislative Session, the Florida Legislature directed that "no later than January 1, 1995, DEP shall review and revise rules related to the pollutant storage tanks programs . . . ." Chapter 94-311, Section 6, Laws of Florida. DEP understood that legislative instruction to include rule revisions related to the reimbursement program. On April 7, 1994, the Office of Statewide Prosecution issued a Statewide Grand Jury Report. The final report concerning financing of reimbursement contractors was prepared for the Florida Petroleum Efficiency Task Force on August 17, 1994. The Office of Controller issued its report on the Petroleum Contamination Site Cleanup Reimbursement Program on November 29, 1994. All of these reports offered suggestions for changes to the reimbursement rule. DEP first learned about factoring from presentations by Paul DeCoster and Will Robins in 1993. After these meetings, Petitioner proposed several factoring plans as proposed schemes to finance petroleum contamination site cleanup projects. Petitioners did not finalize the exact financing scheme they intended to use until July of 1994. Petitioners filed the first applications on July 18, 1994. By that time, DEP was aware that the factoring company was affiliated with the funders. DEP was also aware that the factoring company would receive the difference between the face amount of an invoice and the discount amount of that invoice. However, DEP was not aware of the exact nature of the relationships between AFG, AEE, EF, ET, WIFL, SEI, Gator and Tower. DEP was unable to evaluate all aspects of Petitioners' factoring plan without supplemental information about the details of the purchase and sale of receivables as they related to each application. DEP requested additional information from the applicants to determine if the costs were actually incurred. As a result of the information that DEP received, it reviewed all transactions to determine whether the costs claimed in the applications were actual and reasonable. On December 20, 1994, John Ruddell, Director of DEP's Division of Waste Management, sought permission from DEP's Policy Coordinating Committee to promulgate a rule amendment to Chapter 62-773, Florida Administrative Code (formerly Chapter 17-773, Florida Administrative Code). A draft rule accompanied the request. DEP intended the draft rule to comply with the legislative mandate contained in Chapter 94-311, Section 6, Laws of Florida. By that time, Petitioners had filed 41 of the subject applications. The 1994 draft rule provided that if a program participant sold a receivable at a discount, reimbursement would be limited to the actual discounted amount accepted by the provider of the goods or services rendered. The draft rule eliminated markups of contractor and subcontractor invoices. The December 20, 1994 memorandum to DEP's Policy Coordinating Committee did not indicate any deficiency in the existing delegated legislative authority that would prevent DEP from implementing the changes to the draft rule. DEP policy coordinating committee declined to approve the initiation of rulemaking procedures. Instead, it directed DEP staff to draft a bill for the 1995 legislative session. DEP based this decision on a determination that it would take too long to correct the numerous problems through the rulemaking process. The 1995 Legislative Session made several changes to the reimbursement program, particularly as it related to the direction of future site remediation activities. Chapter 95-2, Laws of Florida, passed the 1995 Legislative Session and changed the program from reimbursement of completed work to requiring pre-approval of work before it commenced. The 1995 Legislative Session did not make any relevant amendment to the reimbursement payment procedures in Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes. During the period between adjournment of the 1995 Legislative Session and February 2, 1996, DEP took action on each of the 45 applications that are the subject of this proceeding. Meanwhile, DEP focused its attention on making the necessary changes to switch from a reimbursement program to the new pre- approval program. It is not unreasonable to believe that such a significant change in a large program would take an agency some time to educate itself and the program's participants, prepare documentation and forms, and take steps to begin implementation. On March 22, 1996, approximately six and one-half months (198 days) after the petition for administrative hearing in Case No. 95-4606, and almost 21 months after the effective date of Chapter 94-311, Laws of Florida, DEP published its notice of rule development in the Florida Administrative Weekly. DEP filed the notice of rule development specifically "in response to litigation pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings" in the 45 cases that are the subject of this proceeding. In these consolidated cases, DEP did not have sufficient time prior to March 22, 1996 to acquire the knowledge and experience reasonably necessary to address, through the rulemaking process, the policy statements relative to factoring and markups based on value added services. Certainly, related matters were not sufficiently resolved to enable DEP to initiate rulemaking to address the policies set forth in the March 21, 1995 and October 20, 1995 memoranda until the spring of 1996. DEP is currently using the rulemaking procedure expeditiously and in good faith to adopt rules which address these non-rule policies. Additionally, the record indicates that it was not possible for the agency to initiate rulemaking in time to give Petitioners advance notice of the new policies. Petitioners filed the last applications in February of 1995 before DEP had time to fully evaluate the factoring plan. The time it took DEP to develop the detail or precision in the establishment of the policies set forth in the March 21, 1995 and October 20, 1995 memoranda was reasonable under the circumstances.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Industrial Equipment and Supply, DEP Facility No. 139502056 is eligible for state- administered cleanup under the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program pursuant to Section 376.3078, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Metropolitan Dade County (Petitioner) is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Pursuant to Chapter 24, Metropolitan Dade County Code, Petitioner regulates, among other things, the use, storage, and disposal of industrial wastes and hazardous substances in Dade County. Industrial Equipment and Supply, DEP Facility No. 139502056 (Respondent Industrial) is a Florida corporation and the owner of commercial real property located at 2035-2055 Northwest 7th Avenue, Miami, Florida. At this facility site, Respondent Industrial conducts business as a wholesale supplier of drycleaning supplies. The Department of Environmental Protection (Respondent DEP) is an agency of the State of Florida. Pursuant to Chapters 20, 376, and 403, Florida Statutes, Respondent DEP, among other things, regulates and is charged with the protection of the State's surface waters, groundwater, and other natural resources. On June 29, 1993, Petitioner's Department of Environmental Resource Management (DERM) issued Respondent Industrial a Notice of Violation and Order of Corrective Action (NOV). The NOV provided that evidence of "industrial waste discharges to the ground and groundwater" and that samples collected from Respondent Industrial's monitoring well revealed levels of tetrachloroethylene, also referred to as perchloroethylene (PERC), in violation of Chapter 24, Metropolitan Dade County Environmental Protection Ordinance.2 On or about September 20, 1993, in response to the NOV, Respondent Industrial's environmental consultant, Wingerter Environmental, prepared and submitted to DERM a Contamination Assessment Plan (CAP). On November 30, 1993, the CAP was approved by DERM, and subsequently modified on January 29, 1994. The CAP provided for the installation and sampling of five monitoring wells and four soil borings, and the surveying of relevant groundwater elevations. Analytical results from the soil and groundwater sampling identified elevated levels of PERC. Based on the analytical results, in May 1994, DERM and Respondent's new environmental consultant, AB2MT, discussed the need for expanding contamination assessment activities, including the installation and sampling of additional soil borings, shallow wells and a deep well. AB2MT completed the additional installation and sampling. Analytical results from the expanded assessment identified elevated levels of PERC, vinyl chloride and trichlorethylene. In May 1994, House Bill No. 2817, the Drycleaning Solvent Contamination Cleanup Act (Drycleaning Act), passed the Florida Legislature and was submitted to the Governor for signature. The Drycleaning Act became law, Chapter 94-355, Laws of Florida, effective July 1, 1994.3 On May 8, 1994, after passage of but prior to the Drycleaning Act becoming law, Respondent DEP announced that it was suspending all enforcement actions against drycleaning and wholesale supply facilities based on the Florida Legislature's passage of the Drycleaning Act. On May 16, 1994, Respondent Industrial's expanded contamination assessment report prepared by AB2MT was verbally approved by DERM. On January 24, 1995, DERM forwarded a Final Notice Prior to Court Action (Final Notice) to Respondent Industrial. The Final Notice stated that Respondent Industrial was not in compliance with the NOV, requested that Respondent Industrial enter into an administrative consent agreement within thirty days, and indicated that the case would be turned over to the County Attorney's Office if the referenced violations were not corrected.4 On August 30, 1995, a guidance document, regarding applications under the Drycleaning Act, was issued by Respondent DEP. The guidance document stated that Respondent DEP would begin accepting applications to the state-administered program created by the Drycleaning Act upon adoption by Respondent DEP of a rule to implement the program. In a meeting on January 25, 1996, DERM informed Respondent Industrial that it had a continuing obligation to cleanup and that it possibly could be found grossly negligent for failing to conduct a cleanup. On March 13, 1996, Respondent DEP adopted the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program Rules (Rules), Chapter 62- 781, Florida Administrative Code. The Rules specified eligibility requirements for applications submitted under the Drycleaning Act. On April 21, 1996, Respondent Industrial made application to Respondent DEP for acceptance into the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program. On September 16, 1996, Respondent Industrial was accepted by Respondent DEP into the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program, pursuant to Chapter 62-781, Florida Administrative Code. By Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing served October 4, 1996, Petitioner appealed Respondent DEP's acceptance of Respondent Industrial into the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program. According to Petitioner, Respondent Industrial's willful failure to assess and remediate contamination at the site of the wholesale supply facility constitutes gross negligence, thereby precluding its eligibility in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order finding Industrial Equipment and Supply, DEP Facility No. 139502056 eligible to participate in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 1998.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated certain rules of the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) related to petroleum contamination site cleanup criteria as alleged in the Department’s Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action, and Administrative Penalty Assessment (NOV); whether Respondent is liable for the administrative fines and investigative costs assessed by the Department; whether mitigation of the administrative fine is appropriate; and whether Respondent should be required to take the corrective action described in the NOV.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state agency charged with the power and duty to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes (2008),1 and the rules promulgated in Florida Administrative Code Title 62, pertaining to petroleum contamination. Respondent Z.K. Mart, Inc., is a Florida corporation, and owns and operates a retail fueling facility (DEP Facility No. 8507091) located at 5077 Normand Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida (“the facility”). In January 2004, soil sampling in conjunction with the removal of an underground petroleum storage tank at the facility showed petroleum contamination. Respondent reported the contamination to the Department in a Discharge Report Form on January 29, 2004. Respondent removed the tank that was the source of the contamination, conducted source removal activities, and submitted various reports to the Department, including a Site Assessment Report (SAR), submitted in February 2006. In March 2006, the Department determined the SAR was incomplete and requested that Respondent submit a SAR addendum. To date, Respondent has not submitted the SAR addendum. Respondent’s insurer, Mid-Continent Casualty Company, refused coverage for the assessment and cleanup costs associated with the reported discharge, asserting that the contamination “arose out of” the tank removal. Respondent contends that the contamination occurred before the tank removal. In October 2004, Respondent sued Mid-Continent in the circuit court for Duval County for wrongful denial of coverage. Respondent requested that the Department also file suit against Mid-Continent, pursuant to Section 376.309(2), Florida Statutes, for violating financial responsibility requirements. In December 2008, the Department sued Mid-Continent. The litigation is ongoing. Respondent spent over $300,000 to remove 2,503 tons of contaminated soil and to conduct site assessment activities associated with the reported contamination. In August, September, and October 2006, Respondent filed financial affidavits and additional materials with the Department in support of Respondent’s claim that it was unable to pay for additional assessment work. By letter dated November 3, 2008, the Department rejected Respondent’s claim that it was financially unable to undertake the requested site assessment. Respondent submitted a financial affidavit prepared by Abdul Khan, the vice president and secretary of Z.K. Mart, Inc., which states that the net income of Respondent was $36,479 at the end of 2005. Financial information for later years, including 2008, was also submitted by Respondent. However, no financial analysis was included. No evidence was submitted to establish the estimated costs of future site assessment activities. It cannot be determined from the financial information in the record whether Respondent is currently financially able to conduct additional site assessment activities. The Department states in the NOV that Count I constitutes a violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 770.800(5). That rule provides that it is a violation of Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes, for a responsible party to fail to submit additional information or meet any time frame “herein.” The Department explained that Count I was intended to charge Respondent with failing to complete site assessment. The only applicable time frame in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770.800, entitled “Time Schedules,” is in subsection (3), which requires a responsible party to submit additional information within 60 days of the Department’s request for the information. That violation, however, is more specifically charged in Count II. Count II of the NOV charges Respondent with violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770.600(11), which states that, if a SAR is incomplete, the Department shall inform the responsible party and the responsible party shall submit a SAR addendum within 60 days. Counts I and II charge Respondent with the same offense, failing to submit requested information within 60 days of the request. As stated in the Conclusions of Law, Respondent cannot be made to pay administrative fines under a duplicate charge. Count III of the NOV charges Respondent with liability for the Department’s investigative costs of $500 incurred in conjunction with this enforcement matter. These are nominal costs and were never disputed by Respondent.
The Issue General Project Description 6 Economic Benefits and Cost Savings from Project 7 Fuel Cost Savings from Conversion to Orimulsion 7 Socioeconomic Impacts and Benefits of the Project 10 Project Site and Vicinity 13 Lan Use and Comprehensive Plan Consistency 14 Existing Plant and Facilities 16 Orimulsion Conversion Project; Modified and New Facilities 20 Fuels and Fuel Delivery, Storage and Transportation 20 Air Emission Controls 22 Water Uses and Treatment 24 By-Product Reuse and Disposal 24 Rail and Road Improvements 28 Surface Water Management Systems 29 Project Construction and Schedule 30 Transportation 31 Noise Impacts 34 Archaeological and Historic Sites 34 Air Emissions, Controls, and Impacts 34 Existing and Proposed Emissions 34 Best Available Control Technology for 36 Nox Air Quality Impact Analysis 45 Effect of Proposed NOx Emissions on Ozone Levels 46 Effect of Proposed NOx Emissions on Water Quality 51 Human Health Risks Associated with Proposed Air Emissions 57 Plant Water Supply and Use 59 Water Supply 59 Cooling Pond 62 Impacts of Groundwater Withdrawals and Discharges 64 Wetland Impacts and Mitigation 68 Impacts to Flora and Fauna Including Listed Species 70 Impacts of Water Withdrawals on Little Manatee River and Tampa Bay 71 Potential Impacts of Fuel Spills 75 Spill Prevention 76 Spill Mitigation 79 Ecological Effects of Orimulsion Released in Tampa Bay 87 COSAP's Comparative Ecological Risk Assessment (CERA) 90 COSAP CERA Conclusions 92 Peer Review of COSAP Research and Conclusions 92 Effects of Estrogenic Compounds Following a Spill 93 Summary of Comparative Spill Risks 95
Findings Of Fact General Project Description FPL proposes to convert its existing 1600 megawatt (MW) power plant in Manatee County, Florida (the Plant), to the use of Orimulsion. The existing Plant currently operates only on relatively expensive low-sulfur fuel oil. The conversion of the Plant to the use of Orimulsion will realize significant savings in fuel costs to FPL's customers because Orimulsion will be supplied at prices much lower than the current costs for the fuel oil burned at the Plant. As a result, the Project will allow FPL to increase the average annual capacity factor of the Plant from its historical level of 30 percent up to 87 percent. Orimulsion is a mixture of bitumen, a heavy hydrocarbon, and water. Orimulsion is produced in Venezuela and will be supplied to FPL under a 20-year contract with Bitor America Corporation (Bitor). The new fuel will be shipped by Bitor America to Tampa Bay, unloaded by FPL at an existing FPL fuel terminal at Port Manatee, and sent to the Plant via an existing pipeline. The Project will involve installation of new pollution control equipment, new combustion controls, and efficiency enhancements to the existing boilers. The air pollution control equipment will be designed and constructed by Pure Air, a partnership of Air Products and Chemicals Inc. and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America Inc. Pure Air of Manatee, a subsidiary of Air Products and Chemicals, will operate the pollution control equipment. Other than this equipment and ancillary facilities, few changes to the existing plant itself will be required. Economic Benefits and Cost Savings from Project Fuel Cost Savings from Conversion to Orimulsion The conversion of the Plant to burn Orimulsion is the best way that FPL has found to reduce the cost of the electricity it produces and to reduce FPL's dependency on any single type of fuel. The conversion is projected to result in approximately $4.0 billion (or $1.5 billion net present value in 1998 dollars) of savings to FPL's customers over 20 years under FPL's base case, or most likely fuel price forecast. These savings represent the net amount by which FPL's savings in fuel costs ($4.4 billion) and SO2 emission allowance costs ($169 million) are projected to exceed FPL's revenue requirements for the Plant modifications over 20 years ($180 million) and increased operation and maintenance costs ($382 million). FPL sought advance approval from the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC) of the method for recovering the costs of the Project and the method of passing through to its customers the Project's net savings. In Order No. PSC-94-1106-FOF-EI, issued September 7, 1994, the FPSC found that "FPL's plan to convert its two Manatee units to burn Orimulsion is reasonable and prudent." Under that order, the net savings from the Project will be passed on directly to FPL's customers through reduced charges in the fuel cost recovery clause portion of customers' monthly bills. These fuel savings result because Orimulsion is priced by contract equivalent to the price of coal delivered to the St. Johns River Power Park plant in Jacksonville. The price of that coal is much lower than the price of oil or natural gas that FPL purchases, and coal prices are forecast to remain low and stable in the future. It is expected that the Plant's reduced fuel cost will cause the Plant to run more often under the principle of economic dispatch by which FPL operates its generating system. Orimulsion burned at the Plant will also displace the burning of higher- priced fuels elsewhere on FPL's system, to the extent not required as a result of population growth or changes in arrangements for the purchase of power, as other units using higher-priced fuels are operated less frequently. To determine whether the Project would provide savings under extreme conditions, FPL performed what it called an "acid test" analysis which assumed that future prices of oil and gas would not continue to diverge from the price of coal and Orimulsion. Under this conservative (though unlikely) scenario, the Project would still produce approximately $655 million ($261 million net present value in 1998 dollars) of savings to FPL's customers over 20 years. The Project is a continuation of the effort that FPL began in the late 1970's to obtain a balanced fuel mix, so that future volatility in the price of oil, and events such as the oil shocks of the 1970's, would not affect the cost of electricity to FPL's customers. FPL has reduced the amount of oil-fired generation in its fuel mix from 56 percent in 1981 to 31 percent in 1994 by the addition of nuclear and coal plants to its system, as well as by obtaining firm supplies of natural gas. With the conversion of the Plant to Orimulsion, oil generation would be reduced to 9 percent of FPL's energy mix by 1999. From an economic perspective, the Plant is the best site for an Orimulsion conversion. Because of economies of scale in converting a large plant to a new fuel, and because the Plant currently burns one of the most expensive grades of fuel oil on FPL's system, conversion of the Plant maximizes the Project savings. The Plant has port access and a pipeline which facilitates the safe and economic delivery of Orimulsion. As one of the newest plants in the FPL system, the Plant will have a long time in service following conversion. It is reasonable to expect that Orimulsion will be a stable fuel source. Bitor America Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bitor S.A., which in turn is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Petroleos de Venezuela, the national energy company of Venezuela and the fourth largest energy company in the world. Petroleos de Venezuela companies have an excellent record of contract performance. The recoverable reserves of bitumen from which Orimulsion is made exceed 40 billion metric tons, comparable to the amount of crude oil in Saudi Arabia. Fuel production facilities planned and in place in Venezuela are more than adequate to meet the needs of the Plant. The conversion of the Plant to natural gas is not a viable alternative. Such a conversion would not reduce electricity costs to FPL's customers, but instead would increase them by approximately $233 million over 20 years due to the relatively higher cost of natural gas