Bruderly on mercury and Struhs on how the plant is perfect


To the Editor:

This posting from Bruderly is in two parts, 1) my comments on the failure of
FDEP to protect the Santa Fe River from significant degradation from mercury,
2) a letter from David Struhs, Secretary of FDEP concerning the water quality
of the Santa Fe River and his opinion that 300 pounds per year of mercury
emissions from two new cement kilns in the Santa Fe Basin will have no impact
on the Santa Fe River:

Bruderly writes:
The flow from the Springs of the Santa Fe -- including the Ichetucknee -- is
not constant; flow from these springs has declined significantly over the
past few months of drought.  As a result water levels in these rivers are
very low; literally at the bottom of the elevation gages used by the SRWMD to
measure flows.

Because the water flowing down the Santa Fe is predominately from springs,
the river is extremely clear.  Low turbidity enables light to penetrate to
the bottom of the river; increased light levels has caused rapid plant
growth, mostly attached macrophytes, but also filamentous algaes normally
associated with high nutrient levels.

Because the water is so clear (oligotrophic), the river is very sensitive to
atmospheric  deposition of mercury.  Mercury bioaccumulates or
bioconcentrates in aquatic organisms living in oligotrophic waters; as a
result mercury levels in the fish of the Santa Fe are extremely high.
Mercury levels are so high that an advisory has been issued warning people to
limit consumption of those fish.  Yet the State of Florida intends to allow
the cement industry to increase mercury loading to the Santa Fe River --
again.  Why?

The flow and chemistry of these Outstanding Florida Waters is not well
documented and not well understood; yet the FDEP has not required the
Suwannee American Cement Company to do studies and field work to improve our
scientific knowledge and understanding of the hydrology and water quality of
the Santa Fe River.

Factual information is lacking; yet the lawyers press on to issue permits to
degrade the River.

For this reason, it is irresponsible for the State of Florida to blindly move
forward to issue construction permits for the Suwannee American Cement
Company's 900-acre limerock mine and cement kiln.  The 75-to 100-foot deep
mine will intercept all groundwater flows only two miles upgradient from the
springs of the Santa Fe and only 2.5 miles from Ichetucknee State Park.  The
kiln will emit up to 97 pounds of mercury and 1,300 tons of nitrogen oxides
per year into the air above the Santa Fe River basin.   What will happen to
the Springs of the Santa Fe?  Where will the nitrogen and mercury go?

Common sense -- and pbjective scientific analysis -- tells us that the
mercury and nitrogen will end up in the oligiotrophic waters of the Santa Fe
River.  But how much?  What are the impacts?

Not one peer-reviewed scientific report has been made public that describes
the effect mining and pollution will have on the Outstanding Florida Waters
of the Santa Fe River; site specific studies to document impacts on water
flows, water quality, nitorgen loading, and mercury bioaccumulation in
aquatic organisms have not been performed.  Why not?

Four years ago, FDEP granted Florida Rock a permit to emit 200 pounds of
mercury per year from their Newberry Plant; FDEP is about to grant Suwannee
American Cement a permit to emit an additional 97 pounds per year.  The
Secretary of FDEP ignores expert testimony offered by Sierra Club that
emissions of more than 20 pounds per year of mercury emissions will have an
impact on the Santa Fe River and will be measurable.  The FDEP is allowing
nearly 300 pounds of mercury to be discharged into the Santa Fe River airshed
-- without any site-specific scientific investigations.

Secretary Struhs labels legitimate concerns about mercury as a "false alarm".
 Rather than do the scientific work necessary to develop the facts needed to
answer questions about mercury, the FDEP is proceeding to issue construction
permits.

Expediency seems to take precedence over science at FDEP.

An administrative law judge found the Sierra Club expert to not be pursuasive
on matters of mercury pollution.  Why?  Lack of accurate, site-specific
information.  This judge was not an environmental scientist; he was a lawyer,
a law person who admitted that he had no technical expertise in matters of
mercury pollution or abstract concepts like bioaccumulation.  The judge did
not ask for or require site specific studies or peer-reviewed scientific
analysis to be conducted to provide answers; he simply decided not to believe
testimony that mercury emissions will be so dilute that they will never
degrade the Santa Fe River.

