Piney Points Timebomb Continues to Tick

PORT MANATEE – On Wednesday, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection gave Manatee County Commissioners a detailed briefing of the history, current status and potential future courses of action at Piney Point, a site adjacent to Port Manatee where a former phosphate operation threatens to wreak environmental havoc.

Piney Point was originally a 670-acre site developed by Borden Chemical in 1965 as a phosphorus loading site. The county’s port was developed at the same time in order to support its operations.

The phosphate operation began causing environmental problems almost immediately, mostly linked to fluoride pollution, which fowled Bishop Harbor (part of the Terra Ceia Aquatic Buffer Preserve). Later, fluoride-tainted pasture grass was linked to the dying off of cattle on nearby ranches.

In 1989 there was a 23,000-gallon leak of sulfuric acid from a holding tank, forcing the evacuation of hundreds of nearby residents, as well as port employees. A couple of years later, two air releases of sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide created an acid cloud that made more than 30 people in the vicinity ill. In 2003, an intentional discharge of the nitrogen-rich waste into the Gulf of Mexico by FDEP

The site went through multiple owners and successive bankruptcies by Royester Phosphates and the Mulberry Corporation. The DEP approved a bankruptcy purchase by current owner HRK Holdings in 2006, while a $140 million project was underway to reclaim the abandoned mine for "beneficial use.“ The gypsum stack dikes were lined so that dredged material and spoilage from the construction of Port Manatee’s Berth 12 could be disposed of on the site.

In 2011, HRK assumed responsibility for all operations. That same year, the company reported leaks caused by ruptures atop of lined gypsum stacks where the dredging material had been placed, leaking millions of gallons of toxic water a day for weeks on end. The DEP then allowed discharges from the giant gypsum stack to help them remain structurally sound. The contaminated runoff made its way to Bishop Harbor.

The site currently holds 630 million gallons of remaining toxic process water in two ponds, along with the gypsum stacks (which are surrounded by two unintentional pools of high-chloride seawater) and a large seepage collection ditch where spoiled water from the saturated gypsum stacks can be corralled as it slowly leaks out (see image below).

The county and its residents are only really involved as the host of the site. While the county can consider itself blessed not to be saddled with the financial costs associated with any future cleanup, it’s important to understand that environmental oversight is the jurisdiction of FDEP. While the department has expressed respect for the county’s position, they are nonetheless empowered to approve a plan by HRK. The company has about $4 million set aside in escrow for future maintenance and remediation of the site, though those costs could ultimately dwarf that figure, especially if there is another catastrophe.

According to FDEP, there are two primary concerns that must be addressed. Foremost, a long-term solution must be enacted to contain the toxic phosphogypsum stacks. On Wednesday, FDEP said that the leading candidate in terms of addressing that issue was dumping fly ash on top of the stacks, which would solidify, then fitting an engineered cap over the area, which composes about 60 acres. This would encase the most toxic material and allow new runoff from rainwater to be free from pollution.

The more complicated problem is dealing with the 630 million gallons of toxic process water in the ponds, which is no longer being discharged into larger water bodies because of the high chloride level. The only current method being employed is spray evaporation, in which water is discharged to the air in a fine mist that essentially speeds up the normal evaporation process. However, this is not being done as fast as increased rainfall has added to the ponds, leading to a steady increase in total volume at around 11 million gallons each year.

FDEP says that the site can hold about 150 million gallons more, which equates to about 46 inches of rainfall. But at the rate of increase, that provides only a little more than a decade’s worth of cushion.

In 2003, that cushion was down to just 2.5 inches when a major removal was achieved through a planned discharge into the Gulf of Mexico, only months ahead of Hurricane Ivan, which dumped high volumes of rain. But while the discharge may have helped avert one catastrophe, the introduction of the nitrogen-rich water is also thought to have led to the historic red tide bloom in 2004, that devastated the area's tourism industry.

Officials at both the state and county worry that if the pattern of increased storm intensity continues as the pond volumes increase, a major storm event could significantly alter the timeline of that cushion.

Unfortunately, there was not much good news presented Wednesday in terms of a near-term solution on that front. There simply aren’t a lot of options, and the few available come with very hefty price tags. The water can be trucked out to facilities in the state that process spoiled water, but it’s very expensive to move that much volume by truck and the onsite logistics of doing so are considerable. Reverse osmosis is sometimes used to reclaim water but also creates a reject stream that then must be managed. Spray evaporation operations can be increased but not at a scale that is effective in elimination of that scope.

NClear, a "non-toxic nano-crystal technology“ sometimes used to combat red tide can treat the water for discharge without releasing ammonia to the atmosphere the way most processes do, might be an option, though given the history of discharges from the site, there would likely be considerable public backlash. In 2015, FDEP supported a plan by HRK to build a deep well injection site and pump the water deep into the aquifer. FDEP claimed the process was safe and would not impact drinking or agricultural irrigation water. Farmers and residents, however, were quickly up in arms.

The county’s utility department had been on board with the deep well injection site, which would have cost the county $20 million and would have also taken in wastewater from other operations. However, following the fierce backlash at public hearings, the county withdrew its application for the well. Commissioners, especially Vanessa Baugh and Priscilla Trace, were very vocal on Wednesday in terms of their continued resistance to deep well injection.

While the county already manages multiple deep well injection sites and Tropicana operates a private one in Manatee County, there is not an existing site in the state where such a well is used to receive toxic water from phosphate operations. FDEP officials said that they know of only one such operation in the United States, which is located in Texas, a state known for very lax environmental regulation.

Many citizens have expressed worry that deep well injection will continue to be a tempting option for HRK to push, because it would be the most cost-effective option for a company that inherited an enormous financial responsibility on an investment that has only made modest returns via the management of the port’s fill and the development of some of the unaffected parcels, including the site that currently housed Air Products.

Given the dynamics of the potential costs vs. HRK’s ability to pay them, there also exists concern that the state, which would inherit the mess if it bankrupted HRK, would continue to see it as a viable option. John Coates, an engineer in FDEP’s mining and mineral department who gave Wednesday’s presentation, stressed on multiple occasions that FDEP wanted to involve the county in the decision process, but did acknowledge that there have been continued conversations with HRK about the deep well injection option.

Bill Clague, of the county attorney’s office, however, clarified to commissioners that they are ultimately at the mercy of FDEP in terms of anything that is approved and would have to follow FDEP’s prescribed appeal process, were measures approved that the county wanted to challenge. Clague warned that given the enormous potential costs of future calamities at the site, the courts would likely grant considerable deference to any FDEP decision.

Commissioners were unanimous in their concern over finding a solution in the near term, though Wednesday's conversation provided little insight as to just how the toxic water will be dealt with and whether enough of it will be removed to prevent future disasters at the site.