compared to the No. 6 fuel oil currently used at the Plant. Socioeconomic Impacts and Benefits of the Project The Project will have a positive impact on the economy of Manatee and Hillsborough Counties. Construction employment will average 347 direct employees over the two-year construction period, for a direct payroll ranging from $12.5 to $17.5 million in 1996, $19.0 to $24 million in 1997, and over $2 million in the first quarter of 1998. An average of 333 indirect jobs also will be created during construction by increased expenditures of construction employees, for average indirect wages of $6.4 million a year. Operation of the Project will result in 190 new jobs with an annual payroll of about $4.5 million. This includes 40 direct permanent jobs at the Plant with an annual payroll of $1.5 to $2.0 million, and 69 additional indirect jobs with a $1.3 million annual payroll. Trucking of limestone, gypsum and fly- ash will create another 45 direct jobs and 36 indirect jobs, with a combined annual payroll of $1.5 million. FPL's property taxes paid to Manatee County government will increase by $700,000 per year and port charges paid by FPL to Port Manatee for fuel shipments through that port will more than triple, to about $2.2 million per year. Assuming that the new operations employees will be new residents to the area, the increased employment will result in approximately $203,000 of additional costs to Manatee County for community services. This compares to additional tax revenues to Manatee County from those families and the Plant of about $2,530,000 per year, for a net positive governmental revenue impact of about $2.3 million per year. Additional annual tax revenues of $108,000 to Hillsborough County are within 10 percent of the additional annual cost of services of about $119,000 per year for employees expected to reside in that County. Fuel savings from the Project will have a significant positive impact on economic activity in the state. The $4.0 billion in net savings over 20 years will generate an average of $136 million a year in increased sales or business activity in the state, $41 million a year in increased earnings, and an average of 2,056 new jobs, in addition to the local economic impacts of construction and operation of the Plant. Overall electric bill savings to tax-supported governmental customers of FPL will range from $1.75 million to $22.83 million a year, even assuming that these customers' electric consumption does not increase from 1994-95 levels. This money will be available either to fund additional governmental services, or to reduce or offset tax increases. The Project will enable FPL to be a more competitive electric utility by substantially reducing its fuel costs, which are about 99 percent of the variable costs of generation, about two-thirds of the total cost of generation, and about one-quarter of the retail price of electricity. Conversion will make the Plant cost competitive with coal-fired plants in adjacent and nearby states, with which FPL will have to compete if and when retail wheeling -- the ability of customers to choose their supplier of electric generation -- becomes a reality in Florida. In the long run, by allowing FPL to remain a low-cost provider of electricity, the Project will help keep electric generating business activity in Florida, with the associated jobs, tax revenues, and economic activity. This creates a win- win-win situation for FPL's customers, FPL's investors, and the citizens of Florida. Project Site and Vicinity The site of the Project is within the existing 9,500- acre Plant site. This site is located in the unincorporated, north-central area of Manatee County, Florida. The site is approximately 15 miles northeast of Bradenton and 25 miles southeast of Tampa. The site is located north of State Road 62 and approximately 5 miles east of both the community of Parrish and U.S. 301. Saffold Road marks the eastern boundary of the 9,500-acre site while an FPL-owned railroad line is along the western boundary of the site. The Little Manatee River flows through the northern boundary of the Plant site. Principal access to the Plant site is provided from State Road 62 which intersects with U.S. Highway 301 to the west. The FPL-owned rail line that serves the site connects to the Palmetto area, southeast of the Plant. An existing FPL fuel pipeline connects the Plant site to Port Manatee, approximately 14 miles to the northwest. Existing electrical transmission lines run east and west from the Plant site. The Project will be undertaken within a 470-acre parcel which encompasses the existing Plant and other existing facilities, including two 500,000-barrel fuel storage tanks, wastewater treatment areas, switchyards, and other buildings. The Project site also includes areas that are currently used for agriculture that may be used for storage and disposal of by- products from the new pollution control equipment. The existing 9,500-acre site includes a 4,000-acre cooling pond which provides cooling water to the power plant. A makeup water pumping station located on the Little Manatee River provides makeup water to the cooling pond. A spillway structure for emergency releases during high water levels in the pond is also located along the Little Manatee River. Other on-site facilities include various maintenance buildings, an existing electrical switchyard and an on-site rail spur. The other areas of the Plant site are used for various agricultural, cattle or timber operations. Existing land uses within 5 miles of the Plant site consist mainly of agricultural and pasture lands, interspersed with low-density residential areas and undeveloped vegetative areas. Individual residences are located on one of the two outparcels that are located within the boundaries of the Plant site, as well as along State Road 62 at the southern perimeter of the site and along Saffold Road to the northeast. FPL also owns and operates an existing fuel terminal along the eastern edge of Tampa Bay as an associated facility for the Plant. The 55-acre fuel terminal is located at Port Manatee, approximately 14 miles northwest of the Plant in the unincorporated area of northwestern Manatee County. Light and heavy industrial uses are located in the immediate area surrounding the terminal. Land Use and Comprehensive Plan Consistency The site is an appropriate location for the Project from a land use planning perspective and will not cause any adverse impact on land use. The Project involves installation of pollution control equipment at an existing power plant site that has been used for power generation since the 1970s. The area in which the Project will be undertaken is located some distance from adjacent to surrounding properties. A 350-foot landscaped buffer will be established adjacent to the nearest property west of the Project area. A landscaped buffer will also be established to screen the site from residences located to the south along State Road 62. The Project also will comply with the development standards contained in the Manatee County Land Development Code, with the exception of one aspect of the landscape standards for which FPL is seeking a variance. The Manatee County Code, Section 715.6.5, allows the County Planning Director to approve relocation of up to 30 percent of the required landscaping to another portion of the site. The requested variance would allow 100 percent of the landscaping materials normally installed as foundation plantings for new buildings and parking lots to be placed instead within the designated landscape buffers near the boundaries of the site. The variance would allow landscaping to be done where it would benefit the most people. The Project will comply with all other applicable ordinances and regulations of Manatee County, including the County noise ordinance and building codes, if the 53 conditions recommended by Manatee County are included in the certification order. The Project, if approved with the conditions proposed by Manatee County, is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the adopted Manatee County Comprehensive Plan with one exception relating to the wetland mitigation ratios contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The site is designated for power plant use under the Manatee County Future Land Use Map under both the agricultural rural classification and the Public/Semi-Public I uses. Objective 3.2.1 of the County's plan is to maintain and enhance water quality and quantity of Lake Manatee; the Project is consistent with the septic tank use and other policies through which the objective is to be achieved under the plan. The Project will comply with Manatee County zoning standards. The Project site also is consistent with the goals and objectives of the State Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan of the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. Existing Plant and Facilities The Plant currently consists of two oil-fired generating units of 800 MW each, for a total generating capacity of 1600 MW. The first unit went into service in October 1976, and the second unit in December, 1977. Electricity is generated in the existing units by combusting fuel in the boilers. The heat of combustion converts water in the boiler tubes to high pressure steam. This steam drives a large steam turbine which is connected to an electrical generator. Electricity then flows out to the existing switchyard and out of the site over the existing transmission lines. The Plant currently burns low-sulfur No. 6 fuel oil with a sulfur content no greater than 1 percent. No. 6 fuel oil is principally the residue of operations in which light and medium crude oils are fractionally distilled and processed to produce gasoline, diesel fuel, and other products. As the "bottom of the barrel," No. 6 fuel oil is a heavy viscous material from which higher value products can no longer be economically recovered. The Plant is also currently permitted to burn No. 2 fuel oil, natural gas, and on-specification used oil from FPL operations. Existing controls for air emissions include several combustion techniques within the boiler to minimize formation of nitrogen oxides (NOx). Particulate matter (PM) from fuel combustion is controlled using mechanical dust collectors that use centrifugal force to remove PM from the flue gas. Emissions of sulfur compounds, such as sulfur dioxide (SO2), are controlled only by limiting the sulfur content of the fuel oil. Cooling water is continuously pumped from the cooling pond through the Plant condensers and heat exchangers that absorb the rejected energy from the steam turbine. Heated water from the condensers is discharged back into the cooling pond where the energy is dissipated to the atmosphere through evaporation. Ultimately, the cooling water circulates through the pond back to the Plant intake structure and is recirculated through the Plant condensers and heat exchangers. Water loss is continually experienced in the cooling pond as a result of evaporation. Water losses from the pond also occur due to seepage through the pond embankment and bottom and as a result of other Plant water consumptive uses. Makeup water is therefore required to maintain the pond at its design operational level. Makeup water is currently provided through a combination of rainfall and water diverted from the Little Manatee River. A system of toe drains around the perimeter of the pond also captures the seepage through the embankments and returns that water to the pond. Service water, including process water for current operation of the Plant, is primarily obtained from the cooling pond, with three existing on-site wells used as a backup source. Service water is used for various processes in the Plant, such as soot blowing from boiler surfaces and for fire protection. The Plant process water system also provides ultra-pure water for the Plant, such as for makeup to the steam and water cycles in the power generating process. The existing wastewater treatment facility for the Plant includes two lined neutralization basins, two lined solids settling basins, a drying basin, and a lined stormwater basin for collection of runoff from equipment areas. Such stormwater runoff is stored in the stormwater basin, drained through an oil/water separator and recycled to the cooling pond. Industrial wastewaters are treated either in the neutralization basins or in the solid settling basins and recycled to the cooling pond. Collected solids are periodically transferred to a drying basin where they are stored and dried prior to off-site disposal in a licensed facility. FPL receives No. 6 fuel oil for the Plant at Port Manatee, to the northwest. Fuel is stored at the existing fuel terminal near Port Manatee, transferred to the Plant via a 14- mile-long buried pipeline, and then stored in storage facilities at the Plant. At Port Manatee, vessels are moored at the port berth and unloaded through dockside unloading hoses. Fuel unloading is monitored continuously by personnel at the dock as well as operators at the terminal. Fuel is transferred from the port berth to the FPL Port Manatee terminal via a 1.7-mile, 30-inch diameter pipeline which is cathodically protected against corrosion and hydrostatically tested annually to insure its continued integrity. At the Port Manatee terminal, fuel is stored in two 500,000-barrel fuel storage tanks that are contained within earthen berms to provide secondary containment in the event of an overfill or loss of a storage tank. The four fuel storage tanks at Port Manatee and at the Plant are equipped with safety shutdowns to prevent overfilling of the tanks. The four storage tanks are cathodically protected against corrosion. Fuel is transferred from the Port Manatee terminal to two 500,000-barrel fuel storage tanks at the Plant via a 14-mile- long, 16-inch-diameter steel pipeline. The pipeline is jacketed and coated to provide corrosion resistance and also is cathodically protected by an impressed electrical current to dampen corrosion of the pipeline. The pipeline is equipped with a midpoint block valve as well as valves at the terminal and at the Plant ends of the pipeline. Both pipeline facilities are patrolled at least 26 times a year by FPL and are enrolled in the State's "One-Call" locating system to advise FPL in the event that excavation occurs near the pipelines. During all transfers of fuel, continuous monitoring of the transfers is conducted by monitoring the volumes of fuel transferred across the pipeline. Orimulsion Conversion Project Modified and New Facilities Conversion to Orimulsion will involve changes to several of the existing facilities and the installation of new equipment, principally for the control of air emissions. Enhancements to heat transfer surfaces within the existing boilers will allow them to operate more effectively and efficiently with the firing of Orimulsion. Fuels and Fuel Delivery, Storage and Transportation Orimulsion is an emulsion composed of approximately 70 percent bitumen and 30 percent water, with less than 0.65 percent additives, including a nonylphenol polyethoxylate surfactant. The surfactant in Orimulsion comprises approximately .17 percent (+/- .02 percent) by weight of Orimulsion, and may be increased in the future to as much as .2 percent (+/- .02 percent), for a maximum of .22 percent. Orimulsion is currently used as a boiler fuel in 6 power plants in England, Denmark, Japan and Canada. After conversion, FPL may use high-sulfur fuel oil (HSFO) with maximum sulfur content of 3.0 percent, as an alternative fuel at the Plant if Orimulsion is not available. Low-sulfur fuel oil will also be an alternative fuel. No. 2 fuel oil, natural gas and/or propane may be fired during unit startup. On- specification used oil from FPL operations may also be fired. Orimulsion will be transported from Venezuela to Port Manatee by Bitor America Corporation. Ownership of the Orimulsion will transfer to FPL when the fuel passes the flange between the vessel and offloading hose at Port Manatee. Following the conversion of the Plant to Orimulsion, there will be approximately 100 vessels each year delivering Orimulsion to Port Manatee, which is approximately double the number of current No. 6 fuel oil deliveries to FPL. The system used currently for delivery of No. 6 fuel oil from Port Manatee to the Plant will be used in the future for deliveries of Orimulsion. Prior to the conversion of the Plant to Orimulsion, new unloading hoses will be installed at Port Manatee and pressure tested to insure their structural integrity. All four fuel oil storage tanks will be inspected and improved through the installation of internal fiberglass liners. The 14-mile fuel delivery pipeline will be electronically inspected using a "smart pig" that will survey the wall thickness of the entire circumference of the pipeline. Following conversion, a "smart pigging" inspection program will be implemented for the 14-mile pipeline with the first inspection within 30 months and then conducted every five years. The monitoring system for the 14- mile fuel pipeline will be upgraded to incorporate a computer- based monitoring system that will be tied into FPL's leak detection system for the pipeline. This new leak detection system will lower the detection limit for the pipeline down to 25 barrels. In addition, FPL will continue to perform tank-to-tank mass balances and end-of-batch inventory reconciliation to track fuel leaving the terminal and arriving at the Plant. These measures will allow FPL to detect a leak as small as 1/64th of an inch in the pipeline. These fuel storage and transportation facilities will continue to be operated in accordance with all applicable regulations. Over the past 17 years, FPL has experienced no leaks or breaks in these pipelines. In the event a future leak or break occurs, operation of the pipeline involved will be halted immediately upon detection and the pipeline will be surveyed to locate evidence of fuel outside the pipeline. FPL would then conduct appropriate cleanup and remediation, using techniques similar to those used to clean up fuel oil spills on land. Air Emission Controls Within the boilers, the existing fuel burners will be replaced with new low-NOx burners that will control the formation of NOx during combustion. Reburn technology also will be installed in both boilers to stage the combustion process and further minimize the formation of NOx. The new low-NOx burners and reburn fuel injectors will replace the existing NOx controls for the Plant. Two electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) will be installed for each generating unit to control particulate matter (PM) resulting from fuel combustion. The ESPs remove PM by passing it through an electrical field. A negative charge is placed on the PM, causing it to migrate toward positively charged plates in the ESP. The PM collects on the surface of the plates and is periodically removed by rapping the plates, causing the layer of collected dust to shake loose and fall to compartments at the bottom of the ESP as flyash. Approximately 90 percent of the PM entering the ESP will be removed. The ESPs also will remove toxic substances from the flue gas. Following the ESPs, a flue gas desulfurization (FGD) unit, or scrubber, will remove SO2 and other sulfur compounds from the flue gas. Flue gas enters the scrubber where it meets a limestone/water slurry mixture and the limestone reacts with the SO2, forming calcium sulfate or gypsum. The water and gypsum fall into a tank at the bottom of the scrubber. The clean flue gas then passes through a mist eliminator, which recovers some of the water vapor in the flue gas. The clean flue gas then exits the Plant via the existing chimneys or stacks. The scrubber will remove 95 percent of the SO2 formed during combustion. ESPs and scrubbers are well-proven technologies that have been in use for more than 30 years. Limestone used in the scrubber will be delivered by truck to the site. It will be transferred to a receiving hopper and then into on-site limestone storage silos, which will provide three days of storage. A backup limestone storage pile, providing 30 days of supply, will also be established to insure limestone availability if deliveries are interrupted. The limestone will be processed in a ball mill, combining it with water and grinding it to a fine consistency to create the limestone slurry used in the scrubber system. Measures will be taken during delivery and transfer of limestone to control emissions of PM and fugitive dust that might be generated. These measures include covered trucks, paving of on-site roadways and use of covered transfer conveyors. The limestone will be moist when received and therefore will not be dusty. However, water sprays will be used on the open storage pile if it gets dusty from prolonged dry periods. Water Uses and Treatment The conversion to Orimulsion will increase service and process water uses within the Plant. The principal increase in such water use will be for the new pollution control equipment. Water from the groundwater wells will be used directly in the scrubber with a membrane softener system added, if needed, to treat hardness in the well water. Additional process water treatment systems will be installed, consisting primarily of an upgrade of an existing reverse osmosis plant to provide up to 500 gallons per minute of process water for use in the boiler makeup water system and in soot blowing. The existing industrial wastewater treatment system will continue to handle wastewaters produced by the converted Plant with a new wastewater treatment plant added to treat rinse and wash waters from the existing solids settling basin. Treated wastewaters from both the wastewater treatment system and the water treatment systems will be recycled to the cooling pond to the maximum extent practicable. The existing potable water treatment system and domestic wastewater treatment system will not require any changes as a result of the conversion except to extend distribution lines and service lines, respectively, to the new buildings. By-Product Reuse and Disposal Gypsum recovered from the scrubber will be dewatered, filtered, and rinsed to produce high-quality gypsum usable as the primary ingredient in wallboard or dry wall. Pure Air of Manatee has a 20-year contract for National Gypsum to use the scrubber gypsum to produce wallboard at its Tampa production plant. Use of scrubber gypsum to manufacture wallboard has occurred for many years, including use by National Gypsum. In addition to this major off-site use of gypsum, Pure Air has contracts to supply local cement manufacturers with gypsum for use in the manufacture of Portland cement. The combined capacity of the contracts is greater than the converted Plant's annual gypsum production. Flyash will be collected in the ESPs and conveyed by pneumatic conveyor system to totally enclosed silos. The flyash will then be fed into a processing facility to make commercial by- products for shipment to off-site users. Pure Air has developed several potential commercial uses for flyash with the primary market expected to be the asphalt products industry. Pure Air is seeking to sell all of the flyash to that industry. In addition, flyash may be sold for use in Portland cement manufacturing. These environmentally sound uses of flyash would add value to the ultimate products produced. The volume of flyash to be produced at the Plant could be used entirely by three cement manufacturers within the Manatee County/Hillsborough County area. A 15-acre temporary storage area for the gypsum by- product will be constructed west of the existing Plant. The purpose of this temporary by-product storage area is to stockpile gypsum so that it can be supplied to the off-site users when the Plant is shut down for maintenance or to store it during periods when the wallboard manufacturer or cement plants may not be in operation. Normally, one to two months of gypsum will be stored in this area, which will have capacity for up to six months of gypsum production. Gypsum will be trucked to the on-site temporary by-product storage area over internal roads. It will be reclaimed as needed and transported to the various manufacturing facilities. While there are no specific agency regulations or design standards that apply to the design and operation of the temporary by-product storage area, FPL has committed that the storage area will be lined with a composite gypsum/synthetic liner designed in accordance with DEP's liner requirements for phosphogypsum management