The Issue Whether Respondent, John J. D'Hondt, as a licensed operator, should be disciplined for violations of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-602.650(2), (4) and (4)(f).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following facts were established by clear and convincing evidence: Petitioner is the State agency vested with the responsibility of regulating Florida's air and water resources, administering Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (2006), and the rules promulgated in Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62. Petitioner has the statutory authority to establish qualifications; examine and license drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment plant operators and to place an operator on probation; and issue, deny, revoke, or suspend an operator's license pursuant to its rules. Respondent is the owner, supplier of water, and licensed operator of the Double D Mobile Home Ranch's drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment plants located in Volusia County, Florida. He holds Certified Operator Drinking Water License No. 0000542 and Certified Operator Wastewater License No. 0006032. The Volusia County Health Department is a county health department that has been approved by Petitioner pursuant to Subsection 403.862(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2006), to enforce Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (2006), and the rules promulgated for the State's drinking water program for Volusia County. As a result of not having received Respondent's September 2004 MOR, by letter dated October 20, 2004, the Volusia County Health Department notified Respondent that MORs were to be submitted to the Volusia County Health Department by the tenth of the month following the month of operation. The November 2004 MOR was to have been submitted to the Volusia County Health Department by December 10, 2004. Respondent signed and dated the November 2004 MOR on December 12, 2004; it was received by the Volusia County Health Department on December 27, 2004. The December 2004 MOR was to have been submitted to the Volusia County Health Department by January 10, 2005. On February 4, 2005, Respondent was sent a late reporting violation letter stating that the December 2004 MOR had not been received. This letter again reminded Respondent that MORs were to be submitted within ten days after the month of operation. The December 2004 MOR was received on February 11, 2005. The April 2005 MOR was to have been submitted by May 10, 2005. Respondent signed and dated the April 2005 MOR on May 17, 2005. It was received on May 27, 2005. The September 2005 MOR was to have been submitted by October 10, 2005. It was received on October 18, 2005. The November 2005 MOR was to have been submitted by December 10, 2005. It was signed and dated December 14, 2005, and received on December 19, 2005. Respondent did not timely submit MORs for the months of November 2004, December 2004, April 2005, September 2005, and November 2005. In 2004, the Volusia County Health Department inspected the Double D Mobile Home Ranch's drinking water treatment plant and found that Respondent maintained a combined logbook for the drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment plants. Respondent was informed that he was required to keep a separate operation and maintenance logbook for each of the drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment plants. On August 10, 2004, Petitioner inspected the Double D Mobile Home Ranch's domestic wastewater treatment plant and found that there was a combined logbook for the drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment plants. Respondent was again informed that he was required to keep separate logbooks for each plant. A non-compliance letter dated October 12, 2004, and a copy of the August 10, 2004, inspection report were sent to Respondent informing him that he needed to separate his operation and maintenance logbook. In 2005, the Volusia County Health Department inspected the Double D Mobile Home Ranch's drinking water treatment plant and found that Respondent still maintained a combined logbook for the drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment plants. During the inspection, Respondent was again informed that he was required to keep a separate operation and maintenance logbook for the drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment plants. On June 15, 2005, Petitioner inspected the Double D Mobile Home Ranch's domestic wastewater treatment plant and again found that Respondent was keeping a combined logbook for the drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment plants. During this inspection, Respondent was again informed that he was required to keep separate logbooks. A non-compliance letter and a copy of the June 15, 2005, inspection report were sent to Respondent again informing him that he was required to maintain separate logbooks for the drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment plants. On February 13, 2006, the Volusia County Health Department inspected the Double D Mobile Home Ranch's drinking water treatment plant and found that Respondent still maintained a combined operation and maintenance logbook for the drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment plants. During this inspection, Respondent was again informed that he was required to maintain a separate logbook for each plant. Over the extended period reflected by the inspections cited in paragraphs 11 through 15, Respondent failed to maintain separate logbooks for the operation and maintenance of the Double D Mobile Home Ranch's drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment plants. On August 10, 2004, Petitioner inspected the Double D Mobile Home Ranch's domestic wastewater treatment plant and found that the logbook did not contain sufficient entries of the performance of preventative maintenance and repairs or request for repairs of equipment. During this inspection, Respondent was informed that he was required to keep adequate entries of preventative maintenance and repairs or request for repairs of equipment for the domestic wastewater treatment plant. A non-compliance letter and a copy of the August 10, 2004, inspection report were sent to Respondent informing him that he was required to maintain entries of the performance of preventative maintenance and repairs or request for repairs of equipment for the domestic wastewater treatment plant. On June 15, 2005, Petitioner inspected the Double D Mobile Home Ranch's domestic wastewater treatment plant and again found that Respondent was not keeping adequate entries of the performance of preventative maintenance or repairs for the domestic wastewater plant. During this inspection, Respondent was again informed that he was to keep such entries. A non-compliance letter and a copy of the June 15, 2005, inspection report were sent to Respondent informing him that he needed to maintain such entries for the domestic wastewater treatment plant. Photocopies of the combined logbook have essentially no entries for the performance of preventative maintenance or repairs or requests for repairs to a domestic wastewater treatment plant. Infrequent margin notes are not decipherable and do not differentiate between the two activities.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the licenses of John J. D'Hondt, as a Certified Operator Drinking Water and a Certified Operator Wastewater, be disciplined as set forth in the "probation" letter of March 15, 2006. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 13th day of February, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronda L. Moore, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 John J. D'Hondt 2 Tropic Wind Drive Port Orange, Florida 32128 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Michael W. Sole, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Beason, Acting General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issues set forth in DOAH Case No. 84-3810 concern the question of whether the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) should issue a permit to Homer Smith d/b/a Homer Smith Seafood (Homer Smith) to construct a wastewater treatment facility which is constituted of a screening mechanism, dissolved air flotation treatment system, sludge drying bed, pumping station and subaqueous pipeline. In the related action, DOAH Case No. 84-3811, the question is raised whether DER should issue a dredge and fill permit to Homer Smith for the installation of the aforementioned pipeline along submerged lands in Trout Creek, Palmo Cove and the St. Johns River.
Findings Of Fact Introduction and Background In 1982, Homer Smith, under the name of Homer Smith Seafood, established a calico scallop processing facility in the vicinity of the intersection of State Road 13 and Trout Creek in St. Johns County, Florida. From that point forward, Smith has owned and operated the processing plant. His plant adjoins Trout Creek, which is a tributary to the St. Johns River. Both Trout Creek and the St. Johns River are tidally influenced waters that are classified as Class III surface waters under Rule 17-3.161, Florida Administrative Code. The processing undertaken by Smith's operation at Trout Creek contemplates the preparation of the scallops for human consumption. In particular, it involves the purchase of calico scallops from Port Canaveral, Florida, after which the scallops are transported by refrigerated trucks to the processing plant. They are then unloaded into metal hoppers and directed into rotating tumblers which separate out the scallops from sand, mud and other extraneous material. The scallops are placed in a steam tumbler that removes the shells and then passed through a flow tank that washes away sand, grit and shell particles. The scallops are next passed through eviscerators. These eviscerators are long tubes of aluminum with roughened surfaces that pull the viscera off of the scallops. The detached scallops are then sent along a conveyor belt, with scallops in need of further cleaning being picked out and sent to a second eviscerator. The eviscerated scallops are then chilled and packed for marketing. It is the viscera and wastewater associated with this material that is the subject of permitting. Homer Smith is one of about six automated scallop processing plants located in Florida. Two other plants are within St. Johns County, on the San Sebastian River in St. Augustine, Florida. Three other plants are located in Port Canaveral, Florida. When Smith commenced his operation of the scallop processing plant in the summer of 1982, he discharged the scallop processing wastewater into an area described as a swamp with an associated canal which connected to Trout Creek. By the fall of 1982, Smith had been told by representatives of the Department of Environmental Regulation that to operate his facility with the discharge would require a permit(s) from DER. At the time of this discussion, automatic scallop processing was an industry for which appropriate wastewater treatment alternatives had not been specifically identified by the Department of Environmental Regulation or the United States Environmental Protection Agency. This was and continues to be the case as it relates to the promulgation of technology-based effluent limitations designed for calico scallop processors. This circumstance is unlike the situation for most other industries for which DER has established technology-based effluent limitations. To rectify this situation, Florida Laws 85-231 at Section 403.0861, Florida Statutes, requires DER to promulgate technology-based effluent limitations for calico scallop processors by December 1986. In the interim, consideration of any permits that might be afforded the calico scallop processors by the exercise of DER's regulatory authority must be done on a case-by-case basis, when examining the question of technology-based effluent limitations. DER sent a warning letter to Smith on April 20, 1983, informing the processor that discarding its wastewater into Trout Creek without a DER permit constituted a violation of state law. After the warning letter, scallop harvesting declined to the point that by mid-June of 1983 the plant had closed down, and it did not reopen until the middle part of September 1983. Upon the recommencement of operations, DER issued a cease and desist notice and ordered Smith to quit the discharge of wastewater from the facility into Trout Creek. On the topic of the cease and desist, through litigation, Smith has been allowed the right to conduct interim operation of his business which involves direct discharge of wastewater into Trout Creek, pending assessment of wastewater treatment alternatives and pursuit of appropriate DER permits. 