The FDEP position is that dilution is the solution to mercury pollution.
Then why does FDEP discourage disposal of mercury thermometers, light bulbs,
and batteries in landfills.  Why has mercury been banned from so many
consumer products?  Unbelievable.

Why is the State of Florida refusing to enforce Florida law (62-4 FAC, 62-300
FAC) to prevent significant deterioation of Outstanding Florida Waters?  Why
does the State not require the cement companies to perform the scientific
studies needed to understand this environmental issue?  How can any public
official make informed decisions when credible and accurate knowledge is not
available?  How can public officals protect public health, welfare, and
safety when they refuse to even ask for credible and accurate information?

Mercury emissions from the cement industry threaten the Santa Fe River.  The
State of Florida refuses to even try to enforce environmental laws that are
supposed to protect our air and water quality.

Why is the Alachua County Commission and the Gainesville City Commission
silent on this issue?

David E. Bruderly, PE
1826 NW 57th Terrace
Gainesville, Florida 32605-3357
352-377-0932

The following letter from David Struhs, Secretary of FDEP was sent to
Virginia Seacrist.

Dear Virginia:

Thanks for your recent e-mail concerning good press.  I agree with the
Governor that it is fickle and elusive.  It is far better to seek fair press.
 Consider, for example, the Gainesville Sun editorial of November 20, 1999.
It correctly observed:

"In a perfect world, the state might be able to tell a company with a poor
environmental track record that it cannot build a cement plant within a few
miles of one of Florida's most pristine rivers and then make that decision
stick.

"But if this were a perfect world, we wouldn't have, or need litigation, due
process, an appeals system and all of the other trappings of imperfect
regulatory and judicial structures.  The existence of these structures and
those processes all but ensure that sustaining the state's initial rejection
of Suwannee American Cement's permit for a cement plant near the Ichetucknee
River will be problematical at best…..

"Now, five months after that initial rejection, many environmentalists or
other opponents of the project are howling in outrage over the Bush
Administration's
willingness to negotiate with Suwanee American and its affiliated companies.
They want the governor and DEP to fight to the bitter end, to do whatever it
takes to ensure that the plant is never approved and constructed.

"In a perfect world, that's exactly what would happen.  And there is no
question that the state could tie the company up for a period of months, or
even years, in litigation.  But if the end result of such delaying tactics
turns out to be a judicial finding in Suwannee American's favor, the state
will have lost an opportunity to at least take an objectionable project and
make it somewhat better.  The settlement agreement negotiated between the DEP
and the company would seem to do just that; take an objectionable project and
make it somewhat better."

If I had any quarrel with the quoted passage, it would be that DEP made the
project a LOT better.  But, the editorial was fair.  This press recognized
two facts:

First, that DEP did not "reverse" itself on this permitting decision.
Rather, it used every legally available tool to ensure that no permit would
be issued until Suwanee American demonstrated a reasonable assurance that its
proposed plant would meet and maintain all environmental standards.

Second, residents who would prefer to never see this property developed for
industrial purposes should challenge the decision of their county officials
who
determined that a cement plant qualified as an "agricultural use" for this
agriculturally zoned property.  No Governor or DEP Secretary has the
authority to make these local decisions.

Suwanee American will now be among the most tightly regulated companies in the
world.  Even Save Our Suwanee and the Sierra Club have stipulated before a
judge that they do not believe there are any reasonable air quality concerns
from the plant.  Further, the judge flatly rejected the false alarm over the
so-called mercury poisoning of the Ichetucknee, Santa Fe and Suwanee River.
The judge has found that the proposed plant's effect on the river will be
non-detectable.  In the event there is any effect at all, the quantities of
mercury are 50,000 to 100,000 times less than any measurable levels.

Getting people to understand these facts is far more important than worrying
about good press.  I look forward to your help in getting this message out.

Best regards.

David B. Struhs