under Rule 62-673, F.A.C. The design of the storage area will comply with all of the design criteria of DEP Rule 62-673, F.A.C. Use of these design standards as a guide will insure that surface water and groundwater will be adequately protected from any impacts associated with the temporary by- product storage area. The temporary by-product storage area is outside the 100-year flood plain, is not located within 200 feet of any natural or artificial surface water body that might receive untreated surface discharges, and is not within 500 feet of an existing or approved drinking water supply. Any rainfall that contacts the stored gypsum will be collected and used as makeup water in the pollution control system and not discharged off-site. The storage area will be bermed to contain rainfall from a 100-year/24-hour storm event. Groundwater monitoring wells will be installed around the temporary by-product storage area and sampled semiannually to monitor for any possible groundwater contamination from the storage area. To insure long term operation of the converted Plant, the Project design has included a 158-acre on-site disposal area for gypsum and flyash. The long-term disposal area will only be constructed if it becomes infeasible, impracticable, or uneconomical to continue to sell the by- products or to use off- site disposal facilities. The backup by-product disposal area would be located west of the existing units and is sized to hold 100 percent of the by-products generated over a 20-year period. While no specific agency regulations or design standards apply to the backup by- product disposal area, it would be designed in accordance with the requirements of Rule 62-701, F.A.C., which establishes design standards for Class I landfills. The gypsum disposal area, designed for a full 20 years of by- product, would be approximately 100 acres with a maximum height of 115 feet above ground surface. The separate flyash disposal area would be approximately 20 acres with a maximum height of 45 feet. The other 38 acres would be used for stormwater and leachate ponds and perimeter berms and roads. The disposal areas would be divided into ten phases or cells, each holding approximately two years of ash or gypsum production from the Plant. This phasing would minimize the required construction which further minimizes environmental damage, including impacts to wetlands. A 350-foot-wide vegetated buffer would be maintained between the western edge of the disposal area and the FPL property line along the nearest outparcel. The by-product disposal area will be constructed with a double liner system to prevent impacts to groundwater. The bottom liner will be above the seasonal high groundwater table. The disposal area will have a primary leachate collection system above the upper liner and a secondary leachate collection system between the upper and lower liners. The leachate will drain to sumps in the leachate collection system and then will be pumped to two double-lined leachate ponds capable of containing a 25- year/24-hour storm event with three feet of freeboard. Any leachate collected in the ponds will be pumped for use in the pollution control equipment and not be discharged off-site. Once a disposal cell is filled, it will be closed and capped with a synthetic geomembrane and protected by about two feet of soil to prevent rainfall from leaching in and contacting the gypsum or flyash. The soil will be grassed to prevent erosion. Following closure of the disposal area, continuing maintenance and monitoring will be undertaken. Rail and Road Improvements FPL will construct new turn lanes and acceleration lanes at the intersection of the Plant entrance road and State Road 62. These roadway improvements will facilitate turning in and out of the Plant and reduce delays for through traffic on State Road 62. FPL will improve the existing rail line serving the Plant and install a new rail curve where the existing Plant spur intersects with the existing rail line north of the Plant. The existing rail line between the Plant and Palmetto will be repaired and maintained to American Railway Engineering Association Class I standards. This rail line will be used for delivery of materials during construction and maintenance of the existing units and in the future, if feasible opportunities or needs develop, to transport limestone to the site and remove gypsum and flyash from the site. Surface Water Management Systems Construction and operation of the Project will involve treatment, storage and management of surface water runoff resulting from rainfall on the Project site. A surface water management system and associated facilities, consisting of a series of swales, culverts, and treatment ponds, already exist within much of the Project site. During Project construction, the existing stormwater treatment areas will provide management of stormwater runoff and will meet the applicable regulations of SWFWMD, Manatee County and other agencies. During operation, rainfall that falls within areas that could potentially be contaminated by fuels are treated as industrial wastewater and treated in the Plant's industrial wastewater treatment system prior to discharge to the cooling pond. As part of the Project, new drainage areas with stormwater runoff that may potentially contact Orimulsion will be isolated from the existing runoff collection system and processed through a new, lined stormwater basin and a new bitumen/water separator. A new stormwater detention pond will be constructed south of the power block to capture and treat runoff from new roadways. A perimeter swale system will be constructed to serve the new railroad curve between the existing main rail line and the existing Plant spur. Rainfall within the area around the three new wells adjacent to the west bank of the cooling pond will be captured in a closed system designed to hold a 100- year/24-hour storm. At the Plant fuel terminal, the existing surface water management system will be modified to incorporate a new bitumen/water separator, in addition to the existing oil/water separator. The water will be discharged within the embankment area around the fuel storage tanks, which has the capacity to hold the rainfall from a 100-year/24-hour storm. For the 15-acre temporary gypsum storage area, a perimeter berm will contain a 100- year/24-hour rainfall within the storage area. This rainfall will be isolated from the watershed and pumped to the pollution control equipment for use as makeup water. For the 158-acre backup by- product disposal area for gypsum and flyash, rainfall that may come in contact with by-products in open cells will be pumped to a separate stormwater and leachate pond and recycled as makeup water to the pollution control equipment. Runoff from closed portions of the disposal area will be routed to new stormwater ponds, treated and pumped to the cooling pond. All of these stormwater management facilities will comply with the criteria for water quality treatment and water quantity retention prior to discharge, as established by the SWFWMD, Manatee County, the DEP and the Steam Electric Guidelines under 40 CFR Part 423. Project Construction and Schedule Construction of the Project will require approximately two years. Following permit approval, construction would commence with the relocation of existing equipment and the installation of foundations for the new pollution control equipment. During initial construction, the Plant would still be operated. For the last 90 days of construction the Plant would cease operation and FPL would undertake the boiler enhancements. This would involve installation of the new low-NOx burners and tie-in of the pollution control equipment. Pure Air will design and install the new pollution control equipment while FPL will be responsible for construction of the boiler modifications and alterations to the fuel delivery system. Construction impacts to natural areas are expected to be minor since much of the construction will be undertaken within the existing developed area of the Plant and only localized excavation, grading and levelling will be necessary. Temporary dewatering of groundwater may be necessary during construction of foundations for the pollution control equipment. Fugitive dust generated from construction traffic and excavation will be minimized by water sprinkling. Other open areas will be either paved or vegetated to reduce fugitive dust and wind erosion. Under the arrangement between FPL and Pure Air, of the total capital cost of approximately $263.54 million, approximately $83.5 million will be paid for by FPL, and $180 million, including pollution control facilities, will be paid for by Pure Air. Transportation FPL conducted traffic analyses to determine if the existing roadways in the area would operate within established levels of service based upon increased volumes of traffic associated both with construction and operation at the site. During construction, the magnitude of traffic impacts will be directly related to the number of construction employees. While peak construction employment is expected to reach 577 employees, for purposes of the traffic impact analysis it was assumed that construction employment would peak at 640 employees, representing a worst case assumption. During Plant operations, 40 new employees are expected to work at the Plant. In addition, trucks will be used to deliver limestone and remove gypsum and flyash from the site. The maximum number of trucks used for this purpose would represent 202 round trips per day, in and out of the Plant site. However, it is expected that the same trucks used to remove gypsum from the site will be used to backhaul limestone into the site. Backhauling would reduce the number of trucks for delivery of limestone and gypsum to about 60 percent of the maximum level. Existing roadways and intersections in the site vicinity are currently operating at acceptable levels of service as adopted by county and state transportation agencies. A traffic impact analysis, using conservative methodologies and assumptions, demonstrated that with the additional Project traffic, the area roadway network and intersections will continue to operate acceptably in accordance with agency standards and levels of service. All of the roadways in Manatee County and Hillsborough County that would be used for truck traffic are designated by functional classifications for truck traffic. All of these roadway segments are currently serving through traffic and truck traffic today. While Project-related traffic will comply with applicable agency standards, FPL has committed to several roadway improvements to enhance traffic-related movements in the area. FPL will construct a left-turn lane from State Road 62 into the Plant entrance, as well as a west-bound acceleration lane along State Road 62 leaving the site. These improvements will reduce delay for traffic travelling along State Road 62 past the FPL site. FPL will fund installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of State Road 62 and U.S. 301 west of the Plant site, if the Florida Department of Transportation decides that traffic signal is warranted. Project truck traffic for delivery of limestone and removal of gypsum will be limited during morning hours when school buses would be operating along the trucking haul route. In addition, FPL will install school bus stop signs and school bus shelters along the primary haul route. FPL will pay its fair share of the cost of any deterioration of area roadway surfaces caused by the Project's trucks. These improvements are beyond what would be required to comply with applicable agency standards as all of the roadway facilities are operating within agency standards. Rail delivery of limestone and removal of gypsum was considered during the original development of the Project. However, rail shipments of these products was deemed not to be feasible currently for several reasons. Investigations showed that both the gypsum that would be produced at the Plant and the limestone and limerock likely to be delivered to the Plant cannot be unloaded from conventional rail cars, based on testing of available rail car types. Several of the limestone quarries that may be used to supply limestone do not have rail access or rail facilities. Also, National Gypsum does not have rail facilities for unloading gypsum at its existing plant. Moreover, if use of rail shipments were feasible, trains hauling gypsum to the Tampa wallboard manufacturing plant would pass through 150 at-grade crossings in Manatee and Hillsborough counties and the rail route would go through downtown Tampa. Noise Impacts Noise impacts from the Project will not exceed applicable noise standards. Archaeological and Historic Sites The Project will not affect any known archaeological or historical sites. Appropriate Conditions of Certification have been proposed to protect such resources if discovered later. Air Emissions, Controls, and Impacts Existing and Proposed Emissions FPL received air construction permits for the Plant units from the Florida Department of Air and Water Pollution Control (DWPC) in 1972 and air operation permits from the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) in 1977 and 1978. FPL currently utilizes fuel quality and combustion controls to achieve existing permitted emission limits for SO2, NOx, PM, and visible emissions. The existing emission limits for SO2 and NOx are more stringent than emission limits for most power plants in Florida. Although the Plant units currently are permitted to operate at a 100 percent capacity factor (i.e., utilization rate), the units historically have operated at an average annual capacity factor of approximately 30 percent, due in large part to fuel oil costs. As a result of the conversion to Orimulsion, the Plant units are expected to operate at an annual average capacity factor of 87 percent. Despite the increase in Plant utilization, total short-term (hourly) and total annual (tons per year or "tpy") air emissions are expected to decrease in comparison to both permitted and historical levels. With installation of FGD, actual emissions of SO2 will decrease by approximately 13,000 tpy or 45 percent from historical levels. Similarly, with installation of ESPs, annual emissions of PM and toxic substances also will decrease, and visible emissions will be limited to 20 percent opacity instead of the 40 percent level authorized under existing permits. Although low-NOx burners and reburn technology will be installed on both units to achieve a reduction from the existing short-term NOx emission rate, annual emissions will increase by approximately 6,000 tpy due to increased Plant operation. Likewise, short-term emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) will decrease; but annual emissions will increase by approximately 3,500 tpy. Because the converted Plant is expected to displace other plants in FPL's generating system, it is expected that the Project also will affect air emissions on a system-wide basis. Based on an analysis of projected fuel usage and emission rates for the various units in FPL's system through the year 1999, the Project will result in system-wide reductions in air emissions of all pollutants except CO. In the first year of Project operation, for example, system-wide emissions of CO are predicted to increase by 2,607 tons; but there will be significant reductions in all other pollutants, including PM (-2,252 tons), SO2 (-48,626 tons), NOx (-10,425 tons), volatile organic compounds or "VOCs" (-109 tons), and toxics (-181 tons). The analysis made appropriate assumptions concerning other FPL permits, power purchase contracts and changes in power demand from population growth and other factors. Best Available Control Technology for NOx DEP has determined that conversion of the Plant units to fire Orimulsion constitutes a "modification" subject to review under DEP's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations in Chapter 62-212, F.A.C. For modifications of existing sources, these regulations require a determination of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for all air pollutants which will experience emission increases in excess of applicable significant emission rates. Rule 62-212.400(1)(f), F.A.C. Because NOx and CO emission increases exceed applicable significant emission rates as a result of the conversion to Orimulsion, BACT is required for those pollutants. DEP rules define "Best Available Control Technology" or "BACT" as: An emissions limitation, including a visible emission standard, based on the maximum degree of reduction of each pollutant emitted which the Department, on a case by case basis, taking into account energy, environmental, and economic impacts, and other costs, deter- mines is achievable through application of pro- duction processes and available methods, systems and techniques (including fuel cleaning or treatment or innovative fuel combustion techniques) for control of each such pollutant. Rule 62-212.200(16), F.A.C. In determining BACT, DEP must give consideration to prior BACT determinations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and any other state, all available scientific and technical material and information, and the social and economic impacts of application of such technology. Rule 62-212.410(1), F.A.C. DEP has no rule on making BACT determinations. In making BACT determinations, DEP attempts to follow EPA guidelines. Unfortunately, EPA also has not promulgated the guidelines as rules; they consist of a 1990 draft entitled EPA New Source Review Manual. To make matters worse, one reason why the EPA draft guidelines have not been adopted as rules may be that they are so complicated and confusing. It was noted by one expert practitioner in the field that it is with good reason that the design of the cover of the EPA draft guidelines is a jigsaw puzzle and, notwithstanding their official title, practitioners commonly refer to the guidelines as "the puzzle book." In accordance with EPA requirements, DEP currently uses a "top down" approach in determining BACT. Under the "top down" approach, alternative control technologies are ranked in terms of stringency. An emission limit reflecting the most stringent control alternative generally is selected as BACT unless rejected as technically or economically infeasible. Under the "top down" BACT approach, the most stringent NOx emission limit for sources similar to the Plant units is 0.17 lbs/mmBtu (pounds per million British thermal units) of heat input, using selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and combustion controls. SCR involves the injection of ammonia into the flue gas in the presence of a catalyst. The ammonia reacts with NOx on the surface of the catalyst, thereby transforming NOx into nitrogen and water. The SCR is not entirely selective; it also results in undesired reactions, including the conversion of SO2 to SO3 and the creation of ammonium sulfate and bisulfate. SCR systems require a flue gas temperature in the range of 600 to 750 degrees (F) which for some applications can be achieved between the boiler and the air preheater upstream of the ESP and FGD system. This configuration is referred to as a "front-end" SCR system. With fuels such as Orimulsion and high sulfur fuel oil which contain relatively high amounts of sulfur and vanadium, however, a front-end SCR can lead to significant problems because the vanadium in the fuel deposits on the SCR catalyst and results in an ever-increasing SO2 to SO3 conversion rate. Despite an extensive research program conducted jointly by European and American corporations involved in SCR manufacture, design, and operation, there are no available means of avoiding the ever-increasing SO2 to SO3 conversion rate when a front-end SCR is used with high-sulfur and high-vanadium fuels on utility units operated at base-load (i.e., operated continuously). Excessive SO3 created by a front-end SCR can plug the air preheater, which is a large piece of equipment approximately 45 feet in diameter. In addition, the SO3 condenses into sulfuric acid which corrodes the air preheater and ESP. There are no available means of protecting the air preheater from the excessive SO3 created by a front-end SCR system. Additional ammonia can be injected after the air preheater to neutralize the increased SO3 and thereby protect the ESP. However, additional ammonia injection causes more operational problems including ammonia slip, which can contaminate the water in the FGD and partially leave the stack as an emission, as well as an additional ash stream which would result in either higher particulate emissions or the need for a larger ESP. For these reasons, a front-end SCR system is technically infeasible for the converted Plant units, which are expected to operate base-loaded while firing Orimulsion. There was some testimony that a front-end SCR has been used on a unit which apparently has fired Orimulsion in Japan for approximately one year. However, that was a small peaking unit that could be shut down for maintenance when needed. In contrast, FPL's plans for the converted Manatee Plant units is to operate them as base-loaded units. Unlike peaking units which operate sporadically, base-loaded units operate continuously and are not out of service enough to allow for the performance of the additional maintenance required for a front-end SCR system. For that reason, a front-end SCR is not technically feasible for base-loaded units firing Orimulsion. Under a "back-end" design in which the SCR system is located downstream of the air preheater, ESP and FGD, the operational problems associated with the front-end system are avoided because the ESP removes vanadium, and the FGD removes sulfur from the flue gas. However, there are significant energy, environmental, and economic disadvantages to a back-end system. A back-end system would require installation of additional fans to overcome significant pressure loss and either duct burners or steam heat exchangers to reheat the flue gas to achieve the temperature necessary for the catalytic reaction. Approximately 6.72 percent of the energy generated by the boilers would have to be used to power this additional equipment--the approximate equivalent of the electrical use of 30,000 homes. In addition to higher energy consumption, a back-end system would result in secondary emissions from the burning of additional fuel and increased capital and operating costs. The EPA guidelines seem to say that both average and incremental cost effectiveness should be used to evaluate particular control options. Average cost compares the total amount of pollutant reduction from a combination of technologies to the cost of those technologies. Incremental cost effectiveness assesses the cost of adding a technology to emissions already controlled to some extent by other technologies. Of the two analyses, DEP believes that incremental cost effectiveness is the better accepted engineering practice, and there is a larger incremental cost database that can be used for making project-to-project comparisons. For these reasons, DEP relies more on the incremental cost effectiveness analysis. In prior BACT determinations for NOx emissions, DEP has viewed incremental costs in the range of $4,000 per ton of NOx removed as economically viable. By comparison, DEP has considered incremental costs in the range of $5,000 per ton of NOx removed to be unacceptable in determining BACT for NOx. The total capital costs of a back-end SCR system are on the order of $80 million to $100 million per unit. When capital costs are considered with operational costs and annualized over time, the total per-unit cost of a back-end SCR system ranges from $27 to 29 million per year. Unlike SCR, which reduces NOx that has already formed in the boiler, low-NOx burners minimize the formation of NOx by reducing the temperature and amount of time that nitrogen and oxygen have to react in the boiler. For the converted Plant units, low-NOx burners are capable of achieving a NOx emission rate of 0.27 lbs/mmBtu or lower at a total capital cost of approximately $5 million per unit. Operating costs are low, and the incremental cost effectiveness of low NOx burners used to achieve a .27 lbs/mmBtu emissions rate is only about $670 per ton removed. When compared to use of low-NOx burners at a 0.27 lbs/mmBtu NOx emissions rate, the incremental cost of adding a back-end SCR to achieve a 0.17 lbs/mmBtu rate is in the range of $8,000 to $9,000 per ton of NOx removed, which is well in excess of