1/ When Smith filed for permits on April 10, 1984, he asked for permission to dredge and fill and for construction rights pertaining to industrial wastewater discharge into the St. Johns River. The application of April 10, 1984, involved the installation of a wastewater treatment system and an associated outfall pipeline to transport treated wastewater to the St. Johns River from the plant location. This system would utilize a series of settling tanks and a shell-filter lagoon as the principal wastewater treatment. DER, following evaluation, gave notice in October 1984 of its intent to issue permits related to dredge and fill and the construction of the wastewater treatment facility. In the face of that notification, the present Petitioners offered a timely challenge to the issuance of any DER permits. In considering treatment alternatives, Homer Smith had employed various consultants and discovered that treatment beyond coarse screening had not been attempted in processing calico scallop wastewater. Those consultants were of the opinion that conventional treatment methods such as clarification, sand filtration, vortex separation, breakpoint chlorination, polymers and spray irrigation were of limited viability due to the inability to remove key constituents within the waste stream or based upon certain operational difficulties that they thought would be experienced in attempting those methods of treatment. As envisioned by the April 10, 1984, application for permit, interim treatment of the wastewater was provided by the use of a series of settling tanks and a shell-filter lagoon, within which system adjustments were made to the delivery of wastewater treatment. The April 10, 1984, permit application by Smith did not envision any chemical treatment of the wastewater aside from that which might occur in association with the settling and filtration through the shell-filter lagoon. Following DER's statement of intent to issue a permit for construction of the wastewater treatment facility as described in the April 10, 1984, application by Smith, DER became concerned about the potential toxicity of calico scallop wastewater, based upon its own studies. As a consequence, Smith amended the application for wastewater treatment facility to include use of chemical coagulation and flotation. This amendment occurred in March 1985, and the wastewater treatment process in that application envisioned the use of an electroflotation wastewater system. In view of toxicity problems experienced with the testing related to the use of an electroflotation wastewater treatment system, this treatment alternative was discarded in favor of a dissolved air flotation (DAF) system. This system was pursuant to an amendment to the application effective May 31, 1985. This amendment of May 1985 was in furtherance of the order of the hearing officer setting a deadline for amendments to the application. DER issued an amended intent to grant permits for the DAF unit and the associated pipeline and that action dates from June 28, 1985. The Petitioners oppose the grant of these permits for the DAF unit and pipeline, and under the auspices of their initial petition have made a timely challenge to the grant of a permit for the installation of the DAF wastewater treatment unit and associated pipeline. It is the DAF unit and pipeline that will be considered in substance in the course of this recommended order. On July 6, 1984, Smith sought an easement from the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for the installation of the pipeline. This was necessary in view of the fact that the pipeline would traverse sovereignty lands which were located beneath Trout Creek, Palmo Cove and the St. Johns River. On December 17, 1984, DNR issued a notice of intent to submit that application to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund with a recommendation of approval. This action was challenged by the Petitioners on January 7, 1985, in a petition for formal hearing challenging the grant of the easement. DOAH Case No. 85-0277 concerns this challenge to grant of an easement. Originally, by action of January 28, 1985, the easement case was consolidated with the present DER permit actions. At the instigation of DNR, the easement case was severed from consideration with the present action. The order of severance was entered on July 31, 1985. The DNR case will be heard on a future date yet to be established. The DNR case was severed because that agency preferred to see test results of treatment efficiencies following the construction of the DAF unit. By contrast, the present DER cases contemplate a decision being reached on the acceptability of the construction of the DAF unit and attendant features, together with the pipeline on the basis of theoretical viability of this entire system. This arrangement would be in phases in which the construction of the upland treatment system would occur within 90 days of the receipt of any construction permit from DER, followed by a second phase within which Smith would construct the pipeline within 60 days of receipt of any other necessary governmental approval, such as the DNR easement approval. Furthermore, DER would wish to see the results of an integrated treatment system involving the upland treatment by the DAF unit and its attendant features and the use of the pipeline and the availability of a mixing zone, that is to say the end of pipe discharge, before deciding on the ultimate question of the grant of an operating permit for the wastewater treatment system. The quandary presented by these arrangements concerns the fact that discharge from the DAF treatment unit would be temporarily introduced into Trout Creek, pending the decision by DNR to grant an easement for the pipeline and the necessary time to install that pipeline. Given the difficult circumstances of these actions, there is raised the question of the propriety of discharging wastewater into Trout Creek pending resolution of the question of whether DNR wishes to grant an easement to place the pipeline over sovereignty submerged lands. This is a perplexing question in view of the fact that DNR requested severance from the present action, thereby promoting further delay in the time between any installation of the upland treatment system and the pipeline. Finally, Trout Creek is an ecosystem which has undergone considerable stress in the past, and it is more susceptible to the influences of pollution than the St. Johns River would be as a point of ultimate discharge from the pipeline. This dilemma is addressed in greater detail in subsequent sections within the recommended order. Petitioner River Systems Preservation, Inc., is a nonprofit organization comprised of approximately seven hundred persons. The focus of the organization is to protect and enhance the environment of northeast Florida. The individual Petitioners, Pinkham E. Pacetti, Robert D. Maley, Ruth M. Whitman and others, are members of the corporation who own property or live near the scallop processing plant of Respondent Smith. In addition, Pacetti owns a marina and recreational fishing camp that is located across Trout Creek from Smith's plant. Pacetti's fish camp dates from 1929. On the occasion of the opportunity for the public to offer their comments about this project, a significant number of persons made presentations at the public hearing on August 29, 1985. Some members of the public favored the project and others were opposed to the grant of any permits. St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners, in the person of Commissioner Sarah Bailey, indicated opposition to the project, together with Bill Basford, President of the Jacksonville City Council. Warren Moody, the vice-chairman of the Jacksonville Waterways Authority spoke in opposition to the project. The Florida Wildlife Federation and the Jacksonville Audubon Society expressed opposition to the project. The officials related the fact of the expenditure of considerable amounts of public tax dollars to improve water quality in the St. Johns River and their concern that those expenditures not be squandered with the advent of some damage to the St. Johns River by allowing the permits in question to be issued. These officials considered the St. Johns River to be a significant resource which they are committed to protecting. The City of Jacksonville, Clay County, Green Cove Springs, the Jacksonville Waterways Authority, the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council and St. Johns County expressed opposition to the project contemplated by the present permit application, through the adoption of certain resolutions. These broad-based statements of opposition were not spoken to in the course of the hearing by members of any technical staffs to these governmental institutions. Private members of the public, some of whom are affiliated with River Systems Preservation, Inc., expressed concern about water quality violations, harm to fish and other environmental degradations that have been caused by the Homer Smith operation in the past and their belief that these problems will persist if the permits at issue are granted. Those persons who favored the project, in terms of public discussion, primarily centered on the idea that, in the estimation of those witnesses, fairness demanded that Smith be afforded an opportunity to demonstrate that this proposed system of treatment was sound and the quality of the water being discharged from the Homer Smith plant was not as bothersome as had been portrayed by the persons who opposed the grant of environmental permits. Industrial Wastewater Construction Permit Treatment System Description of Homer Smith's Plant and Its Operation. The source of water used for the processing of the scallops at the Homer Smith plant is a well which is located on that property. Homer Smith is allowed to withdraw 300,000 gallons of water per day in accordance with a consumptive use permit that has been issued by the St. Johns River Water Management District. To ensure Smith's compliance with this permit, a metering device is located on the well. Typically, the plant operates an eighteen-hour day, five days a week, using water at a rate of 200 gallons per minute. This would equate to 215,000 gallons per day over an eighteen-hour day. Prior to the imposition of restrictions by the Department of Environmental Regulation through the consent order, this facility had processed as much as 40,000 pounds of scallops each day, for a total of 36,000 gallons each week, at a gross revenue figure of $225,000 per week. Characteristics and Frequency of Effluent Discharge The wastewater generated by the scallop processing that is done at the Homer Smith plant is principally constituted of the well water used to clean the scallops, proteinaceous organic materials, and metals. The metals are introduced into the wastewater stream from the scallop tissue. The wastewater stream also has a certain amount of sand and grit, together with shell fragments. The concentrations of organic materials within the wastewater stream are at high levels. There is also an amount of fecal coliform bacteria and suspended solids. The pollution sources within the wastewater stream include total suspended solids (TSS), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and the coliform bacteria. In the neighborhood of 30 percent of the BOD in the wastewater is soluble. The balance of the BOD is associated with the suspended solids. With time the organic materials in the wastewater stream will decompose and with the decomposition present certain organic decomposition products, which would include ammonia, amines and sulfides. Heavy metals in the wastewater have been in the scallop tissue and are released with the cleaning of the scallops. These metals include cadmium, copper, zinc, iron, manganese, silver and arsenic. The presence of these metals within the tissues of the scallops are there in view of the fact that the scallops are "filter-feeders" which have taken in these elements or metals that naturally occur in the ocean water. The permit application contemplates an average of five days a week of operation for eighteen hours a day. Notwithstanding the fact that in the past the Homer Smith Seafood operation had processed scallops seven day week, twenty- four hours per day, Smith does not desire to operate more than five and a half days a week in the future. That is perceived to mean five eighteen-hour days and a twelve-hour day on the sixth day. The treatment system contemplated here is for a flow volume of around 200 gallons per minute during normal operation. The system can operate as high as 300 gallons per minute. That latter figure approaches the design capabilities of the treatment system proposed. Wastewater is discharged only when scallops are being processed. There is basically 1:1 ratio between the volume of well water used to process the scallops and the amount of wastewater discharged. Proposed Treatment System and Alternatives As already stated, there is no specific industry standard set forth in the DER rules which would describe technology-based standards for the treatment of calico scallop wastewater. In those instances where the agency is confronted with an industry for which technology-based standards have not been established, DER examines the question of whether that effluent is amenable to biological treatment as contemplated in Rule 17-6.300(1)(n)1., Florida Administrative Code, as an alternative. Biological treatment is a treatment form normally associated with domestic waste and the imposition of this treatment technique is in furtherance of achieving a secondary treatment standard found in Chapter 17-6, Florida Administrative Code, which results in 20 mg/L of BOD and TSS, or 90 percent removal of those constituents, whichever is the greater performance in removal efficiency. In the absence of specific standards related to the calico scallop industry, and in the face of the interpretation of its rules in which DER calls for an examination of the possibility of biological treatment as an alternative to treatment specifically described for a given industry, it was incumbent upon this Applicant to examine the viability of biological treatment of the scallop wastewater product. The Applicant has considered biological treatment as an alternative and rejected that treatment form, in that Smith's consultants believe the wastewater is not amenable to biological treatment. By contrast, Petitioners' consultants believe that biological treatment should be the principal focus in treating the scallop wastewater and contend that biological treatment is a more viable choice when contrasted with the option chosen by the Applicant. If this waste is not amenable to biological treatment, Rule 17-6.300(1)(n)1., Florida Administrative Code, envisions an acceptable or minimum level of secondary treatment shall be determined on a case-by-case basis. In the instance where biological treatment is not a reasonable choice, the Applicant is expected to achieve treatment results which are comparable to those arrived at in treating domestic waste by the use of biological treatment techniques. On this occasion, DER had not established what they believe to be a comparable degree of treatment for calico scallop waste, assuming the unavailability of biological treatment. The present case is a matter of first impression. As a result, the idea of a comparable degree of treatment shall be defined in this hearing process, assuming the inefficacy of biological treatment. In that event, DER must be assured that the proposed treatment plan has an efficiency that rivals the success which biological treatment promotes with domestic waste, taking into account the quality of the effluent prior to treatment, available technology, other permitting criteria and the ambient conditions where the waste stream is being discharged. In arguing in favor of biological treatment, Petitioners pose the possibility of an integrated system in which primary settling tanks or clarifiers would be used together with a biological treatment step, which is referred to as a trickling filter, followed by final settling by the use of tanks or clarifiers in an effort to achieve BOD concentrations in the range of 200 mg/L to 400 mg/L. In this connection, the dissolved air flotation system is seen in the role of alternative to the initial stage of settling of the constituents within the wastewater stream. It is not regarded as the principal means of treatment of the waste. The trickling filter system as a biological treatment medium involves the use of a bacterial culture for the purpose of consuming the oxygen-demanding constituents, BOD. The trickling filter technique, if a viable choice, has the ability to remove 70 to 75 percent of BOD and TSS. Petitioners suggest further treatment of the waste beyond primary and final settling and trickling filter can be afforded by involving activated sludge, which according to their experts would end up with a biological oxygen demand in the 20 mg/L range. Although the constituents of the Smith plant's waste are of a highly organic nature, and, at first blush a candidate for biological treatment by use of the trickling filter, the problem with this form of treatment has to do with the intermittent flow in the Smith operation. This intermittent flow is caused by the fact that the plant does not operate throughout the year. The plant operations are seasonal, depending on calico scallop harvesting which does not occur on a routine basis. Therefore, the problem is presented of trying to keep the biological treatment system "alive" and operating at levels of efficiency which can be expected to maintain the percentage of removal of BOD and TSS that a healthy system can deliver. The bacteria colonies which are vital to the success of the biological treatment system must be fed on a continuous basis to maintain balance in the population of the colony. This would be a difficult undertaking with the Smith operation, given the interruptions in operations which could lead to the decline in the bacterial population and a poorer quality of treatment once the operations were resumed. This finding takes into account the fact that the colony can survive for a week or two by simply recirculating water over the filter. Obviously, in order to maintain necessary efficiencies within this biological treatment, the bacteria must do more than survive. The further suggestion that has been offered that the bacteria could be sustained for longer periods of time by feeding them seafood waste or dog food are not found to achieve the level of efficiency in the operation that would be necessary in posing biological treatment as an alternative. Again, it is more of an intervening measure designed to assure the survival of bacteria pending the continuation of the operations of the plant, as contrasted with a system which is continual and taking into account the uniformity of the waste product more efficient. Another problem with feeding the bacteria when the plant is not operating is that of disposing of the waste produced when this auxiliary feeding is occurring. Just as importantly, biological treatment is questionable given the long retention times necessary for that process and the build-up of toxic levels or concentrations of ammonia. The Applicant had employed an aerated lagoon in attempting to treat the waste and experienced problems with ammonia build up. Although this system did not call for the degree of treatment of the waste prior to the introduction into the lagoon that is contemplated by the present proposal of the Applicant, it does point to the fact of the problems with ammonia in the biological treatment system. Dr. Grantham, a witness whose testimony was presented by the Petitioner, conceded the difficulty of removing ammonia from the trickling filter. Moreover, the biological treatment system is not especially efficient in removing metals and phosphorus from the wastewater. Alternative treatment would be necessary to gain better efficiency in removals of those constituents. The trickling filter is expected to gain 50 percent metals removal, which is inadequate given the concentrations of heavy metals found in the scallop wastewater. Phosphorus could be removed after treatment by the trickling filter by the use of lime or alum. Assuming optimum conditions in the use of biological treatment after primary and final settling, thereby arriving at a BOD level of 200 mg/L, it would then be necessary to make further treatment by the use of activated sludge to see 20 mg/L BOD. The problem with activated sludge is related to the fact that this form of treatment is particularly sensitive to interruptions in flow, which are to be expected in this wastewater treatment setting. On balance, biological treatment does not present a viable choice in treating scallop waste. That leaves for consideration the question of whether the Applicant's proposal would afford a comparable degree of treatment to that expected in the use of biological treatment of domestic waste. The manufacturer of the dissolved air flotation unit or DAF system proposed, known as the Krofta "Supracell," offers another piece of equipment known as the "Sandcell" which in addition to the provision for dissolved air flotation provides sand filtration. The Sandcell might arrive at BOD levels of 400 mg/L. However, the testimony of the witness Lawrence K. Wang, who is intimately familiar with the Krofta products, in responding to questions about the use of the Sandcell system and suggestion that the system would arrive at 400 mg/L BOD responded "could be." This answer does not verify improvement through the contribution of sand filtration. For that reason inclusion of a Sandcell for filtration of BOD is not suggested in this fact finding and the system as proposed must be sufficient in its own right. Having realized the need to provide greater treatment than screening or filtering the waste stream, the Applicant attempted to design a treatment system using flotation technology together with chemical precipitation and coagulation. At first the Applicant examined the possibility of the use of electroflotation (EF). This involved the collection of wastewater in a retention tank and the generation of an electric current to create a series of bubbles to float insoluble flocs. Those flocs are caused by the use of ferric chloride, sodium hydroxide and various polymers which are added to the waste stream. The flocs are then pushed to the top of the chamber by the air bubbles, and this particulate matter is skimmed off by the use of a paddle. Pilot testing was done of the electroflotation technology and showed promising results, so promising that a full-scale electroflotation unit was installed and tested. The full-scale electroflotation showed reasonable removal of BOD, TSS, nutrients, coliform and trace metals. This technique was discarded, however, when bioassay testing of the treated effluent was not successful. In examining the explanation for the failure, the experts of the Applicant were of the opinion that certain chemical reactions were occurring as a result of the passage of the electrical current through the wastewater stream. When this problem with acute toxicity could not be overcome through a series of adjustments to the process, the Applicant decided to test another form of flotation, which is referred to as dissolved air flotation (DAF). This system employs the use of chemicals to create insoluble flocs. Unlike the electroflotation unit, though, it does not utilize electrical currents to create the air bubbles employed in the flotation. The dissolved air flotation thereby avoids problems of toxicity which might be attributed to the passage of electrical current through the water column. The present system as proposed by the Applicant has a number of components. The first component of treatment involves the passage of raw wastewater through a mechanical screening device, which is designed to remove a certain number of particulates by catching those materials on the screen. That material is then removed from the plant and disposed of off site. The balance of the wastewater after this first stage of treatment passes into a sump area and from there into a primary mix/ aeration tank. This water is then chemically treated to facilitate the formation of insoluble flocs. The chemically treated wastewater then enters a premanufactured Krofta Supracell 15 DAF unit which is designed to form bubbles by the use of pressurized air, with those bubbles floating the waste materials within the floc to the surface. Again, this method does not use electrolysis. The floated solid materials are then skimmed from the surface and directed to a holding tank and subsequently pumped to sludge drying beds. Some of the treated wastewater is recycled through the DAF unit after pressurization and in furtherance of forming the necessary bubbles for the DAF unit. The balance of the water is directed to a force main lift station. This water would then be transported through the eight-inch PVC pipe some 13,000 feet into the main channel of the St. Johns River where it is distributed through a five port diffuser. The screening mechanism spoken of had been installed in mid-December 1984 and has been used since that time to filter the wastewater. The screening mechanism is in substitution of settling tanks and shell pits. The shell pits which had been used before presented problems with odors as well as the ammonia build up which has been addressed in a prior paragraph. The removal efficiency of the screening mechanism is 30 