costs previously found to be too high in prior BACT determinations. Shortly before the start of the final hearing, FPL agreed to add reburn, another combustion control technology, on one unit as a test to ascertain if it could further reduce NOx emissions during the generating process; if so, FPL agreed to add the technology to the other unit as well. However, FPL still maintained that the BACT emissions limit should be set at .27 lbs/mmBtu. By the end of the hearing, a stipulation was entered into among FPL, DEP, EPC and Pinellas County that reburn technology also will be installed on both units to achieve a NOx emissions limit of no greater than 0.23 lbs/mmBtu (30-day rolling average) while firing Orimulsion. In addition, it was stipulated by those parties that DEP may modify the NOx emissions limit if it is determined that a rate lower than 0.23 lbs/mmBtu can be practicably and consistently achieved based upon the results of a six-month test program to be developed by a NOx Emissions Reduction Team consisting of representatives from FPL, the low- NOx burner supplier, FPL's reburn technology consultant, DEP, Pinellas County, Manatee County and EPC. The evidence was somewhat confusing as to the capital and operating costs of the reburn technology. It appears that the capital cost would be approximately an additional $8 million per unit, making the total capital cost of the combination of low NOx burners and the reburn technology approximately $13 million per unit. The evidence did not specify the operating costs. However, the evidence was that incremental evaluation of the addition of back-end SCR using the lower .23 lbs/mmBtu emissions limit would result in SCR being even less cost-effective--more on the order of $15,000 per ton of NOx removed. There is some indication that, while BACT emission limits for SCR systems have been set at .17 lbs/mmBtu, the technology actually might be capable of achieving emission reductions on the order of .10 lbs/mmBtu. If the lower emissions rate is assumed, SCR would look more cost effective. However, no calculations were made based on the lower emissions rate, and there was no competent evidence on which a finding could be made that, for purposes of determining BACT, the cost-effectiveness of back-end SCR should be assessed based on the lower emissions limit. The evidence was that the .10 lbs/mmBtu was a design emissions rate for certain SCR equipment; the evidence called into question the ability of SCR to achieve a continuous emission rate of .10 lbs/mmBtu. Although DEP has declined to give much weight to consideration of the average cost of NOx removal, some evidence was introduced at hearing on the average cost of reducing NOx emissions at the converted Manatee Plant using a combination of low NOx burners and back-end SCR. Under an average cost effectiveness analysis, the emissions limit determined to be achievable by a combination of control technologies is compared to what EPA calls the "realistic upper bound" uncontrolled emissions rate. Using an "upper bound" emissions rate of .58 lbs/mmBtu, and an emissions limit of .17 lbs/mmBtu, one witness found the average cost of reducing NOx emissions at the converted Manatee Plant using a combination of low NOx burners and back-end SCR to be on the order of just $2,000 per ton removed. But the use of .58 lbs/mmBtu as the "upper bound" number was based on incomplete and to some extent inaccurate information. FPL and DEP presented evidence that the actual average cost per ton of NOx removed is more on the order of $4,300. These analyses used .395 (or .4) lbs/mmBtu as the "upper bound" starting point. This starting point was based on more complete and more accurate information, but there seems to be room for argument as to the most suitable starting point. There also was evidence of an earlier FPL calculation that average cost per ton of NOx removed is approximately $2,900. However, the evidence was not clear as to the assumptions used in this calculation. Although DEP has declined to give much weight to consideration of the average cost of NOx removal, there was some indication that other states do. Pennsylvania was said to use average cost of $4,000 per ton of NOx removed as a benchmark for determining the economic feasibility of BACT emissions limits, and Wisconsin was said to use $6,000. However, the evidence was not clear as to how those states make BACT determinations for NOx emissions. In light of the excessive incremental costs of SCR for the converted Plant units, imposition of SCR is not warranted. Although concerns have been raised about the potential effect of NOx emissions on ozone levels and nitrogen deposition in the Tampa Bay area, as discussed infra, NOx emissions from the converted Plant units are not expected to have a significant impact on either ozone levels or water quality. Moreover, the evidence was not clear that such environmental impacts would be significantly different whether or not SCR is installed on the converted Plant units. Based upon a case-by-case consideration of the energy, environmental, economic, and other factors discussed above, a NOx emission rate of 0.23 lbs/mmBtu based upon use of low-NOx burners and reburn technology constitutes BACT for the converted Plant units when firing Orimulsion. For CO emissions from the converted Plant units, BACT is an emissions limit of 0.325 lbs/mmBtu based upon use of combustion controls. Other than combustion controls, there are no feasible means of controlling CO emissions from fossil fuel- fired steam electric generating units. Air Quality Impact Analysis Ambient air quality impact analyses demonstrate that emissions resulting from maximum operation of the converted Plant will comply with applicable ambient air quality standards and PSD increments for CO and NO2. Because the NO2 analyses were based upon a NOx emissions rate of 0.3 lbs/mmBtu, actual impacts on ambient NO2 concentrations are expected to be lower in light of the subsequently agreed-upon NOx emissions rate of 0.23 lbs/mmBtu. Although ambient impact analyses are not required for SO2 and PM because emissions will be below significant emission rates, FPL also performed air dispersion modeling demonstrating compliance with ambient air quality standards for those pollutants. Additional impact analyses demonstrate that projected emissions of SO2, NOx, and CO will have no adverse impact on soils, vegetation, wildlife, or visibility in the vicinity of the Plant. Likewise, the results of air dispersion modeling demonstrate that projected emissions will not adversely impact air quality related values (AQRVs), such as vegetation, soils, wildlife, and visibility, in the Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area which is the PSD Class I area closest to the Plant. Effect of Proposed NOx Emissions on Ozone Levels Ambient air quality analyses for ozone typically are not required for sources, such as the Plant, which are located in areas that are in attainment of the ozone standard. However, because the Plant is located within a mile of the Hillsborough County/Manatee County line, and not far from Pinellas County, and because Hillsborough County and Pinellas County are in the process of being redesignated from nonattainment to attainment for ozone, concerns have been raised regarding the potential effect of proposed NOx emissions on ozone levels. Ozone formation is a complex process involving precursor pollutants such as NOx and VOCs (volatile organic compounds). There is no direct relationship between increased NOx or VOC emissions and increased ozone levels. Depending upon conditions in the particular area in question, NOx reductions may or may not benefit ambient ozone levels. The impact of a NOx emissions point source, such as the Manatee Plant, on ozone levels is difficult to predict. There are no EPA-recommended models to analyze the effect of NOx emissions from a particular source on ozone concentrations, but other models and tools that are available can be used to try to assess whether a particular source may have a significant impact on ozone formation in a particular urban area. FPL used the models suggested by DEP. To assess the impact of projected NOx emissions on ozone formation, FPL first utilized the Empirical Kinetics Modeling Approach (EKMA), which DEP used in support of the ozone redesignation request submitted to EPA for the Tampa Bay area. The EKMA model is not a dispersion model designed for use in predicting ozone impact of a NOx emissions point source, such as the Manatee Plant. It essentially evenly distributes NOx and VOC's within a certain volume of air, such as the air over the Hillsborough/Pinellas nonattainment zone, and models the totality of what occurs within the airshed. It also does not account for either other additions from outside the zone being modeled or components of the air mass leaving the zone being modeled. FPL essentially adjusted the model by adding the NOx emissions from the converted Manatee Plant. It is a relatively crude model used primarily for screening purposes. Because of the difficulty in predicting the impact of the converted Manatee Plant, and the limitations of the EKMA model, DEP requested that FPL also use the Reactive Plume Model (RPM) to further assess the effect of the projected emissions on ozone concentrations in Hillsborough and Pinellas counties. The RPM model also has its limitations and is not approved by the EPA for predicting ozone concentrations resulting from a point source. The RPM models ozone precursor reactions resulting from the point source being studied that occur within the plume. It is clear that, as a result of the complex nature of the ozone precursor reactions, significant ozone formation also will occur "off-plume." RPM attempts to account for this ozone formation as well. In any event, it is not clear how "off-plume" reactions would be affected by the point source being evaluated. Like the EKMA model, the RPM model used by FPL also did not account for either additions from outside the zone being modeled or components of the air mass leaving the zone being modeled. FPL did not attempt to predict future additional sources of ozone precursors and run either the EKMA model or the RPM model assuming impacts from those additional sources. The evidence was that this exercise would have been difficult if not impossible to undertake. It is not clear whether, with new air pollution regulations, NOx levels will increase or decrease, and it is difficult to predict where new source will originate. (The same probably could be said for VOC's.) For these reasons, such an exercise, if undertaken, would have been of questionable predictive value. Despite its limitations, the RPM model does provide additional useful information in attempting to assess the impact of the converted Manatee Plant on ozone formation, and it is the only other reasonably available tool. Better models or "observation-based approaches" that might be effective for purposes of point source permitting have not been developed yet. An Urban Air Shed Model (UASM) would provide useful additional information, but UASM's are extremely complex and typically are conducted by a consortium of governments and universities for entire metropolitan areas. UASM's take years to complete and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is not reasonable to require FPL to finance and conduct such a study in this case. Although there are limitations to the EKMA and RPM models, FPL has done more to analyze potential impacts of NOx emissions, using the reasonably available tools, than any other applicant in the history of Florida's air permitting program. The EKMA and RPM modeling indicate that NOx emissions from the converted Plant will not have a significant impact on ozone levels in the Tampa Bay area. Based on these modeling analyses, FPL has provided reasonable assurances that the Project will not cause or contribute to a violation of the ozone standard. By notice published in the Federal Register on December 7, 1995, EPA proposed to redesignate the Hillsborough/Pinellas county area as attainment for ozone. Under the proposal, EPA would approve the redesignation request and maintenance plan jointly submitted by DEP, Pinellas County, and Hillsborough County. The Orimulsion Conversion Project itself will not trigger any specific action under the maintenance plan because the Manatee Plant is located outside of Hillsborough and Pinellas counties. There are two "triggers" for a response under the maintenance plan. The first would be a violation of the ozone ambient air quality standards in the two-county area, i.e., the fourth maximum daily value greater than .12 parts per million (ppm). The only recorded exceedances since 1990 occurred on June 10, 1995. The second "trigger" has two conditions: the first is an increase in the inventory of NOx or VOC emissions in the inventory update years 1994, 1997 or 2000 exceeding 5 percent over the levels recorded in 1990, a year in which there were no ozone violations; the second would be the a design value for the update year of greater than .114 ppm (compared to the ambient air standard of .12 ppm). While the 1994 inventory of NOx emissions was between 7 and 8 percent over the 1990 inventory, no maximum concentrations over the "design value" have been recorded. (The 1995 inventory was not available at the time of the hearing.) Recognizing the limitations of the EKMA and RPM modeling, it nonetheless is not expected that emissions from the Project will trigger any action under the maintenance plan. If an ozone violation or other specific contingencies occur in the future, however, the maintenance plan would require the state to undertake rulemaking to implement corrective action. Such corrective action could include imposition of Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for existing sources of NOx in the region and expansion of NOx and/or VOC control strategies to adjacent counties. FPL also has agreed to further minimize NOx emissions during the "ozone season," which generally lasts from May 15 through September 15. Under the stipulation between FPL, DEP, EPC and Pinellas County, daily NOx emissions from the Plant shall not exceed 42.23 tons during the ozone season when Orimulsion is fired. This daily cap is more restrictive than a 30-day rolling average. As incentive to further reduce NOx emissions, FPL will pay annually, to a trust fund jointly administered by Manatee, Pinellas, and Hillsborough Counties to benefit air quality in the region, $200 per ton of NOx emitted from both Plant units, on a daily basis, in excess of 38.6 tons per day during the ozone season. Effect of Proposed NOx Emissions on Water Quality The Plant is located within the watershed of Tampa Bay, a large estuary comprised of four major segments including Old Tampa Bay, Hillsborough Bay, Middle Tampa Bay, and Lower Tampa Bay, and other embayments including Cockroach Bay and Little Cockroach Bay in the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve, which is designated as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). The Little Manatee River, another OFW, also is part of the Tampa Bay watershed. Because Tampa Bay is located in a phosphate-rich area, phosphorus levels in the bay are extremely high. Due to high phosphorus levels, nitrogen is considered the limiting nutrient in Tampa Bay. Major sources of nitrogen to Tampa Bay include nonpoint runoff (i.e., materials that run off the land surface and are carried through riverine systems into the bay), atmospheric deposition both on the surface of the bay and within the watershed, point sources (e.g., discharges from wastewater treatment systems and industrial facilities), and internal sources within the bay itself. Although there are ongoing studies, including the Tampa Bay Atmospheric Deposition Study, to better quantify actual deposition in the Tampa Bay area, available analyses indicate that atmospheric deposition is an important source of nitrogen loading to Tampa Bay. The water quality of Tampa Bay varies from "good" in Lower Tampa Bay to "fair" in portions of Hillsborough Bay which historically have had water quality problems such as high levels of chlorophyll a. The water quality of Cockroach Bay reflects the water quality in adjacent Middle Tampa Bay, which has been characterized as "poor" during certain times of the year due to relatively high chlorophyll a levels. Due to nutrient inputs and other factors such as dredge and fill activities, prop-scarring from motor boats, and other physical activities, portions of Tampa Bay, including Cockroach Bay, have experienced significant losses in historical seagrass coverage. In recent years, however, seagrass coverage has increased in Tampa Bay overall. Lake Manatee is another water body of potential concern located near the Plant within the Tampa Bay watershed. Lake Manatee is a man-made lake which supplies drinking water to Manatee County, Sarasota County, and various municipalities. Based upon its trophic state index of 50 to 60 for the past few years, Lake Manatee has water quality in the upper end of the "good" range. However, Manatee County treats Lake Manatee with copper sulfate to prevent blooms of blue-green algae which can create taste and odor problems in the water. Studies have determined that nitrogen is the limiting nutrient of Lake Manatee and that nitrogen levels have increased. Due to high color levels and other factors, however, Lake Manatee appears to be a dystrophic system in which primary nutrients, such as phosphorus and nitrogen, are not responsible for most of the plant growth. In fact, the most recent study of Lake Manatee water quality indicates that algal growth there has a stronger correlation to temperature and specific conductance than to total nitrogen. In addition, the blue-green algae associated with taste and odor problems in lake water have the ability to "fix" nitrogen from the atmosphere and, therefore, have a competitive advantage over other algae in the absence of external nitrogen inputs. To assess potential impacts of the Project on water quality in the Tampa Bay area, the effect of proposed NOx emissions on nitrogen deposition in the Tampa Bay watershed was calculated using the best tools reasonably available. Assuming a NOx emissions rate of 0.23 lbs/mmBtu following the conversion to Orimulsion as proposed with the stipulated conditions of certification, the Plant's contribution will be 1.25 percent of the total nitrogen deposition in the watershed. Based upon consideration of background deposition in more pristine locations in Florida and local deposition within the Tampa Bay area, as well as a comparison of current and projected emissions from the Plant with regional NOx emissions, NOx emissions from the converted Plant will result in a less than 0.8 percent increase in nitrogen deposition throughout the Tampa Bay watershed. Additionally, the estimated increase in nitrogen deposition was apportioned among the various segments of the watershed based upon the results of dispersion modeling. Atmospheric nitrogen can reach Tampa Bay and other water bodies through direct deposition on the water surface as well as "indirect deposition" and subsequent runoff from land surfaces within the various segments of the watershed. Due to soil absorption and plant uptake, however, not all atmospheric nitrogen deposited within the watershed ultimately reaches Tampa Bay. Using the Project's calculated impact on nitrogen deposition and conservative runoff coefficients for the "indirect deposition" component, nitrogen loading budgets were calculated for Tampa Bay and its various segments, as well as Lake Manatee. Existing nitrogen loadings are on the order of 3,000 metric tpy for Tampa Bay and 300 metric tpy for Lake Manatee. In comparison, the increase in nitrogen loadings attributable to the Project is on the order of 21 metric tpy (or 0.69 percent) for Tampa Bay and 1.2 metric tpy (or 0.39 percent) for Lake Manatee. In light of the existing loading to these systems, the predicted increases attributable to the Project are insignificant. Because these loading analyses are based upon a NOx emissions rate of 0.27 lbs/mmBtu, actual impacts on nitrogen loading are expected to be less in light of the lower 0.23 lbs/mmBtu emissions rate subsequently agreed upon in the stipulation between FPL, DEP, Pinellas County and EPC. Although nitrogen within the water column will deposit in the sediments, increased nitrogen loadings will not have an extended cumulative effect over time because the amount of nitrogen available to the system ultimately reaches equilibrium as a result of a continual burial process. Additionally, other processes, such as denitrification, decrease the amount of nitrogen in the sediments. Accordingly, marginal increases in atmospheric deposition of nitrogen have only marginal effects on sedimentary nitrogen concentrations and internal loadings. To assess the Project's impact on biological activity in surface waters in the vicinity of the Plant, laboratory tests were performed on water samples collected within the Lower Tampa Bay, Lake Manatee, Cockroach Bay, the Little Manatee River, the Manatee River, and Lake Manatee utilizing the algal assay procedure (AAP). AAP is a procedure developed and recommended by EPA to determine the effect of increased nitrogen loadings on algal growth within receiving marine or freshwater systems. Under the AAP, water samples taken from the field are spiked with varying levels of nitrogen as well as algae with a given growth potential. After the spiked samples are set aside for five to seven days, algal growth is measured and comparisons between the spiked and control samples are made to determine the effect of the nitrogen additions. In each of the AAPs performed, no statistically significant increase in algal growth was noted with nitrogen additions up to 10 times the amount anticipated from the Project. FPL provided reasonable assurances that nitrogen loadings attributable to the converted Plant will not have a significant adverse impact on water quality or biological activity in any marine, estuarine, or aquatic systems in the Tampa Bay area. The evidence indicates that the impact is likely to be so small that it will be difficult to measure and distinguish from natural fluctuation in nitrogen levels. For the same reason, FPL has provided reasonable assurances that, when considered in conjunction with nitrogen loadings of the same order from other NOx emission sources which have been permitted but have not begun operation in the Tampa Bay area, the Project will not cause or contribute to an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna or a dominance of nuisance species in Tampa Bay, including Cockroach Bay. Likewise, because nitrogen loadings from the Plant are not expected to have a significant adverse impact on algal growth, such loadings are not expected to impact other flora, other trophic levels, such as seagrasses or fisheries production, or transparency levels in Tampa Bay. In their case, Manasota-88 and MCSOBA presented two expert witnesses who generally opined that 20 tons of additional nitrogen would be detrimental to Tampa Bay, would cause an imbalance of aquatic flora and fauna in violation of DEP's nutrient rule, as well as violations of DEP's transparency and nuisance rules, and that nitrogen loading to Tampa Bay has the potential to be a cumulative problem. The expert witnesses presented by Manasota-88 and MCSOBA did not perform or make reference to any studies or other analyses that contradict the analyses performed by FPL's expert witnesses related to nitrogen deposition impacts. Theirs was more of a qualitative evaluation. Clearly, seagrass coverage in Tampa Bay and Cockroach Bay has declined due in large part to shading from algal growth resulting from nitrogen. It follows logically, in their opinion, that adding 21 tons of nitrogen a year to current and future levels cannot help, but can only hurt, even if the impact is too small to measure. They urge that DEP should prohibit any increases in nitrogen loading to Tampa Bay, in accordance with the recommendations resulting from the federally-funded National Estuaries Program (NEP) study of Tampa Bay, including any increases from atmospheric deposition. Regulatory links between air emissions and water quality criteria are developing through the policy of management. But DEP historically has not regulated atmospheric deposition of nitrogen to surface waters, and ecosystem management has not yet matured to the point where DEP is ready to begin