percent of particulates associated with pollution parameters, as example BOD, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus and TSS. The frequency of the transport of these screened materials to the off site disposal is four to six times a day and the screen is decontaminated at the end of each day when the operations are closed. The application contemplates the same operating procedures of disposal and maintenance with the advent of any construction permit. The primary mix/aeration tank aerates the wastewater and through that process and the retention time contemplated, equalizes the flow regime and promotes a more balanced concentration of waste materials prior to the introduction of that wastewater for chemical coagulation and flotation. This step in the treatment process enhances the treatment efficiency. Some question was raised by the Petitioners on the size of the primary mix-aeration tank as to whether that tank was sufficient to equalize the flow, and conversely, the impacts of having too much retention time built into that tank, which would promote the build-up of toxic concentrations of ammonia in the wastewater. The retention time within the sump and the primary mix-aeration tank approximates one and one-half hours. The retention time and size of the primary mix-aeration tank are found to be acceptable. This design appropriately addresses concerns about the build-up of decomposition products and toxicity, to include ammonia. The sludge which collects in the primary mix-aeration tank will be pumped back to the sump pit by return flow. The sump pit itself will be pumped out in the fashion of cleaning a septic tank on the basis of once a week. The sump pit also receives the return flow of leachate from the sludge drying bed. Once equalization of flow is achieved in the primary mix-aeration tank, that wastewater is then treated by the use of alum, sodium aluminate and polymers. The purpose of this treatment is to convert soluble and insoluble organic matter such as TSS and BOD, trace elements and phosphorus into insoluble flocs that can be removed by flotation. These combinations of chemicals and dosage rates have been tested in electroflotation and dissolved air flotation bench and pilot scales for use associated with this project and a list of appropriate chemicals and ranges of dosage rates has been determined. It will be necessary for these chemicals and general dosages to be adjusted in the full- scale operation under terms of the construction permit. This facet of the treatment process must be closely monitored. Once the wastewater stream has received the chemical treatment, it is introduced into the Krofta Supracell 15 DAF unit. This unit is 15 feet in diameter, and within this cylinder bubbles are generated by pressurizing some of the chemically treated wastewater and potentially clean tap water. The use of clean tap water promotes dilution of the wastewater stream as well as greater efficiency in the production of the bubbles. Chemically treated wastewater is brought into the cylinder through the back of a revolving arm that moves around a center column of the DAF unit at the speed of the effluent flow. The purpose of this mechanical arrangement is to eliminate horizontal water velocity, to protect the integrity of the flocs that are being formed by the use of the chemicals. Those flocs float to the surface in a few minutes' time, given the normal turbulence and shallow depth of the DAF unit. This limited retention time also avoids ammonia build up. The floating material is then scooped and poured into a stationary center section and is discharged by gravity to the sludge holding tank. Wiper blades which are attached to the revolving arm scrape the bottom and sides of the tank and discharge any settled sludge to a built-in sump in the DAF unit. These materials which are settled in the bottom of the DAF cylinder are transported through the sludge holding tank and eventually placed in the sludge drying beds. The treated wastewater is removed by an extraction pipe associated with the center section of the DAF unit. It is then discharged. The use of clean tap water from the well and the ability to recycle the waste stream can promote greater treatment efficiency in terms of removal of undesirable constituents of the waste stream and the reduction of concentrations of those materials. As a measurement, approximately 8 percent of the wastewater flow will be removed as sludge. This sludge is sufficiently aerated to be reduced in volume by about one-half over a period of ten to thirty minutes in the sludge holding tank. It is then sent to the sludge drying beds. The sludge drying beds are designed to accommodate 30,000 gallons of sludge. They are 60 feet long, 25 feet wide and 4 feet deep. Those drying beds are of greater size than is necessary to accommodate the volume of sludge. The sludge drying beds have a sand and gravel bottom. The water drains from the sludge as leachate and returns to the sump pit in the treatment system at a rate of five to ten gallons a minute. Some concern has been expressed that the "gelatinous" nature of the sludge will make it very difficult to dewater or dry. This opinion is held by experts of the Petitioners, notwithstanding the fact that polymers are used in the treatment process. One expert in particular did not believe that the sludge would adequately dry. Having Considered the evidence, the opinion that the sludge will not dry sufficiently is rejected. Nonetheless, it is incumbent upon the Applicant to monitor drying conditions of the sludge very carefully and, if need be, to add some chemical such as calcium hydroxide to enhance the drying capacity of the sludge material. It is anticipated that the sludge will be removed once a day and this arrangement should be adhered to. With adequate drying, the sludge material can be removed with the use of shovels, rakes and a front-end loader as proposed by the Applicant. With frequent removal and adequate drying, problems with odors can be overcome, and problems with ammonia build up and the generation of unreasonable levels of bacteria can be avoided. Should problems with odors, ammonia and bacteria occur, it would be necessary for the Applicant to purge the drying beds, to include the sand and gravel which had been invested with the sludge materials that had caused the problems. Although Smith has not tested the drying bed leachate as to specific nature, the treatment process can be expected to deal with problems of any build-up of ammonia concentrations, fecal coliform bacteria and other organic decomposition products. This pertains to the ability to remove these offending substances from the site in terms of removal of the residual solids and the ability to treat those parameters within the leachate as the wastewater is cycled through the system. The treated wastewater will be transported to a pumping station by gravity flow and then pumped via the pipeline to the proposed point of discharge in the main channel of the St. Johns River. This pipeline is constituted of fabricated sections of pipe 20 feet in length, connected with bell and spigot joints, rubber gaskets and solvent welding. The treated wastewater is released into the river through a five point diffuser which has three-quarter inch openings angled at ten degrees from the horizontal bottom. The pipeline is anchored with prefilled 80-pound concrete bags attached with polypropelene straps which are placed at 8-foot intervals. These are placed to keep the pipe from floating. The diffuser is supported by four piles driven into the river bottom and surrounded by a series of concrete bags. The purpose of this arrangement is to hold the diffuser in place and to protect it against potential damage from anchors or other possible impact. The Applicant acquiesces in the choice to have the pipeline tested for leaks once a month in the period June through September and every other month during other parts of the year. If leaks are found, the Applicant would be responsible for repairing those leaks. As stated before, it is necessary for the Applicant to receive permission from the State of Florida to be granted an easement before the pipe can be installed. Prior to that permission being granted, the treated wastewater would be placed in Trout Creek, which is adjacent to the processing plant. Predicted End of Pipeline Quality of the Effluent In trying to predict the quality of effluent at the end of the pipeline, bench scale and pilot scale testing was done related to the DAF technology. This testing was done related to screened wastewater that was collected from the plant in April 1985. In this connection two series of DAF bench scale tests were performed. They related to samples collected on April 18 and 19, 1985, which were packed in ice and shipped directly to a research laboratory in Lenox, Massachusetts, where they were treated with chemicals and a laboratory size DAF unit. The concentration of the wastewater parameters were measured and recorded before and after treatment, and the results of those tests are set forth in the Applicant's Exhibit A-4(B)(3), at Table 2-1. The pilot scale testing that was done in this case related to a 4-foot diameter DAF unit which had been installed at the Homer Smith plant. This testing occurred in April 1985. The basis of the testing was samples taken on April 15 and 19, 1985. Again, wastewater parameters were measured before and after treatment and the results are set forth in Applicant's Exhibit A-4(B)(3), at Table 2-1. When the initial testing was done with the DAF, results for total coliform bacteria uniformly fell below a range of 35 organisms/100 ml. Subsequent pilot tests yielded higher bacterial counts which would indicate that there was a build-up of bacteria within the DAF unit. This verifies the need to require that the DAF unit contemplated by the application be routinely cleaned or sanitized to avoid the build-up problem. TSS in the pilot unit effluent was reduced to 40 mg/L and lower. The capacity for metals removal in the pilot scale testing was good pertaining to copper and zinc. The ability to remove cadmium showed a result of 0.013 and 0.015 mg/L. The best performance in the pilot scale testing related to BOD removal showed a value of 510 mg/L. It should be noted that the bench scale testing and pilot scale testing were in the face of significant variations in the amount of BOD presented by the screened wastewater. This identifies the need to pay close attention to the removal efficiency of the system related to the BOD parameter in order to achieve consistent levels of BOD following treatment. The system under review is referred to as full-scale treatment. This treatment can be expected to exceed the levels achieved in the DAF bench and pilot scale testing because: (a) As a general proposition, treatment efficiency improves as the scale of machinery increases from bench to pilot to full-scale; (b) The bench and pilot scale tests were run without the benefit of the primary mix-aeration tank and the benefits derived from that part of the treatment apparatus, that is to say, uniformity of the flow and better dispersion of the constituents of the wastewater stream, prior to chemical treatment; (c) The pilot DAF unit used exclusively recycled wastewater to undergo pressurization for the creation of the air bubbles. In the course of the hearing it was established that approximately 50 gallons per minute of clean tap water could be brought in to the treatment process resulting in the formation of more bubbles and the facilitation of up to 10 percent greater treatment efficiency based upon that change. The other contribution made by the use of clean tap water was the possibility of as much as a 20 percent dilution of the wastewater stream, in terms of concentration of constituents within the wastewater stream; (d) In a full-scale operation, the opportunity is presented to routinely adjust the chemical dosages as well as select among a range of chemicals in order to achieve the greatest treatment efficiency; (e) In employing routine sanitization of the DAF unit by use of a mild chlorine compound, the tendency to accumulate coliform bacteria can be overcome. Removal of this adverse influence improves the water quality. In traveling through the pipeline, the transit time is in the range of two to three hours. At a normal rate of 250 gallons per minute of discharge, the transit time in the pipeline is 2.25 hours. Given the constituents of the wastewater, bacterial populations can be expected and could conceivably consume sufficient amounts of oxygen to affect the dissolved oxygen levels within the wastewater as it exits the pipe at the diffuser ports. In addition, there is some possibility of ammonia build up within the pipeline. To avoid the build up of bacteria at