regulating atmospheric deposition of nitrogen as a surface water discharge subject to surface water quality permit review. If it does, it is possible that some recommendations of the NEP Tampa Bay study on nitrogen loading to Tampa Bay could be achieved through new surface water quality permit review of nitrogen loading through atmospheric deposition. Such regulation may result higher power generating costs from stricter NOx emissions limits, but it may be determined that those costs would be lower than the costs of trying to rehabilitate water bodies after nitrogen has been deposited and loaded into them. In the absence of such regulation, however, FPL nonetheless has provided reasonable assurances that nitrogen deposition resulting from NOx emissions from the converted Plant will not have any meaningful or measurable impact on water quality, biological activity, or transparency in any marine, estuarine, or aquatic system in the Tampa Bay area. Human Health Risks Associated with Proposed Air Emissions Despite increased plant utilization, there will be no increase in either short term or annual emissions of any hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) or other "air toxics" as a result of the conversion to Orimulsion. To assess potential health- related impacts of Project emissions, air dispersion modeling was conducted to predict ambient concentrations of HAPs and other air toxics. The predicted ambient concentrations for all HAPs and air toxics except vanadium are below ambient reference concentrations (ARCs), which are conservative screening values established for various air toxics in DEP guidelines. Predicted concentrations of vanadium exceed the ARC for the 24-hour averaging period at the maximum point of impact within the plant site, but the exceedance is very small (i.e., at the third decimal place), and the ARC is between 100 and 1000 times lower than any exposure level shown to cause effects in humans. Moreover, vanadium is not bioaccumulative and does not have any interactive effect with other substances. Accordingly, the proposed level of vanadium emissions does not pose a significant threat to human health. Although there is no regulatory requirement for a formal risk assessment, a multi-pathway risk assessment was performed to evaluate potential human health impacts of air emissions from the converted Plant. Whereas the ARCs established by DEP address only the inhalation pathway of exposure, the multi-pathway risk assessment considered the cumulative effect of oral and dermal exposure in addition to inhalation exposure to all pollutants emitted from the converted Plant. Utilizing conservative assumptions, the multi- pathway risk assessment analyzed potential exposures to residential and occupational populations, including potentially sensitive populations such as children and persons who live and work near the Plant. Based upon the results of the multi-pathway risk assessment and other analyses, the health risks from operation of the Plant while firing either oil or Orimulsion are negligible. Compared to historical operation with No. 6 fuel oil, future operations following conversion to Orimulsion would provide a benefit from a toxicological and risk assessment standpoint. Plant Water Supply and Use Water Supply FPL is currently withdrawing water from the Little Manatee River under a valid Permit Agreement entered with the SWFWMD in 1973 and amended in 1975. As part of the Project, FPL will significantly reduce the amount of water it is allowed to withdraw from the Little Manatee River. Maximum allowed withdrawals for the 16-year period 1978-1993 could have been up to an average of 28.4 million gallons per day (MGD) under the Permit Agreement. By way of comparison, if the stipulated Conditions of Certification had been in effect during the same 16-year period, withdrawals would have been approximately 9.4 MGD (average) if FPL had used the full 10 percent maximum allowable withdrawals. Following the conversion to Orimulsion, the Plant will have similar requirements for cooling and process water but at increased quantities over historical levels of use. The existing Permit Agreement between FPL and the SWFWMD would allow FPL to obtain sufficient water for all its Project needs under its currently authorized withdrawals from the Little Manatee River. Rather than obtaining all the needed water from the Little Manatee River, however, the additional 9.5 MGD of water needed for the Project above historical levels will be supplied through the use of 5 million gallons per day of reclaimed water from local wastewater treatment facilities, or equivalent sources of water, and 4.36 MGD of groundwater from existing permitted sources. The order of priority for meeting the Plant's water needs following conversion to Orimulsion will be: (1) 5 MGD of reclaimed treated wastewater delivered to the cooling pond; (2) existing permitted groundwater withdrawals of 4.36 MGD for use in either the cooling pond or directly in the plant's process water systems; and (3) the use of withdrawals from the Little Manatee River, up to 10 percent of the daily flow, to meet the remaining water needs of the plant. Predicted diversions from the Little Manatee River would average approximately 8.3 MGD. This is approximately the same as historical diversions from the River since 1974 (including the "big gulp" to fill the cooling pond initially), compared to the approximately 6.4 MGD withdrawn during the 16-year period 1978-1993. The stipulated Conditions of Certification provide for reclaimed water to be used following conversion to Orimulsion will be treated wastewater supplied by the Manatee Agricultural Reuse Supply (MARS) system or other reclaimed water source. (At the time of the final hearing, negotiation of the terms of FPL's use of MARS reuse water had not yet been completed.) FPL will be able to take this treated wastewater during periods of time when farmers will not need such water for agricultural uses. Thus, deliveries to FPL could range between 2 MGD and 14 MGD. FPL's use of reclaimed water from MARS would allow the County to expand that program by providing a baseload amount of water to be taken by FPL from that system. This would allow Manatee County to avoid having to build other storage facilities for treated wastewater. FPL will install three new groundwater wells west of the cooling pond to obtain 4.36 million gallons per day of groundwater from the Floridan aquifer for use in the Plant following conversion to Orimulsion. These new wells will be constructed to meet current SWFWMD well construction standards and replace older wells that do not meet current standards. The new wells would lessen the existing impacts on the upper aquifers by preventing the exchange of contaminants between the aquifers. This quantity of water represents amounts already permitted for use both at the Plant site for plant use and on-site agricultural operations and at adjacent agricultural operations. An additional 2.7 MGD of reclaimed water will be supplied to the adjacent agricultural operations to replace the existing, permitted, off-site groundwater withdrawals that are being transferred to FPL's use. Withdrawals from the Little Manatee River will be made using the computerized withdrawal system operated by FPL under a diversion schedule that allows increased withdrawals as river flow increases. This system is controlled by using river stage height as an indicator of river flow rate. This system allows FPL to respond quickly to changes in river elevation when making withdrawals. This system will be reprogrammed to the new diversion curves to prevent withdrawals above 10 percent of the river flow on a daily basis. Withdrawals from the Little Manatee River under the proposed Conditions of Certification would not occur when the flow in the Little Manatee River is below 40 cubic feet per second (cfs). Forty (40) cfs is the minimum flow level established by the SWFWMD to protect the ecology of the Little Manatee River. The pumps can withdraw no more than 190 cfs. If the water level in the cooling pond falls below 62 feet above mean sea level (msl), FPL is authorized by the proposed Conditions of Certification to request approval from SWFWMD to increase withdrawals above 10 percent of stream flow from the Little Manatee River to restore the pond water level to 63 feet above msl. Such withdrawals would be made in accordance with three "emergency diversion curves" that limit withdrawals from the River on a seasonal basis with higher withdrawals during the wet season. The three sources of water to be used by the Plant following conversion to Orimulsion represent the lowest overall quality of water suitable for operation of the Plant. Withdrawals of groundwater and surface water from the Little Manatee River are regulated by Chapter 373, F.S., and Chapter 40D-2, F.A.C. The proposed withdrawals do not interfere with existing legal users, are reasonable-beneficial uses, are in the public interest, and otherwise comply with all applicable requirements of those chapters. Cooling Pond FPL performed analyses of the cooling pond's thermal performance and predictions of future water quality in the cooling pond, following conversion to Orimulsion and increased utilization of the Plant. A computer-based energy balance model demonstrated that the pond would operate within the desired temperature limits, and maximum water levels. Water quality in the cooling pond following 20 years of operation was also predicted using several computer models. Water quality concentrations after 20 years were predicted with a mass balance model simulating various water inflows to the pond and evaporation rates from the pond. These results were then evaluated using a metal speciation model called MINTEQ which predicted precipitation of various chemical constituents and predicted final water quality in the pond. These results were used to evaluate impacts to groundwaters. Currently, the Plant site has three existing, permitted surface water discharges to the Little Manatee River: cooling pond discharges resulting from excessive rain events; discharges which occur during spillway gate tests performed as part of FPL's cooling pond embankment safety program; and (3) overflows which may occur during loss of power or malfunction in the sump pumps in the toe drain system of the pond. Following conversion to Orimulsion, several of these permitted discharges to the Little Manatee River will be eliminated. First, the cooling pond will be operated to contain significant rain events up to a 100-year/24-hour storm event. To accomplish this, the cooling pond level will be maintained at a lower elevation below the spillway crest to allow sufficient freeboard to hold such a storm. While FPL will continue to conduct annual spillway gate tests as part of its safety program for the cooling pond, the gate tests will be conducted in a manner to insure that there will be no discharges to the Little Manatee River. New power sources will be provided to the sump pumps in the toe drain system to increase the reliability of power and to minimize overflows from those sumps. Impacts of Groundwater Withdrawals and Discharges The Project may result in impacts to groundwater resources as a result of discharges from the cooling pond and from groundwater withdrawals. FPL evaluated the potential impacts of these activities on groundwater levels and quality. To serve the Project, FPL proposes to install three new groundwater wells to replace existing permitted wells that serve adjacent agricultural operations. The 4.36 MGD of authorized withdrawals from the existing agricultural wells will be reallocated to the new FPL wells, and the agricultural water use will be met using treated wastewater. FPL conducted modeling of the withdrawals from the three proposed wells to identify the drawdown of groundwater levels in the area. FPL utilized a computer model known as MODFLO to evaluate withdrawals for a period of 20 years. Water levels in the three aquifers underlying the Plant site and in nearby existing wells will not be significantly impacted by the relocation of the withdrawals, effects on surface water bodies such as wetlands that are in and connected to the surficial aquifer will be insignificant, and the proposed pumping will not cause a drawdown of more than one foot below any wetland at or near the Plant site. Although it is not clear exactly how much of permitted capacity is being withdrawn from the existing wells that would be replaced by the three new wells proposed by FPL, FPL gave reasonable assurances that the net impact of the three replacement wells will be negligible and will not cause movement of the saltwater interface in the area around the Project. Groundwater at the site is classified as G-II groundwater. Based on the water quality modeling of the cooling pond, six constituents present in the cooling pond and in the seepage from the pond in the surficial aquifer would be above FDEP's groundwater standards. Only one of these constituents - sodium - would exceed primary drinking water standards; the other five constituents are all secondary standards. The cooling pond is an "existing installation" for purposes of groundwater discharges under Rule 62-522.200, F.A.C., because FPL had a completed application for a discharge permit on file with DEP as of January 1, 1983, and because the cooling pond was reasonably expected to release contaminants into the groundwater on or before July 1, 1982. Groundwater discharges from the cooling pond and other existing installations must meet primary drinking water standards at the boundary of the zone of discharge (ZOD) and are exempt from meeting secondary groundwater standards. (Rule 62-520.520, F.A.C.) Under Rule 62-520.200(23), F.A.C., ZODs are allowed to provide an "opportunity for the treatment, mixture or dispersion of wastes into groundwaters" both vertically and horizontally under the installation. Under the stipulated Conditions of Certification, the existing cooling pond will have a ZOD "horizontally to FPL's property line, and vertically to the bottom of an aquifer within the Arcadia Formation, the top of which aquifer is not higher than 50 feet below the surficial aquifer, and not lower than the top of the Tampa Member of the Hawthorne Group as defined in [Florida Geological Series] Bulletin No. 59" (which is a point vertically within the confining unit underlying the surficial aquifer and above the intermediate aquifer). The final compliance point for the vertical depth of the ZOD will be determined during the DEP's review of the groundwater monitoring plan submitted following certification. This ZOD represents a vertical expansion of the ZOD granted under current FDEP permits. The current ZOD extends to the base of the surficial aquifer; the expanded ZOD would extend into, but not through, the confining unit below the surficial aquifer. The reason for the expanded ZOD is the change in water quality in the cooling pond resulting from the use of reclaimed water as a source of makeup water for the cooling pond. The expanded ZOD will not extend beyond FPL's property boundaries. ZOD's normally are not set within a confining layer. However, some confining layers contain aquifer units that are large enough for ground water monitoring purposes. Properly located and installed, a groundwater monitoring well tapping a suitable aquifer unit within a confining layer will not constitute a risk of contamination of the underlying aquifer units. FPL analyzed impacts of groundwater discharges from the cooling pond on groundwater in the vicinity of the Plant site laterally and vertically. Based on these evaluations, there will be no exceedance of either primary or secondary groundwater quality standards at the lateral edge of the ZOD at FPL's property line for the 20-year life of the Project. There also will be no violation of groundwater quality standards at the bottom edge of the ZOD. The groundwater discharge will not significantly impair any designated use of receiving groundwater or any surface water nor will it result in a violation of any applicable groundwater standard outside the ZOD. At the edge of the Little Manatee River, there will be no exceedance of either primary or secondary maximum contaminant levels. Discharges to groundwater from the cooling pond will comply with Class G-II groundwater standards and with applicable surface water standards at the edge of the proposed ZOD. The ZODs for other existing on-site facilities, including the solids settling basin, the neutralization basin, and the sanitary drainfield, will extend horizontally to FPL's property line and vertically to the base of the surficial aquifer underlying those facilities. Other sources of potential discharge to groundwater are two former locations of underground fuel tanks, since removed, that are currently in the process of assessment and clean up. The contamination is not migrating and does not represent a threat to groundwater resources at, or beyond the boundaries of, the Plant site. Wetland Impacts and Mitigation Jurisdictional wetlands in the Project area, rail curve construction area and the by- product storage and disposal areas were delineated under a binding jurisdictional declaratory statement issued by the DEP on May 10, 1995. For the total Project, approximately 18.18 acres of State jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted, of which approximately 16.5 are jurisdictional to SWFWMD. Construction at the Plant site, temporary by-product storage area and the rail curve will impact approximately 0.68 acre of jurisdictional wetlands, which are primarily ditches. Construction of the backup by-product disposal area will impact approximately 17.5 acres of mostly highly disturbed, low-quality wetlands located in tomato fields adjacent to the Plant site. The Project has been designed and sited to avoid and minimize wetland impacts. Proposed wetland activities will have minimal adverse ecological or other effects. Using an ecosystems approach to mitigation, FPL has proposed the preservation, enhancement and restoration of a 129.6-acre area located on the northern site boundary. The mitigation area contains seven high-quality upland and wetland ecological communities, including over one-third mile of the Little Manatee River. The mitigation area is located within an extensive corridor of lands considered to have important ecological resource values and targeted by SWFWMD and Hillsborough County for potential acquisition. FPL's activities within the mitigation area will include, among other things, removal of exotic species, planting of native species in disturbed and eroded areas, and protection and management of the site as a wildlife habitat area. Based on a habitat function evaluation, the estimated value of the mitigation area compared to the impacted wetlands is 15 to 1. The proposed mitigation will provide environmental benefits beyond required mitigation and will be more than sufficient to offset all adverse effects caused by the wetland activities. Although the backup by-product disposal area is unlikely to be constructed, the stipulated Conditions of Certification require FPL to provide mitigation for the impacts at that site regardless of whether the backup by-product disposal area is ever constructed. In addition to the 129.6-acre area provided as mitigation for wetland and other impacts, FPL will preserve an environmentally sensitive area near Tampa Bay and 30-foot upland buffers adjacent to the Little Manatee River. FPL has also offered to convey to SWFWMD additional lands along the Little Manatee River within the Save Our Rivers Program area. The Project complies with all applicable requirements for permitting wetlands impacts, including sufficient mitigation for such impacts, provided in Chapters 403 and 373, F.S., and Chapters 62-312, 62-340, and 40D-4, F.A.C. Wetland activities are in compliance with the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code, so long as the County's recommended variance from strict replacement mitigation required in the Plan and Code is included in the certification. The variance would allow the quality of the existing wetlands and uplands to be enhanced, and there would be assured preservation of wetlands to a greater degree than would normally be required. Creation of wetlands to replace impacted wetlands on strict numerical ratios and exact type-for-type basis may not always be successful. FPL's proposed enhancement and preservation of a large portion of riverine and uplands ecosystem is the preferred approach. Impacts to Flora and Fauna including Listed Species There will be no significant impacts to wildlife or plants, including listed species, from the Project. The mitigation proposed by FPL will more than compensate for any minimal effects on wildlife and plants, including listed species. Extensive ecological surveys were conducted on foot from early 1994 until September 1995 to determine wildlife and plant usage. Ninety percent of FPL's entire property was surveyed and the Project area was surveyed in detail along transects. In addition, scientific literature was reviewed to determine the likelihood of occurrence of species listed by the GFC and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Only one listed wildlife species, the American alligator, which occasionally uses portions of the site, was observed. The alligator is given the lowest protection level, that of species of special concern, by the GFC and is listed as threatened by USFWS because of similarity to another protected species. Given the low habitat value resulting from the agricultural and industrial uses in the Project area, no other listed wildlife species was determined to have a high probability of occurrence. As requested by the GFC, prior to construction FPL will again conduct wildlife surveys for listed species and provide the results to the GFC. Impacts of Water Withdrawals on Little Manatee River and Tampa Bay The Little Manatee River is one of the most studied rivers in Florida, and extensive scientific literature is available on the River. The River is subject to tidal influence and is an estuarine system for approximately 10 miles from its mouth. In addition, the River is very responsive to rainfall and its freshwater flows vary greatly during the year and between years, ranging from very low flow to flows of thousands of cubic feet per second (cfs). This flow pattern results in extreme fluctuations in salinity in the estuary. The flora and fauna of the estuarine zone of the River are well adapted to the fluctuations in flow and salinity. In fact, many saltwater animal species rely on their tolerance to extreme conditions to use the low salinity estuarine habitat of the River, which is rich in food sources and low in predators, as a nursery. The Plant's existing withdrawals from the Little Manatee River have not caused adverse impacts to the ecology of the Little Manatee River or Tampa Bay. SWFWMD permitting requirements contain a presumption that withdrawals of up to 10 percent of daily flow from a stream will not cause unacceptable environmental impacts. See Chapter 40D-2, F.A.C., Part B, Basis of Review for Water Use Permit Applications, 4.2.C.2. FPL and SWFWMD provided unrebutted expert testimony and evidence that the proposed withdrawals of water from the Little Manatee River, including the emergency withdrawals which may exceed 10 percent of flow, will have no adverse impacts on the flora and fauna and water quality of the River and Tampa Bay. Using extensive environmental data collected by SWFWMD and other agencies, salinity in the River was modeled and extensively analyzed for three withdrawal scenarios for the 16- year period, 1978-1993: historical (existing) FPL withdrawals; proposed withdrawals following conversion; and river flows as if no withdrawals had ever taken place. For the three withdrawal scenarios, these analyses included the frequency of occurrence and the duration, of various salinity concentrations for a number of locations along the River. Following the conversion of the Plant to Orimulsion, minimal, temporary changes in salinity will occur only in areas which naturally experience extreme fluctuations in salinity. Because withdrawals will be prohibited when River flow is below 40 cfs, when salinity moves farthest upstream, the withdrawals of freshwater will not cause saltwater to move upstream into areas of the River which have always been fresh. Estuarine organisms thrive within two interrelated habitats: (1) a dynamic salinity- concentration habitat