harmful levels, sanitation of the DAF unit must be accomplished. In addition, the pipeline itself should be flushed with clean water at the close of operations each day and treated with small amounts of chlorine to address bacteria which may form within the pipeline. This avoids the increasing concentrations of ammonia and protects against lowered dissolved oxygen concentrations and the possibility of increased levels of toxic substances in the effluent which might be attributable to the proliferation of bacteria and the build-up of ammonia during the transport through the pipeline. Taking into the account the nature of this wastewater and the velocity associated with the transport and the sanitization of the pipeline, sedimentation associated with organic solids or other materials will not present a problem. The pollution parameters associated with the treated effluent at the point of discharge from the pipeline can be expected to meet Class III orders, excepting unionized ammonia, specific conductance, copper, cadmium, pH and zinc. In order to achieve satisfactory compliance with regulatory requirements related to those parameters, the Applicant has requested a two-meter mixing zone. The purpose of that mixing zone would be to afford an opportunity for dispersion and mixing in the ambient water before imposition of water quality standards. The implications of that mixing zone are discussed in a subsequent section to the fact finding within the Recommended Order. In effect use of the mixing zone will promote compliance with standards pertaining to the subject parameters. Petitioners point out the fact that the Applicant has based its assumptions on the results of treatment on the availability of four sets of data which were obtained from DAF effluent--two sets of data coming from the bench tests and two sets of data from the pilot plant. Further, there is an indication of the variation in quality of the effluent from one test to the next and the need to employ different dosage rates of chemicals in the face of those variations. The full-scale system utilizes a number of techniques to gain some uniformity in the quality of the effluent prior to chemical treatment and thereby some uniformity in the amount of chemicals necessary to treat the effluent. This overall system can then be expected to produce treated wastewater that is basically uniform in its constituents. Petitioners point out the limited amount of data in the testing related to BOD. There were, in fact, only two data points: one related to the bench system and one related to the pilot system pertaining to BOD, both of these the product of different chemical dosages for treatment. Again, the system that is at issue in this proceeding can be expected to arrive at a more consistent level of BOD than is depicted in the results pertaining to bench scale and pilot scale testing. In fact, those results were not remarkably disparate in that the bench sale test produced 560 mg/L and the pilot scale test produced 510 mg/L. While the data related to BOD is limited, it still gives sufficient insight as to the probability of successful full-scale treatment and the test data is found to be a reliable indication of success in achieving the goal of 510 mg/L BOD. Contrary to the Petitioners' perceptions, the treatment efficiency is improved with the system that is under review. Petitioners believe that the bench and pilot scale testing not only is unrepresentative of the full-size DAF system, they also believe that the full-size system represents a lesser quality of treatment. In this regard reference is made to features which would adversely affect the treatment efficiencies. The first of those pertains to leachate which drains from beneath the sludge drying beds and is recirculated to the existing sump pit and added to the waste stream. Sludge which sits in the drying bed does decompose and causes biochemical reactions to occur, as Petitioners suggest. Moreover, no specific testing has been done of the leachate to ascertain the ammonia concentrations, pH or other chemical characteristics. Nonetheless, given the intention to clean out the residual matter within the sump pit frequently, and the flexibility to make that cleanup more routinely, and the fact that this amount of leachate is comparatively small in its ratio to wastewater which is being sent through the system for treatment, the leachate is not found to be an unmanageable problem. Nor is the sludge a problem. Likewise, the amounts of heavy metals within the leachate can be accommodated. Concerns expressed by the Petitioners related to the organic materials in the primary mix-aeration tank that is being returned to the sump pit can also be dealt with by the evacuation of the materials in the bottom of the sump pit. This can be achieved more frequently than on a weekly basis if that becomes necessary, and in doing so avoid problems with concentrations of ammonia, bacteria, amines, sulfides and general organic decomposition products. These materials which are returned to the treatment process as wastewater reintroduced into the primary mix-aeration tank can be adequately addressed in the subsequent treatment that occurs by reaeration, the use of the chemicals and DAF flotation. The retention inherent in the sump pit, primary mix-aeration tank and sludge drying bed has a potential to cause problems with ammonia build-up; however, the problems can be satisfactorily addressed, as well as potential problems with other toxic substances in the effluent, by routinely taking the residual material in the sump pit and sludge drying bed out of the treatment system. While the specific chemicals and precise dosage rates to be used with a full-size DAF system remain open, the basic concept of chemical treatment has been identified sufficiently. The precaution that is necessary is to make certain that close monitoring is made of the results of changes in the chemicals and dosage rates. Likewise, special attention should be paid to the implications of adjustments in the pH of the effluent to make certain that compliance is achieved with the Class III water criterion related to changes in pH above background. Adjustments can be made without violating Class III water standards related to pH. In testing that was done pertaining to the electroflotation effluent, a number of other chemicals were observed, to include trimethylamine, dimethyl sulfide, chloroform and other hydrocarbons. There is some indication of the presence of dichleoroethane, ethylbenezene and other aromatics. The possibility exists that these substances may also be products within the DAF effluent. In that event, the critical question would be whether they have any adverse effect in the sense of influences on the ability of the effluent to pass bioassays and the ability of the effluent to comply with standards related to other parameters such as dissolved oxygen, BOD, and TSS. The routine testing which is called for by the draft permit, which is deemed to be appropriate, would create a satisfactory impression of the materials set forth in the paragraph in the sense of the implications of their presence and allow any necessary adjustments in treatment. While the effluent produced in the testing on the part of the Applicant is different, it is representative, and the treated effluent which will be produced in the full-scale system will be of a better quality and present less adverse impacts than shown in the past testing. Petitioners question whether the Applicant has given a conservative portrayal in analyzing the effluent. In particular, it is urged that the Applicant claimed to be vying for use of the bench scale testing as a conservative depiction of the results of treatment. In this connection, the impression given in the hearing was that of ascendancy in treatment efficiency beyond the use of bench scale, pilot scale and ending in full-scale treatment. As pointed out by Petitioners, in making his case the Applicant has used results of bench and pilot scale testing. As example, use was made of the results of testing in the pilot scale in describing the removal effioiencies related to cadmium, whereas in the measurements of nitrogen concentrations the bench scale result was better than that of the pilot testing and was utilized. The real question is whether the overall testing has given some reasonable indication of success in full-scale treatment. To that end, use of results from either the bench scale or pilot scale testing is appropriate, and those results point to success in the full-scale operation. The system that is proposed is designed to address fluctuations in flow and concentrations in the effluent, given the primary mix-aeration tank contribution and the ability to recycle flow within the DAF unit, with the use of clean tap water. This will allow the Applicant to deal with the remarkable differences in BOD that were seen in the test period, ranging from 900 to 3000 mg/L. COD data as well as BOD data is limited but is found to be an ample depiction of potential treatment efficiencies related to that former parameter. In addition to the aforementioned references to changes in chemicals in the treatment process, Petitioners characterize the use of clean tap water in the recycle flow as being "unsubstantiated speculation." While the use of tap water was discussed in a theoretical vein, that discussion is found to be an accurate assessment of the value of the contribution of clean tap water to the treatment system. Impacts on St. Johns River Ambient Water Quality and Conditions The St. Johns River and the area of the proposed discharge is a riverine estuary. It has a freshwater source flowing from the south and a tidal ocean boundary to the north. The confluence of freshwater flow and tidal influences causes the water movement within this area to be oscillatory. That is to say that at different times the water will flow downstream, to the north, and upstream, to the south. There are occasions in which the net flow over a given tidal cycle will be zero; however, the water is always moving. Conductivity and chloride data indicate that the freshwater flow is the dominant flow compared to tidal influences. The extrapolation of available flow data indicates that there is a net downstream flow of fresh water averaging approximately 6,000 CFS. The St. Johns River at the point of discharge is over one and a half miles wide and relatively shallow with maximum depth in the range of 3 to 3.5 meters. Given the fact of the width and depth in this segment of the river, and the imposition of wind conditions and tidal influence, the water is well mixed and flushed. There is no stratification in this portion of the river. The Applicant looked into the question of current bearing and velocity in depths between two to fourteen feet in the water column. Eleven sampling stations were utilized in arriving at information about current bearing. This observation was over an eleven-nautical-mile stretch of the main channel of the St. Johns River. These stations are depicted on Applicant's Exhibit 38. In this portion of the river the current at all measured depth was flowing up and down the main channel. Within these sections there is no indication of a pronounced subsurface water movement toward the east and west banks of the river. Current velocities within the three stations closest to the POD averaged in the range of 0.5 feet per second and velocities in the other stations found within the main channel were within that range of movement. By contrast current velocities within the embayment areas along the east bank of the river were substantially weaker. DER conducted two studies using tracing dyes poured into the St. Johns River at the approximate point of discharge and monitored the course of dispersement of that dye. During this observation the dye was constantly replenished while being carried on the currents. While the dye remained within the area of the main channel, it stayed on the east side of the river as it moved down river on the outgoing tide in the direction of Smith's Point and the Shands Bridge. As the tide was slowing before the change of tide, the dye drifted for approximately two hours in the immediate vicinity of the point of discharge. The DER dye study was a fairly gross measurement of the direction of water movement within the river beyond the point of discharge. It tended to confirm that the water flow was basically up and down river, depending on whether the tide is incoming or outgoing. The studies were not sufficiently refined to speak with any certainty on the possibility that some part of the flow regime would move toward the east or west bank of the river. Nonetheless, in examining the nature of the shallow embayment areas along the banks of the St. Johns River, they are not seen to be subject to the basic flow regime that is occurring in the main channel during tide events. The bathymetry in this area is such that if the main flow regime was having some influence on the embayment areas, the depths within those embayments would be more similar to the depths found in the main channel of the river. Petitioners have employed a number of dye and drogue measurements to try to give a more accurate depiction of the influence of flow within the main channel upon the dispersion of effluent upon discharge and the possibility of those pollutants reaching the embayment areas. While there is no dispute over the fact that Trout Creek is a tributary to the St. Johns River with some tidal influences being shown in that Creek and there is no dispute that water from the St. Johns River flows in and out of Palmo Cove and Trout Creek, there does not appear to be a significant flow of water from the St. John River into the cove and creek from the main channel, in particular from the area of the point of discharge. One of the witnesses of the Petitioners, Sandy Young, did a dye procedure in which a plume was allowed to develop over a distance of approximately 1,000 feet. Although some slight lateral variation was shown in the dye plume, it did not identify a basic flow pattern toward the embayment areas on the east side of the river. The DER dye study was over a distance of some eight thousand feet and also showed some minor lateral variation. Both of these dye studies tend to show a basic flow pattern within the main channel. The dye study run by the Petitioners' witness White gave the same basic depiction as seen in the studies by DER and Young and did not identify a flow pattern out of the main channel toward the embayment areas. In the drogue studies run by Young three Chlorox bottles were filled to 95 percent of volume with water and released at the point of discharge. They were followed for a period of five hours. They moved initially with the outgoing tide toward Jack Wright Island and then when the tide slowed, the drogues slowed. When the tide changed with the incoming tide, the drogues moved toward the center of Palmo Cove. The drogue studies by Young do tend to indicate that some water was exchanged from the main channel at the point of discharge and the embayment areas. It is not a very exact measurement as it only deals with the surface area of the water column, given the wind and wave conditions existing on that occasion. It is in no way representative of the flow direction of the rest of the water column. Therefore, although it may tend to identify that some of the pollutants leaving the point of discharge may find their way to Palmo Cove, it does not establish that quantity of that pollution dispersion and the significance of that dispersion. Based upon this evidence it cannot be seen to be so revealing that the assumptions made by the applicant in trying to identify the dispersion characteristics of the effluent at point of discharge are negated based upon the results of the drogue study. The drogue study which Young did and the observation of the movement from Smith's Point to Little Florence Cove are no more compelling than the dye studies done at the point of discharge. When the Petitioners suggest that there is some influence by centrifugal force pushing the water to the outside of the curve toward the eastern bank, they are correct. However, the contention by the Petitioners that the incoming and outgoing tides sweep to the eastern shoreline of the St. Johns River moving toward Pacetti Point, Palmo Cove, Florence Cove and Smith Point is not accepted. Again, the general flow regime is up and down the main channel of the river and not primarily to the eastern bank. Finally, the fact that the Tetratech data produced for the benefit of the Applicant showing the flow pattern within the overall water column, which indicated that the general direction is the same at the top or bottom of the water column, did not tend to identify the fact that pollutants throughout the water column will be dispersed into the embayment areas from the point of discharge. The data collected in the main channel seem to establish that the water was flowing up and down the channel at depths below the surface. The question becomes whether the amount of pollutants that are being brought into the embayment areas is in such concentrations that they tend to cause problems along the shoreline, especially as it pertains to dissolved oxygen levels. From the facts presented, this outcome is not expected. Levels of dissolved oxygen in the St. Johns River can vary in the natural condition as much as 2 to 3 mg daily. These variations are influenced by algal activity and are not uncommon in Florida waters. Dissolved oxygen is essential to aquatic life. Optimum levels of dissolved oxygen for the fish population of the river are in the neighborhood of 6 to 8 mg/L. DER has established a minimum DO standard of 5 mg/L for Class III waters such as Trout Creek, Palmo Cove and the St. Johns River. This standard is designed to achieve uniform compliance throughout water column at whatever time the measurement may be made. DER, by the employment of this rule, is attempting to deal with those instances in which, in view of the dissolved oxygen level, aquatic organisms are placed under greater stress. The lowest DO concentration expected is normally seen in the summer in July, August and September. DO concentrations in the water column are expected to be highest at the surface area and lowest near the bottom. Measurements near the bottom are significant in this instance because the discharge will occur approximately one foot off the bottom of the river. The Applicant took DO measurements of the area in question during the spring of 1984 over a period of three days. These measurements were taken at a time when a better quality of dissolved oxygen might be expected as contrasted with circumstances in the summer. With the amount of wind involved impressive levels of reaeration were also occurring. These measurements showed that in all stations DO levels were at least 5.0 mg/L at all depths. A study by Applicant's consultant Environmental Science Engineering related to a diurnal event for dissolved oxygen was taken approximately one kilometer downstream from the point of discharge in August 1985 and did not reveal any measurements below 5.0 mg/L. The river was choppy on that day and this would improve the quality of dissolved oxygen. Historical data by DER related to water quality at Picolata, which is south of the POD in the St. Johns River, reveals average DO levels of approximately 6 mg/L. Historical water quality data collected by the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission near Green Cove Springs, which is several kilometers north of the point of discharge, indicated average DO levels in compliance with water quality standards. Diurnal data from near Green Cove Springs did not show any history of DO values below the state standards. There is other historical data, however, which indicates that DO concentrations in the general vicinity of the point of discharge do go below 5.0 mg/L. Game and Freshwater Fish Commission data indicate that the readings below 5.0 mg/L could occur as much as 10 percent of the time. This relates to the study done at Green Cove Springs. There does not appear to be any particular pattern to these events of low DO violations other than the expectation of their occurring in the summer months, occurring more frequently in the lower depths of the water column and in areas which are shallow with limited flow. The summer circumstance is one in which there is a possibility of very heavy rainfall followed by hot weather with overcast skies and no wind, and the DO values go down in that set of conditions. The DO values are, in addition to being lower near the bottom of the water column, likely to be lowest in the evening or early morning hours and persist in length of time from eight to ten hours. Some of the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission data from Green Cove Springs depicted some DO concentrations as low as 1.8 mg/L at the bottom and 2.1 mg/L at the surface. The low readings that were taken at Green Cove Springs occurred in September 1979 after Hurricane David had created unusual conditions in the upper St. Johns River as to effects on DO. The same report indicated DO concentrations at eleven stations in the lower St. Johns River in July and September 1982 were in the range to 4.0 to 4.5 mg/L respectively. This particular data is not particularly valuable in view of the location of those stations. There are occasions when the DO concentration at the point of discharge could go below 5 mg/L and could be as low as 2 mg/L on the bottom, but this is not a routine occurrence and would not persist. The Petitioners' consultant Young had taken certain dissolved oxygen readings at the point of discharge in April 1985 and found compliance with the 5 mg/L standard. At other times he and the consultant white measured substandard dissolved oxygen concentrations at the point of discharge. On July 20, 1985, white collected water samples at the surface and at two feet above the bottom and determined that the readings were 4 mg at the surface and 3 mg near the bottom. On August 10, 1985, Young measured DO concentrations of 4 mg/L near the bottom. On August 30, 1985, Young measured DO values of 4 mg/L at the point of discharge. Young had also measured DO concentrations at Green Cove Springs on August 10, 1985, and discovered readings as low as .5 mg/L and ranging up to 3.8 mg/L. A downstream measurement away from the point of discharge in the main channel made on August 10, 1985, by Young showed a dissolved oxygen reading of 4 mg/L. In these August measurements Young had discovered a number of readings that were in compliance with the 5 mg/L requirement. Again on September 5, 1985, Young made a measurement of dissolved oxygen near the bottom of the water column at the point of discharge which was 5.3 mg/L. Young's measurements of dissolved oxygen at the surface and in the intermediate depth, typically were above 5 mg/L. Bottom readings taken by Young in the main channel of the river and to some extent in the embayment areas were extracted from the soft detrital materials, the place of intersection of the river bottom and the water column. DO levels in these anoxic materials would tend to give lower dissolved oxygen readings and, to the extent that this anoxic material remains in the test probe while taking measurements toward the surface, would have an influence on the readings, making them appear lower than would be the case if the anoxic sediments were not present in the test device. These effects were not so dramatic as to cause the rejection of the data collected by this witness. Some explanation for lower DO readings at the point of discharge can be attributable to the fact that the anoxic material associated with high benthic oxygen demand on the bottom reduces the dissolved oxygen in the water column. Although Rangia clams were present at the point of discharge and they are capable of living in an environment of low salinity and low DO, they are likewise able to live in higher ranges of DO and their presence cannot be regarded as meaning that the dissolved oxygen levels are consistently below 5 mg/L. Petitioners' consultant White opined that there would be a very frequent violation of DO standards at the point of discharge, approaching 25 percent of the time. Considering the facts on the subject of dissolved oxygen in that area, this opinion is rejected, as is the opinion that DO concentrations will go below DER standards most of the time in July, August, and September. Young believes that a more involved study of worst case conditions would reveal DO violations throughout the column in the center of the river. The data that was presented was ample to demonstrate that violations would not be that widespread. Nor is the opinion of the consultant Parks on the subject of DO violations, to the effect that they will occur on many occasions accepted. In the Palmo Cove area it is not unusual to see some DO readings below the 5 mg/L standards. The E.S.E. group found substandard DO conditions in Palmo Cove at sampling Station 1 in September and October 1984 and some instances in April and May 1985. DO concentrations were found in the range of .4 and .6 mg/L in August 15 and 30, 1984, respectively, with DO concentrations of 1.8 and 2.1 mg/L reported on October 4 and October 29, 1984, respectively. DO violations in four out of eight checking periods between April 25 and May 24, 1985, were shown in the Palmo Cove area. Measurements taken by the consultant white showed 3 mg/L at the surface and 2 mg/L at the bottom on July 28, 1985. The consultant Young also made a