which shifts up- and downstream with tides and freshwater flows; and (2) a static physical habitat containing vegetation preferred by estuarine organisms. Productivity is highest for organisms during periods when their preferred dynamic salinity habitat overlaps their preferred vegetative habitat. Salinity of ten parts per thousand (10 ppt) is generally considered to be a significant boundary of the estuarine low salinity nursery habitat; it includes the part of the river where salinity is sometimes but not always less than 10 ppt. The proposed withdrawals will not affect the location of the dynamic salinity habitat. In fact, salinity areas of less than the 10 ppt salinity boundary of concern will be affected less under the proposed withdrawals than they have been under the historical withdrawals. Static vegetative habitats in the estuarine portions of the Little Manatee River generally fall into three zones comprised of plants whose success depends upon prevailing salinity concentrations. The first, most-saline zone, nearest the River's mouth, is dominated by mangroves. The second zone, which generally comprises the low-salinity nursery, is dominated by juncus (black needlerush) and the third is dominated by tidal freshwater species. Because the durations of salinity concentrations in the River will not be significantly altered by the proposed withdrawals, the boundaries of these static vegetative habitats will not be affected. Modelling and analyses were also undertaken to predict the relationship between salinity and location of maximum population abundance ("AMAX") for four representative fish species found in the Little Manatee River. Results showed that the minimal changes in salinity caused by the proposed withdrawals, including emergency withdrawals, may cause minimal, temporary population shifts but will not result in movement of fishes outside the ranges where they presently commonly occur. Moreover, since the fisheries within the River are not affected, the withdrawals will not affect the productivity of the regional fisheries in the River or Tampa Bay. The Little Manatee River contributes a small fraction (10.7 percent) of total annual freshwater flows into Tampa Bay. These annual average freshwater flows may be reduced by .003 percent by the proposed withdrawals, based on analysis of data for the 20-year period 1973-1993. The proposed withdrawals will have an insignificant effect on freshwater inputs to Tampa Bay. Moreover, any impacts on salinity levels in Tampa Bay from the proposed withdrawals will be limited to the area around the mouth of the River and will not affect biological resources in Cockroach Bay or the rest of Tampa Bay. FPL also analyzed the potential effect on riverine vegetation from any lowering of water levels in the Little Manatee River due to the proposed withdrawals. Vegetation and its water sources and needs were analyzed at representative cross sections of the upper and lower River. Results showed that the proposed withdrawals will have no effect on riverine vegetation due to changes in water levels. Riverine plants in the upper, narrow channelized freshwater portion of the River, where the withdrawals are made, are very tolerant of extremes in water availability, from drought to floods. As an example of the most extreme predicted effect from the proposed withdrawals, the water in the vicinity of the USGA gauging station at U.S. Highway 301 near the Manatee Plant would not reach the lowest river bank level (scarp), on average, five more days during the year (i.e., 91.34 percent of the days in the year) than without any withdrawals (when it would be below the first scarp 89.9 percent of the days in the year), difference of just 1.44 percent. Differences would be only 0.48 percent for the next scarp and even less for the remaining three scarps. This difference in water level would have no effect on riverine plants because they are naturally adapted to endure many weeks of drought. Similarly, there will be no impacts on vegetation in the lower portion of the River. This area is tidally influenced and the cross section analyzed was 700 feet wide compared to the 90-foot-wide channelized upper River cross section. Thus, given the huge volume of water in the lower River, the impact of the proposed withdrawals on water levels in this area would be too small to measure and too insignificant to have any effect on the vegetation. Due to their high tolerance, the estuarine flora and fauna in the River will not be affected by minimal additional fluctuations in salinity and flow. The proposed withdrawals from the Little Manatee River will result in flow and salinity fluctuations which are within existing natural ranges. Potential Impacts of Fuel Spills FPL adopted a three-pronged approach in addressing the potential for Orimulsion spills in Tampa Bay, i.e., spill prevention, spill mitigation, and understanding the ecological effects of any Orimulsion which may be released into the environment. Spill Prevention FPL and Bitor America Corporation, the fuel supplier, have put significant effort into preventing an Orimulsion spill. In the United States, there is presently a risk of a 1,000-barrel or larger fuel spill for every 10,000 port calls. The two major causes of major spills are groundings and collisions. Bitor America Corporation has committed to numerous management practices which constitute safety measures in excess of regulatory requirements to minimize the potential for spills. These additional safety measures include: All vessels and vessel owners used to transport Orimulsion from Venezuela to Port Manatee will be screened using a vetting system to eliminate the possibility of substandard ships and crews being used to transport Orimulsion into Port Manatee. Criteria to be used in screening vessels and vessel owners include limiting vessel age to no more than 10 years, requiring pumps and equipment on board to be specifically designed for Orimulsion, requiring vessels to be classified and crews to be licensed by the best classification societies, ensuring the vessels have in excess of $500 million insurance to cover accidents with a financially capable insurance company (this is in addition to the $250 million insurance Bitor America carries on the fuel for spills), limiting the crew to two languages, and requiring the vessel to have a proven safety record and adequate operational and safety management procedures. All vessels will be required to have double hulls with average compartment sizes no larger than 40,000 barrels. Use of double-hulled vessels will reduce the risk of a spill from a grounding by about 90 percent and from a collision by about 29 percent. Use of compartmentalized vessels will prevent the entire cargo from being released to the environment in the event of a rupture. All vessels will be required to have 20,000 barrels of empty cargo capacity on board. This would allow the transfer of Orimulsion from one compartment to another in case of an accident. Each vessel will have on board a Vessel Information Positioning System (VIPS) for Tampa Bay which will show where the vessel is in relation to other vessels and to the shipping channel during its transit of Tampa Bay. While VIPS is not yet in place, it is expected to be in operation by 1998. VIPS will be funded by users, and Bitor America Corporation has committed to being a user of the system once it is in place. All vessels will be required to maintain a course at least 10 miles off the Florida coast prior to turning into Tampa Bay, rather than the 3-mile clearance required by the U.S. Coast Guard. This requirement will keep vessels away from shallow water, thus reducing the risk of groundings. Prior to turning into the Egmont Key Channel and entering Tampa Bay, the vessels will be required to have at least three miles of visibility. Just west of Egmont Key, the vessel's emergency tow lines will be deployed for use by a tugboat, if necessary. Each vessel's entrance into the channel will be timed so it reaches the Turning Point into the Port Manatee channel at high tide and slack water. This requirement will provide maximum water depth and minimum current influence for the vessel when making the turn from the Tampa Bay channel into the Port Manatee channel. From Mullet Key to Port Manatee, a floating safety zone will be observed for all vessels carrying Orimulsion to the Plant. The floating safety zone, which will be enforced by the U. S. Coast Guard, will prevent other vessels from being within 1,000 yards of the front or rear of the vessel carrying Orimulsion and from being within 200 yards on either side of the vessel. This will effectively make the shipping channel a one- way channel for Orimulsion-carrying vessels. As vessels pass Egmont Key, they will take on two 4,000 horsepower escort tractor-type tugs which will escort the vessel through the channel using the floating safety zone. The U. S. Coast Guard has determined that escort tugs are an effective means of minimizing the chance of a grounding as a result of the vessel's loss of steering or power. At the Turning Point from the Tampa Bay channel to the Port Manatee channel, the vessel will become attached to the escort tugs through its deployed tow lines and will be assisted into the docking area. A weakness of FPL's SCA is that it is not clear to what extent Bitor's commitments are enforceable by the Siting Board. Bitor is not a co-applicant. None of Bitor's commitments are made part of the conditions of certification, and many of them are neither in the SCA nor in the sufficiency responses. To be made enforceable at least against FPL, they should be made part of the conditions of certification. FPL will also exceed regulatory requirements during offloading of Orimulsion by utilizing a secondary hose containment sleeve, or its equivalent, for its offloading hoses to minimize the probability and volume of any spills during offloading at Port Manatee. This secondary containment should effectively contain any Orimulsion that may be released as a result of a leak from connections in the offloading hose or a burst offloading hose. With the management practices to which Bitor America Corporation and FPL have committed for the transport and offloading of Orimulsion, the risk of a 1,000-barrel or larger spill occurring has been reduced to once every 77,000 port calls. Although the number of port calls for fuel delivery to the Plant will approximately double after the conversion to Orimulsion, the risk of a spill occurring in any given year will nevertheless be reduced to about one-fourth the present risk. Spill Mitigation While offloading Orimulsion from vessels at Port Manatee, FPL will comply with all applicable federal, state and local regulatory requirements. For example, FPL will provide booming at the dock on either side of the offloading hose, either in the form of a booming gate system or a deep-skirted boom between the dock and the vessel. The transport of Orimulsion from Venezuela to Port Manatee will also comply with all applicable requirements of the U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA '90). Bitor America Corporation and its sister company, PDV Marina-Venfleet, have prepared a spill contingency plan which will be used by vessels carrying Orimulsion into Tampa Bay. This plan has been approved by the U. S. Coast Guard. Bitor America Corporation also has adopted a corporate spill response plan which offers technical information on Orimulsion spills to assist its customers or vessel owners in the event of an accident. An atlas of sensitive environments in Tampa Bay has also been assembled by contractors to Bitor America Corporation which identifies strategies for responding to an Orimulsion spill in the area of each sensitive habitat in Tampa Bay. While Bitor America is satisfied with the equipment for responding to Orimulsion spills which it has identified in its spill response plans, it is constantly looking for new equipment. As new equipment is identified and demonstrated to be effective in responding to an Orimulsion spill, Bitor America Corporation will modify its plans to include the new equipment. FPL has three spill response plans which would potentially have application to a spill of Orimulsion -- the FPL Port Manatee Terminal Oil Spill Response Plan, the Manatee Plant Oil Spill Response Plan, and FPL's Corporate Oil Spill Response Plan. Each of these plans has received all necessary regulatory approvals, and FPL could lawfully bring Orimulsion into Port Manatee under the current version of these plans. Nevertheless, FPL will expand its plans to include the recently developed Orimulsion-specific spill response tools and strategies before Orimulsion is delivered to Port Manatee for the Plant. Those updates will be reviewed and approved by the Coast Guard, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U. S. Department of Transportation to ensure the revisions meet applicable regulatory requirements. The FPL Port Manatee Terminal Oil Spill Response Plan applies to the offloading hose, the transfer piping from the dock to the terminal, the on-site storage tanks at the terminal, and the transfer and piping system to the Plant. The Manatee Plant Oil Spill Response Plan applies to the on-site storage of fuel at the Plant and the piping to the Plant's boilers. FPL's Corporate Spill Response Plan is supported by a corporate response team that has been established to respond to spills that are beyond the capabilities of the local on-site team. FPL has developed a 2-volume oil spill contingency planning system. Volume 1 consists of the appropriate facility's oil spill response plan, e.g., the plans for the FPL Port Manatee Terminal or the Plant; Volume 2 consists of the corporate response plan. FPL's corporate response team includes approximately 40 positions, typically with two individuals trained for each position at all times. The team members participate in annual training exercises and are on-call 24 hours a day, every day of the year. In the event of a spill, response is directed utilizing a unified command concept, in which decisions to guide response operations are jointly made by the FPL incident commander, the U.S. Coast Guard on-scene coordinator, and the Florida on-scene coordinator. Typically, the U. S. Coast Guard on-scene coordinator is the Captain of the Port, and the Florida on-scene coordinator is the manager for emergency response from the Department of Environmental Protection. The U. S. Coast Guard on-scene coordinator has the authority to take over the spill and direct all response operations if deemed necessary. FPL's spill response methodologies which would be followed in the event of an Orimulsion spill have been successfully employed historically by FPL and the oil industry. In the event of an Orimulsion spill in the Tampa Bay area, FPL should be able to assemble its crews and equipment and begin recovery activities within four hours. This response time is achieved in FPL's annual spill response drills. Orimulsion and No. 6 fuel oil react differently when released in seawater such as that found in Tampa Bay. When No. 6 fuel oil is released in seawater, a very large fraction of the mass almost immediately forms a slick and float to the surface. Underneath the slick, a relatively low fraction of the mass dissolves in the water. By contrast, when Orimulsion is released in seawater, its components disperse in the water column almost immediately. In a shallow, dynamic system such as Tampa Bay, even at low salinity levels, Orimulsion components would be well- mixed throughout the water column. Other processes which affect the fate of Orimulsion and No. 6 fuel oil in seawater such as Tampa Bay include vertical motion (buoyancy), dispersion (both lateral and vertical), dissolution, sedimentation (absorption of fuel particles onto sediments), biodegradation (including chemical and photolytic degradation), entrainment, coalescence and evaporation. All of these processes were incorporated as parameters into a 3- dimensional fates model, known as SIMAP, to predict the movement of Orimulsion and No. 6 fuel oil released in Tampa Bay. SIMAP, which stands for "Spill Impact Mapping," includes a series of 2- and 3- dimensional fates models which evaluate trajectories, transport and weathering of the constituents of spilled fuels. One SIMAP model runs multiple times to provide a probable distribution of fate. SIMAP has been enhanced based on the results of peer- reviewed scientific research to include algorithms for the fates processes affecting the constituents of Orimulsion so that it now has the capability of evaluating the fate of Orimulsion spills. SIMAP is capable of accurately predicting the fate of Orimulsion accidentally spilled in the Tampa Bay environment, including the concentrations of its constituents in 3- dimensional space and time. Several Orimulsion-specific spill response tools and strategies have also been developed and would be used in the event a spill of Orimulsion were ever to occur in Tampa Bay, including Port Manatee. The Ori-Boom, a boom with a 10-foot-deep skirt, has been developed and tested for use in responding to spills of Orimulsion. The 10-foot skirt on Ori-Boom is five layers thick, and includes an outer covering of ballistic material for strength, inner layers of geotextile, and an inner core filter which allows water but not bitumen to pass through. The ability of water, but not bitumen particles, to pass through the skirt of the Ori-Boom has been demonstrated in tests. The Grizzly skimmer has also been developed and tested for use in responding to spills of Orimulsion. The ability of the Grizzly skimmer to remove coalesced bitumen from the surface of the water has been successfully demonstrated. The tests of the capability of the Ori-Boom, the Grizzly skimmer, and other equipment useful in the recovery of Orimulsion were observed by numerous government officials, including representatives of the U. S. Coast Guard and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Conventional absorbents, such as oil snares, pom-poms, or filament absorbents, have proven to be very effective in recovery of bitumen particles. These materials are typically used to "polish up" the water by removing fugitive particles after a skimmer, such as the Grizzly skimmer, has removed the bulk of the bitumen. Five thousand feet of Ori-Boom and two Grizzly skimmers will be staged at Port Manatee for use in responding to spills of Orimulsion. Additionally, conventional oil spill equipment which can be used in responding to an Orimulsion spill will be staged at Port Manatee, such as 8,700 feet of conventional 18-inch skirted boom, 200 feet of 36-inch skirted boom, absorbent materials, and 3 shallow-draft boats. FPL also has a stockpile of oil spill response equipment, including approximately 6,100 feet of 36-inch skirted boom, loaded in six semi-trailers in West Palm Beach which can be delivered to any of FPL's facilities. Altogether, FPL has approximately 40,000 feet of conventional skirted boom which could be used to keep bitumen out of the sensitive habitats in Tampa Bay. There is also a stockpile of oil spill response materials at each of FPL's power plants and fuel terminals. Moreover, the Coast Guard, various contractors and cooperatives, and other terminal operators have conventional booms located in the Tampa Bay area which would be effective in responding to an Orimulsion spill in shallow waters. All of the materials staged for use in response to fuel spills is periodically inspected and maintained in good operating condition to ensure its availability in the event of a spill, as required by OPA '90. SIMAP will be incorporated into FPL's spill response plans. In the event Orimulsion is ever spilled in Tampa Bay, the 3-dimensional fates model in SIMAP would be an effective tool to assist in response efforts by predicting the direction and movement of the spill plume. This information would aid the spill response managers in time-critical decisions on where it is most appropriate to deploy a containment boom around the bitumen plume and exclusion boom to protect sensitive habitats. To obtain predictive results quickly for use in developing spill response strategies, the user of SIMAP can control several model parameters, such as the number of Lagrangian particles tracking the various fuel components, the length of the time-step between calculations, and the length of the model run. In a spill event, SIMAP would be run initially using data files on hand which most closely resemble the actual environmental conditions at the scene of the spill. Such a model run could be accomplished in a few minutes. As realtime information becomes available following a spill, SIMAP would be rerun to provide more refined output on spill movement and direction. As a spill response tool, SIMAP can be used to predict the movement of Orimulsion to allow the response teams to deploy protective equipment around sensitive habitats. SIMAP can also be used to direct water column sampling efforts to locate the largest concentration of the spill plume prior to deployment of the containment boom. Since currents are more predictive than winds, SIMAP is more capable of predicting the movement of Orimulsion in the water column than the movement of No. 6 fuel oil as a surface slick. In the event of an Orimulsion spill, deep-skirted boom (with the skirt in a furled position) could be towed to the site by two boats and placed in the path of the spill plume. The two ends of the boom would then be connected and the skirt unfurled to create a cylinder around the largest portion of the bitumen plume. Once the Ori- Boom has encircled the bitumen, it will be allowed to float and drift with the current along with the bitumen, thus keeping the large concentration of bitumen surrounded by the boom. Then shear pumps would be operated inside the cylinder to force coalescence and surfacing of the bitumen. As the bitumen surfaces, Grizzly skimmers would be used to remove the bitumen from the water. Sensitive habitats which are expected to be in the path of the spill plume would be protected by placing exclusion boom in front of the habitats. It is an accepted spill response strategy to identify sensitive habitats, prioritize those habitats as to their sensitivity, and protect the most sensitive habitats first. To facilitate the protection of sensitive habitats, FPL and Bitor America Corporation would use the atlas of sensitive environments in Tampa Bay which identifies the location and type of sensitive habitats, prioritizes those habitats as to their sensitivity, and specifies the most appropriate response strategies to protect each particular sensitive habitat. This atlas of sensitive environments in Tampa Bay will be incorporated into FPL's spill response plans. Since Orimulsion spilled in Tampa Bay would move back and forth with tidal currents, rather than rapidly moving with the wind to shore as does a No. 6 fuel oil surface slick, more time would be available in the event of an Orimulsion spill to plan response strategies. The spill response technologies, strategies and plans FPL and Bitor America have identified for responding to any Orimulsion spill that might occur in Tampa Bay are comparable to those which would apply to a spill of No. 6 fuel oil, the current fuel used at the Plant and brought into Port Manatee. Ecological Effects of Orimulsion Released in Tampa Bay Tampa Bay is the largest estuary system in the State of Florida. It is roughly 60 kilometers long and the typical width is on the order of 10 kilometers. Tampa Bay is a relatively shallow system, with a mean depth of about 3.7 meters. The shipping channel which traverses Tampa Bay is approximately 15 meters deep and 122 meters wide. Prior to the early 1900's, Tampa Bay was dominated in its marine productivity by seagrass. Because of human activities since that time, however, the current spatial extent of seagrasses is about 15 percent of the overall Bay. Changes in bathymetry and erosional losses in Tampa Bay preclude the reestablishment of seagrasses in some of their former range absent extraordinary measures to restore former bay bottom. Tampa Bay's primary productivity now comes from phytoplankton in the system. Notwithstanding the loss of seagrass, Tampa Bay is an extremely diverse estuarine system, providing habitat to approximately 250 species of fish, 1200 species of invertebrates, and 200 species of macro-algae. The mangrove systems and marsh grasses on the shoreline area, as well as the remaining seagrasses, provide part of the energetic