measurement of 3.2 mg/L of dissolved oxygen on August 10, 1985, in a mid-depth reading in the Palmo Cove area. On September 5, 1985, he found a DO reading of 4.0 mg/L. At those places along the eastern shoreline of the St. Johns River and the relative vicinity of Florence Cove, Jack Wright Island, Little Florence Cove and Colee Cove, low dissolved oxygen readings were found, that is below 5 mg/L. These coves can be expected to have substandard readings frequently during the summer period, based upon measurements taken by the consultant Young. In the conduct of the drogue study related to the Chlorox bottle, the consultant Young in tracking the path of those bottles, found a couple of locations in the path of the drogue which were in the range 2.8 to 4.2 mg/L and 2.0 to 4.6 mg/L. The influences of the discharge will not reduce DO in the embayments. The ambient conditions for BOD in the area where the discharge is contemplated is relatively low and there is no thermal or saline stratification even in the summer months. Nutrient concentrations in this part of the St. Johns River are as indicated within the Applicants Exhibit A-4(B)(3) and at present are at such levels as to promote a healthy fish community. There is algae production that can be sufficient in some areas within this section to cause algae blooms. Algae blooms are not found to be a routine occurrence. Algae blooms reflect higher levels of nitrogen and phosphorus. The consultants Young and White have seen algae blooms in the St. Johns River away from the general area of concern, both upstream and downstream. Should those algae blooms occur, they would promote significant rises and falls in DO concentrations. In Palmo Cove and the St. Johns River, supersaturated DO concentrations have been detected and they are indications of high rates of primary algal productivity. The circumstance of supersaturated conditions, related to dissolved oxygen, can be the by-product of an algal bloom. The concentrations of nitrogen range from an average of 1.42 to a maximum of 2.54 mg/L. Nitrogen concentrations of 1.4 mg to 1.5 mg/L are optimally advantageous for fish production. Significant increases above those levels would cause the decline of the fish population. Total phosphorus concentrations in the ambient waters are high. Concentrations in excess of 0.1 mg/L of total phosphorus are regarded as a indication of eutrophication and the average concentration here is measured as 0.3 mg/L with a maximum ambient concentration found at 0.52 milligrams per liter. There is significant algal growth in the inshore areas and an indication of some eutrophication in the grass beds. The dominant species of algae found in that vicinity are blue-green, which are seen as being nuisance species. The grass beds along the shoreline are basically healthy. On the other hand, some of the public witnesses identified the fact that grass beds and other vegetation have died with the advent of discharge from the Applicant's plant into Trout Creek. This was under a system in which little or no treatment was afforded the effluent. One other public witness indicated that his dock in the Florence Cove area had been covered with a slimy material and algae during the past two years. Significant grass beds are found along Jack Wright Island and in other areas along the eastern shoreline of the river. These grass beds are important as fish habitat to include nursery areas, areas for various juvenile species of fish and other organisms. Some of these grass beds are showing signs of environmental stress, and nutrient loading can contribute to that stress. Some of the grass beds are covered with higher amounts of algae, duckweed and periphyton than are desirable. The duckweed had floated into these areas from other locations and can be expected to move away. The presence of algae is an indication of nutrient loading. The presence of duckweed is not a product of nutrient loading in the sense of the production of the duckweed at the site where they were found along the shoreline. The area in question between Pacetti Point and Shands Bridge serves as a nursery in a sense of providing habitat for juvenile species of fish and other organisms. The grass beds along the shoreline provide habitat for feeding and breeding related to juvenile organisms, to include such species as bass and shrimp. Juvenile catfish are found within the deeper portions of the river as well as croaker and other marine species. There is a high number of juvenile blue crabs in this area of the river and this is a commercial resource. Shrimp are taken by recreational fisherman in the area of the North Shore Pacetti Point. Clam beds are also present near the point of discharge. Juvenile and adult manatee have been seen in the St. Johns River and in the area near Jack Wright Island. Manatee have also been observed in Trout Creek at a time before the operation of the Applicant's plant and at times following the cessation of operations in June 1985. During the course of the operation of the Applicant's plant, when raw effluent was discharged into Trout Creek, fish kills were observed. Those events had not been seen prior to the operation of the plant. Indications are that fish were killed in the creek due to the use by the Applicant of fly bait, which made its way into the water. Dispersion Modeling of Water Quality Impact In order to gain some impression of the influences caused by the dispersion of the pollutants within the effluent, the Applicant through its expert employed several modeling techniques. DER was made aware of this modeling as it developed. A far-field model was used to calculate what the long-term or steady state impacts of the treated effluent would be on the ambient water quality. In trying to identify the influence of the discharge, measurement of metals were taken based upon an assessment of long term increases. BOD, which breaks down and consumes oxygen over time, was examined in the sense of the long term effects as to DO deficits. In essence these projections were superimposed over the ambient condition to gain an impression of the adjusted ambient values, taking into account the influence of the discharge. The Applicant also ran a plume model which was designed to calculate spreading and dispersion of the treated effluent within the zone of initial dilution or mixing zone at the point of discharge. This model responds to the discharge configuration. Through the use of computer calculations, it was established that a five-point diffuser with port openings of 0.75 inches in diameter angled upward at ten degrees would result in an effluent dilution ratio of 28.5:1 within two meters of the point of discharge. The calculated impacts of the plume model were superimposed upon the adjusted ambient water quality conditions set forth in the far-field model in order to determine net impact upon the receiving waters within the mixing zone. A third model was used, referred to as the lateral diffusivity model. This model is designed to calculate the six-hour or short term water quality impacts of the treated effluent when it moves from the zone of initial dilution during flood and ebb tide conditions. By estimating dispersion rate, this model predicts what dilution would occur in the path of the effluent plume. These impacts were then superimposed upon the adjusted ambient water quality conditions to determine the total impact in the path of the plume. The modeling work by the Applicant's consultant is a reasonable depiction of the predicted impacts of the pollution on the ambient conditions. The calculations used in the far-field model assumed a freshwater flow of 2,000 CFS. This assumption in the far-field model satisfactorily addresses worst case flow conditions related to seven-day, 10-year low flow. The temperature utilized in depicting ambient water was 30 degrees centigrade when employed in the far-field and lateral diffusivity models. This corresponds to warm weather conditions, which are more profound in describing effects on water quality. The far-field and lateral diffusivity models assumed that the treated effluent discharged from the pipeline would have a BOD concentration of 665 mg/L. This is contrasted with the maximum concentration allowed by the draft permit, which is 510 mg/L, which is the expected amount of BOD. This tends to depict the impacts of the discharge more conservatively. The model assumes the BOD loading of 2,720 kg per week, equating to an average discharge concentration of 665 mg/L if the plant operates five days a week on an eighteen-hour day. The reaeration rate and NBOD and CBOD decay rates used in the far field and lateral diffusivity models are acceptable. Likewise, the longitudinal dispersion coefficient that was used in the far-field model is acceptable. The standard modeling methodology in this process calls for an assumption of a 1.33 growth rate of the plume in the lateral diffusivity model. The Applicant's consultant decided to use a lower constant diffusivity growth rate. As a consequence, less lateral spreading is depicted. With less lateral spreading, less dilution is shown, and the impacts predicted by the model are exaggerated. One of the parameters of the plume model has to do with river flow which causes some turbulence and also brings about dilution. In this instance the plume model calculations assume stagnant conditions which is a more conservative assessment. As the Petitioners have suggested, the modeling to explain the impacts of dispersion of the pollutants is not designed to give precise calculations of the DO deficit at each point in the river along the eastern shoreline. It is indeed an estimate. The estimate on this occasion is reasonable. Although DER performs mathematical analysis of dispersion of proposed discharge in some cases, it did not do so on this occasion. Nonetheless DER was satisfied with the present choice for modeling the dispersion characteristics of the discharge. Although the models utilized were not subject to exact calibration by measurement of the dispersion at the site, the information gained by the Applicant prior to the imposition of the modeling techniques was sufficient to develop the models and to give a theoretical verification of the expected impacts from the discharge. The Applicant's belief that the maximum DO deficit caused by the discharge will not exceed 0.1 mg/L is accepted. The dissolved oxygen level in the effluent at the point of discharge will be above 5 mg/L. The Applicant's choice of reaeration rates, CBOD decay rates, NBOD decay rates, discharge rate from the pipeline, hours of operation, average reversing current speed, net non- tidal flow, non-tidal velocity, time lag before NBOD decay, maximum tidal velocity, and other variables and assumptions within the models were acceptable choices. Although the possibility exists of an occasional 5 1/2 day operation in which 10 additional hours of operation are added, this would not be so significant as to set aside the predictions as to the pollutant dispersion. The Applicant's consultant who modeled the dispersion rates did not conduct dye studies to verify or calibrate the actual dispersion in the river. One of the dye studies indicated a lateral spreading rate which was less than that predicted by the model. Notwithstanding this revelation, the overall techniques used by the Applicant in predicting lateral spreading rate are sound and do not present a risk of a greater DO deficit than was predicted based upon incorrect assumptions as to lateral spreading rates. The Applicant's consultant's use of 2,000 CFS as the net non-tidal low flow was a more convincing estimate than the field data collected by the United States Geological Service, given the paucity of information about the flow conditions within the St. Johns River. The Applicant's choices in describing maximum tidal velocities and average velocity are accepted. The critique of the modeling efforts done by the Applicant that was made by Petitioners' consultant, Dr. Parks, in which he concludes that the DO deficit is considerably greater than 0.1 mg/L is not accepted. Comparison of Predicted Impacts of Discharge with Statutory and Regulatory Criteria Inside the Mixing Zone Applicant's assumptions about the increase in nutrient concentrations in the St. Johns caused by the discharge are accepted. This is based on the assumption of a nitrogen value of 52 mg/L which was achieved in bench scale testing of the effluent and which can be achieved in the full scale operation. As the effluent is discharged from the diffuser within the mixing zone, there will be some turbidity problems in that the bottom near the point of discharge. The soft silt there is easily resuspended. When the discharge is concluded, the material will settle back to the bottom. There will be further resuspension when