base for the Tampa Bay system and structurally provide habitat critical as nursery grounds for many species of fish and invertebrates. To gain an understanding of the ecological effects of an Orimulsion spill in Tampa Bay, FPL commissioned the University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, to coordinate a study of the comparative ecological effects from a release into the environment of Orimulsion and No. 6 fuel oil, the fuel currently used at the Plant. The study was called the "Comparative Oil/Orimulsion Spill Assessment Program" (COSAP). COSAP involved independent, peer-reviewed scientific research conducted by scientists at several institutions, including the University of Miami, Florida International University, University of Massachusetts, University of North Texas and the University of South Florida. FPL provided the sponsorship and defined the nature of the problem on which study was desired, but had no role in conducting the research or in the conclusions drawn from that research. COSAP included research on fuel characterization, chemical and physical weathering, and toxicological studies for selected flora and fauna indigenous to Tampa Bay for both Orimulsion and No. 6 fuel oil. COSAP also included the identification of resources and ecosystems at risk, hydrodynamic modeling, and fate and transport modeling for Tampa Bay. The COSAP research was integrated into a comparative ecological risk assessment (CERA) in which the existing ecological risk of No. 6 fuel oil being released in the Tampa Bay environment was compared to the ecological risk which would exist from a similar-sized spill of Orimulsion in that environment. The different reactions of Orimulsion and No. 6 fuel oil in seawater were significant in assessing the comparative ecological risks because with No. 6 fuel oil, the slick effects and the movement of the slick by wind forces had to be considered. With Orimulsion and the dissolved component of No. 6 fuel oil, the tide and currents within the waterbody largely control the movement of the components. Under COSAP, toxicity tests were conducted on mangroves, seagrasses, and important fish and invertebrate species actually found in Tampa Bay, in addition to the typically- utilized surrogate laboratory species. This is a significant advancement beyond what is normally done in an ecological risk assessment. Historically, fuel oil spills have had varying degrees of impact on seagrasses and mangroves. Chronic toxicity tests demonstrated that Orimulsion would not cause widespread mortality of the seagrass beds or mangrove components of Tampa Bay. Toxicologically, the aromatics from No. 6 fuel oil were found to be a thousandfold more toxic to fish and invertebrate species than the components of Orimulsion at similar concentrations. In the event of a spill, however, the concentration of Orimulsion components in the water column would be approximately a thousandfold greater than the concentration of No. 6 fuel oil aromatics. To evaluate the comparative risk of No. 6 fuel oil and Orimulsion released in Tampa Bay, one must consider both the concentrations to which organisms would be exposed and the relative toxicities. COSAP's Comparative Ecological Risk Assessment (CERA) To incorporate both exposure concentrations and relative toxicities in the COSAP CERA, the researchers used a scenario-consequence analysis. That is, hypothetical sets of conditions were defined to identify a range of conditions that might occur under different types of spill conditions in Tampa Bay. Then the fate, transport, exposure and ecological effects of both a No. 6 fuel oil spill and an Orimulsion spill for these scenarios were evaluated and compared. The scenarios developed for the CERA included four locations: (1) Egmont Key, the location of a major fuel oil spill in 1993; (2) the Skyway Bridge, the location of a collision which caused a portion of the former bridge to collapse; (3) the Turning Point, the 90 degree turn from the main shipping channel into the shipping channel which leads into Port Manatee; and (4) the Port Manatee facility where offloading occurs. The volume of the spills in the scenario-consequence analysis was 10,000 barrels, except for the Port Manatee facility scenarios for which the spill volume was presumed to be 1,000 barrels. Scenarios covered both wet and dry seasons. For the summer scenarios (the wet season), a relatively wet year and a relatively dry year were included. For each season and location, scenarios were chosen at four different start times to represent the range of combinations of wind and tidal events. Altogether, the CERA analysis included 96 scenarios. Each scenario was modeled using a hydrodynamic model developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Ocean Survey and further calibrated by the University of Miami researchers to the Tampa Bay system. Output from this hydrodynamic model was input to the 3-dimensional fate and transport model, SIMAP. For each scenario, movement of the various components of No. 6 fuel oil or Orimulsion was simulated for five different layers within Tampa Bay. Hourly concentrations were output and transferred to a Datagraphic Information System. The outputs were then integrated over time until concentrations were below the level where significant ecological effects would occur. Exposures (a combination of concentration, time, and component) were then graphically displayed using a scaling methodology and overlaid on the distribution of species in Tampa Bay, allowing for a direct comparison of toxicological effects. In assessing the comparative ecological risks of Orimulsion and No.6 fuel oil, numerous conservative design parameters and assumptions were used for the CERA. For example, the most sensitive life stages of the most sensitive species were utilized, maximum exposure times were assumed even for organisms which could swim out of the affected area after a spill, and a large spill volume was assumed. COSAP CERA Conclusions While an Orimulsion spill would have greater water column effects than a similar- sized spill of No. 6 fuel oil, the No. 6 fuel oil spill would have the added oil slick formation and associated shoreline impacts which are not anticipated from an Orimulsion spill. Overall, the risk to the Tampa Bay ecosystem from a spill of Orimulsion is essentially comparable to the existing risk of a No. 6 fuel oil spill of similar size. The risks from a spill of Orimulsion would not be significantly greater than, nor significantly less than, the risks to the Tampa Bay ecosystem from a similar-sized spill of No. 6 fuel oil. Peer Review of COSAP Research and Conclusions A Science Advisory Panel provided independent scientific peer review of the COSAP research and conclusions. The Panel included leading scientists in the fields of ecological risk assessments, spills of oil in the marine environment, coastal systems, and several representatives of state and federal regulatory agencies. The Science Advisory Panel was involved in a meeting at the inception of COSAP to discuss the overall research goals and objectives, the structure of the research program, and the specific protocols for the toxicological experiments. The Panel also examined the models and statistical approaches to be used for the study. The Panel specifically addressed the issue of the applicability and appropriateness of the ecological risk assessment paradigm, and participated in the development of the scenarios used in the CERA. The Panel reviewed an interim technical support document and provided detailed comments on all components of the research at that time prior to development of the CERA report. The Science Advisory Panel approved the use of the ecological risk assessment framework, the experimental components, the experimental design, the statistical analyses, the scaling methodology, and the conclusions reached in the CERA. Effects of Estrogenic Compounds Following a Spill The Orimulsion to be used at the Plant will include no more than .22 percent nonylphenol polyethoxylate surfactant. The surfactant allows the bitumen particles to remain emulsified in the water, forming a stable emulsion. Hundreds of millions of pounds of nonylphenol polyethoxylate surfactants are used annually in the United States in domestic and industrial products, such as soaps and detergents. Globally, more than a half billion pounds of nonylphenol polyethoxylate surfactants are used annually. Nonylphenol polyethoxylates released in an aquatic environment are broken down by actions of bacteria and sunlight. The final degradation products would be carbon dioxide and water. The warm temperature, intense sunlight and seawater in Tampa Bay would increase the speed of the surfactant's degradation process. Neither the surfactant in Orimulsion nor its intermediate degradation products are expected to persist for more than 30 to 45 days in Tampa Bay, if a spill occurs. Both No. 6 fuel oil and Orimulsion may result in compounds which mimic estrogen being released in the environment following a spill. The polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in No. 6 fuel oil are suspected to have such estrogenic properties. Similarly, some of the intermediate breakdown products of the nonylphenol polyethoxylate surfactant in Orimulsion are suspected to have estrogenic effects. Whether there are ecological consequences of such estrogenic compounds when released in the environment has not been established. To the extent marine organisms are exposed to any of the intermediate degradation products of Orimulsion's surfactant during the 30 to 45 days they may persist in Tampa Bay, once the exposure is removed the organisms are able to purge their systems of those compounds. Consequently, no long-term bioaccumulation of these compounds is expected. The surfactant and any effects it may have when released in the environment should not persist for long periods of time due to rapid degradation and the ability of marine organisms to purge their systems of the degradation products after the exposure is removed. Summary of Comparative Spill Risks Given the comparable ecological risks to Tampa Bay of Orimulsion and No. 6 fuel oil, the comparable spill response capabilities for the two fuels, and the substantially lower risk of a spill of Orimulsion than that for No. 6 fuel oil being delivered to the Plant, overall the risk to Tampa Bay will be significantly reduced after the conversion of the Plant to Orimulsion from that which currently exists from the transport of No. 6 fuel oil. Moreover, the conversion of the Plant to Orimulsion will reduce the risk of transfer- related fuel spills statewide. Every time there is a transfer of fuel from one fuel-holding tank to another, whether that holding tank is on a ship or barge, or is part of a terminal or refinery, there is a risk of a transfer- related spill. Deliveries of fuel oil to FPL's plants require from one to three transfers in Florida, depending on whether the terminal at the receiving port is connected directly to the electrical generating plant by pipeline (as at the Plant) or whether fuel must be transferred from the terminal to the plant by barge. Because the conversion to Orimulsion will increase the utilization of the Plant, and reduce the utilization of other FPL plants that burn higher cost oil, it will reduce the number of deliveries and transfers of fuel oil to other FPL plants within the State. This will reduce the number of FPL's annual fuel transfer operations in Florida by 14 percent, from 635 before the conversion to 548 following the conversion. This translates directly into a reduced probability of fuel spills. In addition, over 80 percent of the No. 6 fuel oil burned in Florida is refined at Gulf Coast plants. There are opportunities for transfer spills when fuel ultimately destined for FPL is delivered to and shipped from those refineries. These opportunities for Gulf Coast spills are eliminated with Orimulsion, which is transferred only once, off the coast of Venezuela, before it reaches the receiving terminal at Port Manatee.
Conclusions Burden of Proof 97 Summary of Conclusions 98 Inapplicable Surface Water Quality Permitting Criteria 102 Statues and Rules on Surface Water Discharges 103 Rejection of Similar Arguments in NYDEC Case 105 Outstanding Florida Waters 107 Federal Certification 110 Ecosystem Management 111 Legal and Permit Agreement Covers Surface Water Withdrawals from the Little Manatee River 112 Cooling Pond Groundwater Discharges 117 Secondary Impacts 118 Air emissions (nitrogen and ozone) 120 Salt Water intrusion and associated groundwater "pollution" 122 Groundwater discharges from cooling pond 123 Impacts to residents from truck traffic 123 Cumulative Impacts 124 Ground Water Quality Standards 127 Vertical Extension of ZOD is Consistent with DEP Rules 127 FPL Retains Exemption from Secondary Groundwater Standard 132 BACT Review 133 Availability of Variances 135 RECOMMENDATION 137 APPENDIX 138 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA SITING BOARD IN RE: FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, MANATEE ORIMULSION DOAH Case No. 94-5675EPP PROJECT, APPLICATION NO. 94-35. /
Recommendation Based on the entire record of this proceeding and the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Siting Board enter a final order that: Grants Florida Power & Light Company certification pursuant to Chapter 403, Part II, F.S., for the construction and operation of the Manatee Orimulsion Conversion Project subject to the Conditions of Certification filed on January 17, 1996, modified to add Bitor's commitments set out in Finding of Fact 189; and Grants variances from the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code for wetland mitigation ratios and from the Manatee County Land Development Code for location of required landscaping. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of February, 1996. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-5675EPP To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), F.S. (1995), as construed by the decision in Harbor Island Beach Club, Ltd., v. Dept. of Natural Resources, 476 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: FPL/DEP/SWFWMD Proposed Findings of Fact. All of the proposed findings of fact proposed by these parties have been reviewed. This review has included consideration of the response to the proposed findings filed by Manasota-88 and MCSOBA. This review reveals that most of the proposed findings of these parties were proven by a preponderance of the evidence and, except as follows, they have been accepted. 3. Last sentence clarified to reflect that, while there will be few other changes to the plant itself, there will be severally significant changes to the project area as a result of conversion to Orimulsion. 12. First sentence, rejected as only proof of a reasonable expectation is possible; otherwise, accepted. 75. Last sentence, "significantly" rejected as argument; otherwise, accepted. 82. Last sentence rejected as irrelevant; otherwise, accepted. 84.-85. In part, conclusions of law; otherwise, accepted. 86. Fourth sentence, rejected as contrary to the evidence in that both analyses should be conducted; otherwise, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the evidence to the extent that it implies that the Preserve is an embayment; otherwise, accepted. Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the evidence to the extent that it implies that the recent increase is uniform throughout the bay, as opposed to in parts of the bay and overall; otherwise, accepted. 106. Rejected as not proven that there will be no cumulative effect over time; otherwise, accepted and accepted in its entirety if it means only that an equilibrium will be reached at some point in time. 108. "Will not," in first two sentences, rejected as not proven; otherwise, accepted and accepted that reasonable assurances were provided. 110. "Demonstrated," in second sentence, rejected as not proven; otherwise, accepted and accepted that reasonable assurances were provided. 126. "Will not cause," in second sentence, rejected as not proven; otherwise, accepted and accepted that reasonable assurances were provided. 128.-130. In part, conclusions of law; otherwise, accepted. In part, conclusions of law; otherwise, accepted. 154. "1.44 percent of the time" clarified; otherwise, accepted. 159. Rejected in part in that Bitor's commitments are not part of the stipulated Conditions of Certification; otherwise, accepted. 161. Rejected in part in that Bitor's commitments are not part of the stipulated Conditions of Certification; otherwise, accepted. Manasota-88/MCSOBA Proposed Findings of Fact. Much of what is proposed by Manasota-88 and MCSOBA as findings of fact actually are conclusions of law. Proposed findings of fact numbered 4 through 203 actually are labeled "Findings Concerning Applicable Laws; most of these propose conclusions of law (although a few proposed findings of fact, mostly related to agency policy, are included.) Many of the other proposed findings of fact numbered 204 through 435 also actually propose conclusions of law. Even as construed by the decision in Harbor Island Beach Club, supra, Section 120.59(2), does not require rulings on proposed conclusions of law. 1.-2. Accepted. Subordinate and unnecessary. (94-5675EPP covers all permits, etc., from all agencies, except for the PSD and NPDES permits.) Conclusion of law. 5.-6. Accepted. Subordinate and unnecessary. 7.-18. Conclusions of law. Subpara. b., rejected as not supported by any evidence; rest, conclusions of law. Rejected as not supported by any evidence. 21.-24. Conclusions of law. 25. Accepted that DEP attempts to follow the guidelines, but they are not clear and are susceptible to different interpretations. 26.-48. Conclusions of law. 49. Accepted but irrelevant or argument. 50.-58. Conclusions of law. 59.-60. In part, conclusion of law; otherwise, accepted but conclusion of law, and either irrelevant or argument. 61. Conclusion of law. 62.-63. Accepted. Accepted but irrelevant because it is not regulated as a discharge. In part, conclusion of law; to the extent that it seeks to establish agency policy, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence; otherwise, accepted. 66.-68. Conclusion of law; to the extent that it seeks to establish agency policy, rejected as contrary to the evidence. 69.-70. Conclusion of law. 71.-72. In part, conclusion of law; otherwise, accepted. 73.-77. Conclusions of law. 78.-79. Conclusion of law; to the extent that it seeks to establish agency policy, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Conclusion of law. In part, conclusion of law; otherwise, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. 82.-86. Conclusions of law. 87. Accepted (but DEP does not issue such permits per se. 88.-90. Conclusions of law. 91. In part, conclusion of law; to the extent that it refers to agency policy, accepted. 92.-96. Conclusions of law. 97.-98. Accepted. 99.-114. Conclusions of law. 115. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 116.-120. Conclusions of law. 121.-123. Accepted. 124.-126. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 127. In part, conclusion of law; otherwise, ejected as contrary to the evidence. 128.-131. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the evidence (as to "any other form of record evidence"). Conclusion of law. Last sentence, accepted; otherwise, conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence (that DEP uses "two different non-rule policy interpretations.) First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence; second, conclusion of law. 137.-142. Conclusions of law. 143. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. 144.-145. Subparagraphs, accepted; rest, conclusions of law. Conclusion of law. Accepted. 148.-150. Conclusions of law. 151.-153. Accepted (but as to 153, only sodium is a primary standard.) 154. Rejected as not clear from the evidence what is "common regulatory practice." 155.-157. Conclusions of law. 158.-159. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (that DEP was "deviating from the common regulatory practice.") 160.-168. Conclusions of law. 169. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 170.-172. Conclusions of law. 173. In part, conclusion of law; otherwise, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (that salt water intrusion results). 174.-179. Conclusions of law. 180.-181. Accepted. 182.-190. Conclusions of law. 191. Accepted. 192.-193. Conclusions of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. 196.-203. Conclusions of law. 204. "Very sensitive" rejected as argument not supported by evidence; otherwise, accepted. 205.-211. Accepted. 212.-213. Rejected as contrary to the evidence that excessive nitrogen is the only cause; otherwise, accepted. 214.-216. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence as to all of Tampa Bay; accepted as to parts of the bay. "At least 10 percent," rejected as contrary to the evidence; also, the TBNEP proposal is not clear from the evidence in the record. (Cf. Garrity, T. 2110-2111.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The estimate was calculated using a .27 lbs/mmBtuM emission rate.) 220.-221. Accepted. (Variation primarily is driven by rainfall.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The witness's estimate, which was very rough, was referring to atmospheric deposition, not nitrogen loading; the two are different, and the percentage increase of the former actually is higher than the actual percentage increase in the former resulting from the Orimulsion conversion project.) First clause (the premise), accepted; second (the conclusion), rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (Ozone may affect "dry deposition"; but much more atmospheric deposition is "wet deposition," which can vary by an order of magnitude depending on rainfall.) 224.-225. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The witness was referring to atmospheric deposition, not total nitrogen loading. See 222., above.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. (However, while there might be some longer term impacts from sedimentation, those affects will be marginal, first because the impacts themselves are marginal, and second because nitrogen entering the sediments also will be subject to denitrification through biological and chemical processes and to burial over time.) 228.-229. Conclusions of law; also, subpara. c., rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted in the general sense that it is 21 tons in the wrong direction. However, the "detrimental effect" was not measurable. Accepted. (It is not clear what "water quality levels" are meant. F.A.C. Rule 62-302.530(48)(b) speaks for itself. Presumably, "water quality levels" refers to nitrogen loadings.) To the extent not conclusion of law, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Conclusion of law whether the rule applies. In any event, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that "no evidence" was presented. Rejected. First, conclusion of law whether air emissions are a "proposed discharge," and whether the "clearly in the public" test applies. Second, assuming that the test applies, and that it raises a mixed question of law and fact (not a pure question of law), neither of the witnesses cited were in a position to give competent testimony on the issue. Accepted. (There was no evidence as to where in the bay the violations occur.) Conclusion of law; also, subparagraphs a. and d., rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Conclusion of law; also, subpara. c., rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. (It is not clear what "ambient water quality levels" are meant. F.A.C. Rule 62-302.530(48)(b) speaks for itself. Presumably, "ambient water quality levels" refers to nitrogen loadings.) To the extent not conclusion of law, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 240.-241. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (There was no indication of what the witness meant by "nuisance condition." Compare testimony to F.A.C. Rules 62- 302.500(1)(c) and 62-302.530(47). Accepted (assuming reference is being made to atmospheric deposition. See 222., above.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (TBNEP projection was hearsay.) 244.-245. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 246.-249. Accepted. 250. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. ("Trophic," not "tropic," state index.) 251.-253. Accepted. 254.-255. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. (It is not clear what "water quality levels" are meant, or what "nuisance standard" is meant. In any event, both F.A.C. Rules 62-302.500(1)(c) and 62-302.530(47) speak for themselves. Presumably, "water quality levels" refers to nitrogen loadings.) To the extent not conclusion of law, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The rule was judged not to apply.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (Other parameters were "reviewed" in the sense that they were considered along with salinity, but only salinity was studied in detail.) 260.-262 Accepted (but, as to 261., the extent of "further degradation" of water quality required to degrade biological productivity is not specified, so fact is not useful.) Accepted, but a conclusion of law whether it is "foreseeable" for purposes of "cumulative effects." Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The evidence was 5 percent of the months.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The option was considered and rejected.) Otherwise, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The evidence was it was 6, but it is changing.) Accepted but so general and speculative as not to be useful. 269.-270. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (While absolute certainty does not appear to be possible at this time, DEP seems to have made this determination based on the best information available.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as to RPM; accepted as to EKMA. 275.-278. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (While absolute certainty does not appear to be possible at this time, it is believed based on the best information available that the Tampa Bay airshed is VOC-limited.) Conclusion of law. 283.-284. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 288.-289. To the extent not conclusion of law, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. The evidence is not clear that the expansion is "foreseeable." 293.-296. Accepted. 297. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (42.23 is an absolute maximum per day; there also is a maximum 30-day rolling average.) 298.-299. Rejected as inaccurate calculation. 300.-301. Accepted. 302. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (Emissions from the Manatee Plant were not part of the Hillsborough/Pinellas inventory of stationary sources.) 303.-304. Accepted. 305. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. See 298.-299. and 302., above. 306.-307. Accepted. 308.-309. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. See 302., above. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (There was circumstantial evidence, but a "correlation" was not determined.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Not clear from the evidence, especially without a corresponding VOC reduction. Also, so general as to be of little usefulness. 314.-315. Accepted. 316. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The evidence was that, at the time of the hearing, the SWUCA was a proposed rule and that the proposed withdrawals are in the Eastern Tampa Bay WUCA.) 317.-318. See 316., above; otherwise, accepted. The Floridan was not specified; otherwise, accepted. Accepted, assuming "sources" and "uses" mean the same thing. See 316., above. Accepted. Accepted (although specific reference only was to the former FPL wells.) Rejected as not supported by evidence on which a finding of fact could be made. 325.-326. Rejected. (These appear to be conclusions of law, although the intended legal significance of "straight transfer" is not made clear.) 327. Conclusion of law. 328.-329. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 330. See 316., above. 331.-332. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. See 316., above. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The explanation was that the SWFWMD regulations allow it.) 335.-337. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 338. Accepted. (That is why the ZOD was expanded vertically.) 339.-341. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 342. Cumulative. 343.-344. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Unintelligible. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. See 346., above. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as not supported by any evidence. Rejected. Not a legal requirement. 352.-353. Cumulative. 354. Rejected as not supported by any evidence. 354.(Number 2) Not clear what is meant by "water communities." An oil spill will affect the surface and shore more; Orimulsion would affect the water column and bottom more, especially in deeper water. 355.-356. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as not clear from the evidence what the impact on property values will be. Also, not subject to determination in this case. Rejected. F.A.C. Rule 60Q-2.031(3). Not subject to determination in this case. Rejected. Subpara. a., rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Subpara. c., unclear what is being referenced. Also, effect on government jurisdictions other than Manatee County not subject to determination in this case. Rejected as not supported by any evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (As to c., no evidence as to what is meant or how it would help.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (However, as proposed, Bitor is the responsible party.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that these methods are "reasonable." (As to d., the rule does not apply.) Rejected as not supported by any evidence that this alternative is "reasonable." 367.-368. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Unintelligible. Conclusion of law. Accepted. 372.-377. Conclusions of law. 378.-379. Accepted. 380.-383. Conclusions of law. 384. Accepted. 385.-386. Conclusions of law. 387. Accepted. 388.-389. Conclusion of law. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by any evidence. 392.-395. Conclusions of law. 396. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 397.-398. To the extent not conclusion of law, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence as to "foreseeable cumulative" impacts; also no evidence that foreseeable cumulative impacts "justify higher than normal BACT." Conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (DEP tries to follow it, but it is complicated and difficult to apply.) Rejected as not supported by the evidence. (The only evidence was that EPA suggested that DEP give proper consideration to the claims of some SCR manufacturers that their technology achieves .10 lbs/mmBtum.) Accepted. 403.-404. Accepted (assuming reference is made to average costs.) Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (There also were other factors.) Accepted. (However, the initial application has been modified in many respects during the course of these proceedings.) Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is BACT or that it was the only calculation making those emissions rate assumptions. Accepted. (Incremental cost calculations also are recommended.) 412.-414. Conclusions of law. 415. Accepted. 416.-418. Rejected as not supported by facts on which findings of fact can be made. 419. Accepted. (However, that was just one of several calculations and not FPL's final calculation.) 420. Rejected as not clear from the evidence that both calculations used .395 lbs/mmBtum. 421.-422. Accepted. 423.-426. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (As to 425., it is not technically feasible for this application, so it cannot be economically feasible; where technically feasible, it has been shown to be economically feasible as well.) 427. Accepted (although it varies from year to year.) 428. Rejected as not supported by any evidence. 429. Accepted (but vanadium content is not high enough to create problems of technical feasibility.) 430.-435. Cumulative. Conclusions of law. Manatee County Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-10. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the evidence and to proposed finding 12 that it is the only required variance. Accepted. To the extent that accepted proposed findings are not contained in the Findings of Fact, there were considered to be subordinate, irrelevant or otherwise unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Peter C. Cunningham, Esquire Carolyn S. Raepple, Esquire Kathleen L. Blizzard, Esquire Douglas S. Roberts, Esquire Gary V. Perko, Esquire Hopping Green Sams and Smith, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Charles T. "Chip" Collette, Esquire Twin Towers Office Building Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 H. Hamilton Rice, Esquire Mark P. Barnebey, Esquire Jeffrey N. Steinsnyder, Esquire Richard Tschantz, Esquire 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 2951 61st Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 Roger S. Tucker, Esquire General Counsel Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 9455 Koger Boulevard St. Petersburg, Florida 33702-2491 Preston T. Robertson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Bridgett A. Ffolkes, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue Whether Alachua County Environmental Protection Department discriminated against Tilak B. Shrestha based upon his race or national origin, in violation of Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, by releasing Mr. Shrestha from his temporary assignment through Temp Force with the Alachua County Environmental Protection Department and by not hiring Mr. Shrestha for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist within the Alachua County Environmental Protection Department.
Findings Of Fact The State of Florida funds the Petroleum Cleanup Program (Petroleum Program) which is focused on removing petroleum contaminants from various sites within the State of Florida. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) administers the Petroleum Program, also known as the Underground Storage Cleanup Program. In 12 counties, including Alachua, Florida contracts with the county to manage the Petroleum Program. The Alachua County Environmental Protection Department (Alachua DEP) manages the Petroleum Cleanup sites in Alachua County. Mr. Chris Bird has been the director of the Petroleum Program since 1993. He has worked with Alachua County since 1986. In the 1994-1995 fiscal year, the Florida Legislature was facing a deficit; therefore, the Legislature significantly reduced the funding for the Petroleum Program. As a result, DEP froze the Petroleum Program, and dropped several active sites. The lack of funding resulted in downsizing at both the county and state levels at the beginning of 1995. At the beginning of 1995, the Alachua DEP had three funded positions in the Petroleum Program. Mr. Alex Vieira occupied the position of full-time Professional Engineer. The Alachua DEP also had funding for an administrative position and a full-time Environmental Engineer/Geologist. The Environmental Engineer/Geologist position was vacant at the beginning of 1995. The Alachua DEP originally advertised for the position. However, when the State reduced funding for the Petroleum Program, the Alachua DEP decided not to fill the position with a permanent employee and ultimately froze this permanent position. In order for the Petroleum Program to continue at a minimum level of operation, the Alachua DEP hired temporary employees through Temp Force, a temporary employment agency. Temp Force served as an independent contractor for the Alachua DEP. Temp Force provided Mr. Tilak Shrestha and Mr. Mike Shuler to the Alachua DEP Petroleum Cleanup Program. Mr. Shuler began working at the Alachua DEP through Temp Force two months prior to Mr. Shrestha's Temp Force assignment to the Petroleum Program. At the time of the assignment through Temp Force, Shrestha was not credentialed as a Ph.D. Mr. Shrestha and Mr. Shuler were employees of Temp Force, received their paychecks from Temp Force and acquired no benefits from Alachua County. Mr. Shrestha worked as a Temp Force employee for six months at Alachua DEP and was assigned to various projects at the Alachua DEP. As supervisor for the Petroleum Program, Mr. Vieira assigned projects to both Mr. Shrestha and Mr. Shuler. Mr. Shrestha described his working conditions during his assignment through Temp Force with the Alachua DEP as "good, no complaints," and "good on average." In 1995, the Florida legislature ultimately reduced funding for the Petroleum Program from $1.2 million to approximately $250,000. When the Alachua DEP received notice of these funding cuts, Mr. Bird advised Mr. Vieira that he needed to release one of the Temp Force employees from his assignment with the Alachua DEP. Mr. Vieira retained Mr. Shuler and informed Mr. Shrestha that he would no longer be working on the Petroleum Cleanup assignment through Temp Force. Mr. Shrestha's assignment through Temp Force with the Alachua DEP was terminated on August 10, 1995. During Fall 1995, the legislature substantially changed the law and administration pertaining to the Petroleum Program, both at the county and state levels. In October 1995, Ms. Pegeen Hanrahan became the Petroleum Program supervisor following Mr. Vieira's resignation. Ms. Hanrahan earned a Bachelor's degree in Environmental Engineering and Sociology and a Master's degree in Environmental Engineering. She is a registered Professional Engineer and a certified Hazardous Materials Manager. She began working for Alachua County in 1992 as an Environmental Engineer and later served for three years as Hazardous Materials Program Supervisor for Alachua County. When Ms. Hanrahan became supervisor of the Petroleum Program in Fall 1995, the Petroleum Program had essentially entered a "stand-by" mode. The Alachua DEP declined to send any additional work to its sub-contractors. Therefore, the technical duties involved in the Petroleum Program were reduced and the administrative duties became more important. During the Fall of 1995, there were no permanent employees on staff. Mr. Shuler remained as the only temporary employee in the Petroleum Program and according to Ms. Hanrahan was doing a "perfectly adequate job." Based on the new and reduced Petroleum Program budget for the 1995-1996 fiscal year, the Alachua DEP acted in October 1995 to establish the position of Senior Environmental Specialist in lieu of the Environmental Engineer/Geologist position. The position was advertised in December 1995. The main role of the Senior Environmental Specialist was to assist the Professional Engineer in the area of the administration involved in the Petroleum Program. The duties included filing reports, tracking sites, and submitting task orders and invoices to the office in Tallahassee. Due to the increasing changes in the Petroleum Program, the Alachua DEP required a Senior Environmental Specialist who understood the Petroleum Program's administrative tasks, as well as the State policies pertaining to the Petroleum Program. The Senior Environmental Specialist candidate was required to have a technical background in fields including, but not limited to, engineering, biology or geology. The Professional Engineer, not the Specialist, was assigned the technical review of the Petroleum Program. An applicant's understanding of the technical and administrative duties was necessary. In 1995, the Alachua DEP advertised the position of Senior Environmental Specialist, which included printing an advertisement in the local newspaper, per the County regulations. The Alachua DEP described the administrative tasks of Senior Environmental Specialist to include: preparing reports; making recommendations; receiving and investigating complaints; conducting performance evaluations; counseling, hiring and terminating employees. The Alachua DEP described the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the Senior Environmental Specialist to include: thorough knowledge of the technical methods and procedures involved in the administration of environmental regulations, programs, and policies; knowledge of local, state, and federal rules, regulations, and ordinances related to environmental protection; ability to create concise, clear, and succinct technical reports; and ability to research technical problems, formulate recommendations, and compile related reports. The Alachua DEP described the minimum qualifications for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist as: Bachelor's degree in environmental or natural science, civil or environmental engineering, geology, or hydrology, or related field, and two years' professional level environmental-related experience; or any equivalent combination of related training and experience. The County received 14 applications for the position as Senior Environmental Specialist from applicants, which included Mr. Shrestha and Mr. Shuler. Ms. Hanrahan was supervisor of the Petroleum Program in January 1996 and responsible for the hiring of the Senior Environmental Specialist. She received an Application Referral Document from personnel, stating that each of the applicants met the County's minimum requirements for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist. Upon receipt of the re?sume's and applications, Ms. Hanrahan initially screened the applicants for those who had petroleum-related experience. She narrowed the applicants to four individuals, who included Mr. Shrestha, Mr. Shuler, and two others. On January 22, 1996, Ms. Hanrahan conducted a telephone interview of each of the four applicants who passed the initial screening. The telephone interview was customary hiring practice within the Alachua DEP. During the telephone interview, Ms. Hanrahan asked each applicant the same series of ten questions, designed to test the applicant's level of knowledge regarding technical and administrative aspects of the position of Senior Environmental Specialist. Mr. Shrestha answered five out of a possible eleven answers correctly. This was the second highest score out of the four applicants. Shuler achieved the highest score, answering eight-and-one-half out of eleven answers correctly. Three interview questions specifically addressed administrative issues. Question six asked, "What does RBCA stand for?" Question seven stated, "This year the Florida Petroleum Cleanup Program has adopted a new mechanism for review and approval of work on petroleum contaminated sites. Can you tell me what that program is called?" Question nine stated, "Give two examples of policy decisions under RBCA." Mr. Shrestha failed to answer question six, seven or nine correctly. Mr. Shrestha's failure to correctly answer each of the administrative questions indicated to Ms. Hanrahan that he was unaware of the changes within the Petroleum Program. Another purpose of the telephone interview was to assess the applicants under pressure. Ms. Hanrahan also sought to evaluate how the applicants responded to her authority. During the telephone interview, Mr. Shrestha challenged Ms. Hanrahan regarding the relevance of the questions to the position of Senior Environmental Specialist and she noted his argumentative attitude during the interview. He conceded at the hearing that he did ask her about the relevancy of the questions. Based upon his argumentative tone, Ms. Hanrahan questioned Mr. Shrestha about his ability to accept her supervisory decisions. She decided not to hire Mr. Shrestha for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist based on his limited knowledge of the administration of the Petroleum Program, a factor essential to the position of Senior Environmental Specialist, and his inability to accept her authority as supervisor. Ms. Hanrahan was also aware of critical statements that Mr. Shrestha allegedly had made to female co-workers during his assignment through Temp Force at the Alachua DEP. Ms. Robin Hallbourg is currently employed as Senior Environmental Specialist with the Alachua DEP. Ms. Hallbourg has been with the Alachua County DEP for 15 years. Ms. Hallbourg worked with Mr. Shrestha at the Alachua DEP during Mr. Shrestha's assignment through Temp Force. Ms. Hallbourg testified that Mr. Shrestha told her that "she should be home with her child" and that she "should allow a man to have her job." After this conversation, Ms. Hallbourg discussed his statements with others in the Alachua DEP, including Ms. Hanrahan. Ms. Hanrahan recalled the discussion with her. Ms. Hanrahan hired Mr. Shuler for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist because he proved himself to be the most qualified candidate during the interview process. Ms. Hanrahan kept an interview log on which she noted Mr. Shuler's strong qualifications for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist. She noted his "excellent experience in the Petroleum Cleanup Program and his significant applicable training and experience in program administration." Ms. Hanrahan also noted that his "application and interview showed strong computer skills." Mr. Shuler's Bachelor's degree in Microbiology met the education requirements for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist. Moreover, at the time of Shuler's application, there had been a growing emphasis placed on bi-remediation, which is currently a regularly used process. Given Ms. Hanrahan's education, training,and experience as a Professional Engineer, she determined that a Bachelor's degree in Microbiology was an appropriate background for the position. In addition, Mr. Shuler had the technical knowledge of processes, performance of groundwater sampling, and drilling, as well as other relevant technical knowledge pertaining to the position of Senior Environmental Specialist. Additionally, due to his continued assignment in the Alachua DEP, he was aware of the new administrative duties required of a Senior Environmental Specialist. Ms. Hanrahan had personally observed Mr. Shuler from October 1995 until January 1996, and was extremely satisfied with his performance. As part of the usual hiring process, Ms. Hanrahan submitted her interview log, personnel action form, and applications to the personnel department to support her hiring decision. Mr. Bird approved the hiring decision in his capacity as director, and the personnel department, budget department, and Equal Employment Office then approved the decision. Since his hire, Mr. Shuler has been commended by the Alachua DEP and his supervisors. Ms. Hanrahan informed Mr. Shrestha that he had not been hired for the position during a telephone conversation on January 23, 1996. She did not base her decision to hire Mr. Shuler over Mr. Shrestha on the basis of race or national origin. Ms. Hanrahan is fully aware of Alachua County's Equal Employment Opportunity policy through her position as advisor on the Equal Opportunity Advisory Committee. There is no evidence of any discriminatory hiring decision. In fact, on the same day that Ms. Hanrahan hired Mr. Shuler for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist, she also hired Mr. Gus Olmos for the position of Environmental Engineering Supervisor. Mr. Olmos is from Panama and is Hispanic. Moreover, Dr. Prasad Kuchibhotla is a Professional Engineer with a Bachelor's, Master's and Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering. He is from India and is Asian. Alachua County hired Dr. Kuchibhotla in 1997 and is the current Petroleum Cleanup Program Manager for Alachua DEP. Dr. Kuchibhotla currently has a Senior Environmental Specialist working for him within the Petroleum Program. As was the case in December 1995, the current Specialist's primary duty is to assist him with the detailed administrative tasks involved with the Petroleum Program. On January 27, 1997, Mr. Shrestha filed a formal Charge of Discrimination. The charge was date stamped as received by the Florida Commission on Human Relations on January 30, 1997. Mr. Shrestha is currently employed with Bell South in Atlanta, Georgia. He earns $47,000 per year and receives health benefits.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that Petitioner, Tilak B. Shrestha is not entitled to any relief relating to his charge of discrimination under Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER 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 2nd day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Tilak B. Shrestha 3579-C Meadowglen Village Lane Doraville, Georgia 30340 Robert M. Ott, Esquire County Litigation Attorney Post Office Box 2877 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