the operation commences again and there is a discharge. The transport of these suspended materials is limited in that the water velocity associated with the discharge is quickly dissipated. This phenomenon will not cause adverse environmental impacts. The mixing zone does not include an area approved by the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources for shellfish harvesting; it does not exceed the presumptive maximum size set forth in Rule 17-4.244, Florida Administrative Code. Nor does it include an existing drinking water supply intake or any other existing supply intake that would be significantly impaired by the proposed mixing zone. The water in this area is of sufficient depth that it will not support grass beds that are associated with a principal nursery area, such as pond weed, midgeon grass, manatee grass, turtle grass or eel grass which are used to support nursery activities. These grasses are normally found inshore. Although juvenile fish are found throughout this reach of the St. Johns River, and for that matter in the entire lower eighty miles of the St. Johns River, the mixing zone is not of such dimensions that it will preempt the health of juvenile fish. Most of the freshwater fish in this system use the littoral areas for reproduction. Marine and estuarine species do not reproduce in the St. Johns River. There is some reproduction that is occurring with some species, such as catfish. Given the size of the mixing zone, no significant adverse effects will occur with the established community of organisms in this portion of the river. The mixing zone will not otherwise impair designated uses of the St. Johns River. The treated effluent will not create a nuisance condition or violate any other DER standards that apply within the mixing zone. With the advent of the full scale facility, maximum, average and chronic toxicity criteria can be reasonably expected to be met at the point of discharge, within the mixing zone and at the boundary of the mixing zone. As described before, the effects of sediment transport upon discharge are localized. The proposal for a mixing zone takes into account Rule 17-4.244, Florida Administrative Code, in the sense of addressing present and future sources of pollutants and the combined effects with other pollutants or substances which may be present in the ambient waters. One of the concerns which DER has about wastewater is the effect which that pollutant has on organisms within the environment. To gain an impression of that influence, testing is required to establish whether the wastewater is acutely toxic. The testing is known as bioassay assessment. While this assessment is normally done after the grant of a construction permit, when confronted with uncertainty about the quality of the effluent, some testing is beneficial prior to the grant of a construction permit. This is especially true given DER's experiences in dealing with raw effluent of several of the scallop processors, to include Homer Smith, which showed that the raw effluent was acutely toxic. This acute toxicity testing is done by placing test organisms into aquaria containing the effluent and measuring survival of those species over time. Results are described in terms of a measurement of the concentration of the effluent at which 50 percent of the organisms are killed during a prescribed test period. In static testing the organisms are simply exposed to the effluent for the requisite period of time. By contrast, a static renewal test calls for the effluent to be replaced with another sample of the effluent at various intervals within the test period. Finally, a flow through bioassay test calls for a continuous stream of fresh effluent to be introduced in prescribed concentrations over the duration of the test. A bioassay assessment in the static condition was performed related to DAF pilot scale effluent that was collected on April 19, 1985. In this instance Daphnia magna were used as test organisms and demonstrated a survival rate of greater than 50 percent in a 100 percent concentration of effluent over a period of 96 hours in the setting of static and static renewal tests. That survival rate was also shown in lesser concentrations of effluent as well. The April 19, 1985, sample was also used in testing the response of Pimephales promelas. These test organisms did not survive either in the static or static renewal tests. While an hypothesis has been made that acute toxicity was experienced in this test organism attributable to build-ups of ammonia, which is greater with this type of organism than with the Daphnia, due to larger biomass which allows for a greater number of ammonia generating bacteria to be presented in the test aquaria and the fact that the Pimethales excrete more ammonia, these differences do not definitely explain why the Daphnia survived and the Pimephales did not. In the series of static renewal bioassays performed on the wastewater that was collected at the plant on April 29, 1985, and shipped to Lenox, Massachusetts, for bench scale treatment, the test organisms of both types failed to survive for 96 hours. It was discovered that during the course of the test period, levels of ammonia rose rapidly. Trace metals in the treated effluent are principally in the form of stable species, as opposed to free ions. These constituents standing alone are not likely to have caused the mortality in the test organisms. The effect of decomposition of the organic constituents in the waste stream is the most likely explanation of why the bioassays of pilot and bench scale treated effluent did not lead to a satisfactory result. Unionized ammonia, a by-product of organic decomposition, is found to be a principle player in the explanation of why the treated effluent was acutely toxic to the test organisms. The exact cause of toxicity has not been precisely identified. Given the complex nature of the effluent, other potentially toxic substances such as sulfides, amines, and other organic compounds could have contributed to the demise of the test organisms. Moreover, toxicity can increase with combinations of chemicals acting in a synergistic fashion, making their combined effects more devastating than the effect of any single substance. Having in mind the fact that ammonia is a major problem in the survival of test organisms subjected to a bioassay, the question becomes one of what may be done to remove ammonia. The production of ammonia in wastewater would depend upon the presence of bacteria. The proposed DAF system removes substantial numbers of bacteria, thereby limiting the possibility of ammonia build-up, if bacteria are not allowed to recolonize in some part of the system prior to discharge. As discussed before, reduction of bacterial activity can be achieved within the proposed treatment system. This is unlike the experience with the bench scale and pilot scale testing that was done on the effluent in which a substantial amount of time transpired before subjecting the test organisms to the effluent and in which a substantial amount of time transpired while the test organisms were being subjected to static and static renewal procedures with the same effluent. The time intervals contributed to the build- up of toxic levels of ammonia in the effluent. The system which is proposed in this instance can avoid the problem of time as it relates to the build-up of levels of ammonia. To further reduce the influence of retention of the waste product, flow through bioassay testing would be the most appropriate measurement of the survivability of the test organism in that it would be responding to real case conditions pertaining to the quality of effluent and its potential toxicity. Under these circumstances, it is reasonable to believe that in a flow through bioassay test of the full scale treatment system, the test organisms could survive. This determination is reached given the reduction in retention time compared to the bench and pilot scale testing, which reduces ammonia, with further ability to reduce ammonia by frequent removal of residual materials from the sludge drying bed and sump pit and taking into account basic improvements in treatment efficiency associated with the full scale system. In addition, the pH of the effluent can be regulated to avoid toxicity in the ammonia which is associated with inappropriate balance within the pH. While a 96-hour LC-50 cannot be calculated with the results of bench scale and pilot scale testing, a reasonable possibility exists for the establishment of that measurement with the advent of a flow through bioassay. There is sufficient similarity between the effluent in the pilot and bench scale testing and the expected effluent in the full-size system for the bioassay testing that was done in those limited systems to give a meaningful indication of the probability that the Applicant can pass a flow through bioassay. Applicant can be reasonably expected to produce an effluent in the mixing zone which will not exceed the 96 hour LC-50 for acute toxicity. As with the circumstance of ammonia, pH can be controlled within the system to address the implications of changes in pH as it pertains to other pollutants in the wastewater. Ammonia production can be influenced by the amount of alkalinity in the effluent and the receiving waters. Alkalinity has not been measured thus far. Alkalinity could be established for the effluent and receiving waters and dealt with if it was suspected as being an explanation of problems with the build up of ammonia which might exceed DER standards. The discharge from the Applicant's plant will not cause long-term problems with low DO, high nutrients, algal imbalances, and chronic toxicity. Outside the Mixing Zone Those constituents within the waste stream, to include those for which a mixing zone was sought, will comply with applicable water quality standards at the boundary of the mixing zone. The dissolved oxygen deficit at its maximum can be expected to be in the neighborhood of 0.1 mg/L and will be exerted somewhere in the range between 1 and 2.5 km downstream of the point of discharge across the width of the plume in worst case conditions. This deficit is not of a dimension which is easily detectable. The implications of that deficit are difficult to perceive in terms of tangible environmental consequences. While a deficit in the range of 0.1 mg/L has some relevance in the DER permitting decision, that deficit as it is dispersed is not expected to cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards in the main channel of the river or in the inshore and embayment areas. While it is true that there are periodic fluctuations of dissolved oxygen below 5 mg/L, DER, as a matter of present policy and professional judgment believes that in this system which evidences characteristics of a clean well-flushed, unstratified water body occasional readings of low DO are not regarded as an indication of violation of water quality standards. This speaks to the main channel area of the river where the only quantifiable influence is expected. The facts presented in this case support the soundness of this policy choice. Petitioners presented the testimony of former officials within DER, namely Parks and Young, who stated that dissolved oxygen standards of 5 mg/L are applied at all times and at all places. They felt that the DER policy was to the effect that permits would not be granted for discharge in any circumstance where the DO concentrations are substandard in the ambient waters, regardless of the amount of decrease or deficit that would be promoted. Parks spoke of the availability of site specific alternative criteria, variances, exceptions or exemptions from the terms of the water quality rule. Having considered these remarks, the present DER policy of allowing the permit to be granted in the instance where occasional violations of ambient water quality standards related to 5 mg/L occur, in the face of the small deficit which is involved in this case, is the better choice. Further, it is a choice that is not so inconsistent with prior practices as to be arbitrary in nature. Finally, DER's position that it would be unadvisable to require a request for site specific alternative criteria, variances, exceptions or exemptions in circumstances such as this case is accepted, when taking into account the problems which would be presented to the agency in administering the permit program, should each Applicant who is confronted with occasional violations below standards for dissolved oxygen have to seek extraordinary relief. While the facts do identify that some pollutants can reach the embayment areas on the eastern shore, the facts do not depict a circumstance in which the amount and quality of that effluent will be such that it will cause or contribute to dissolved oxygen violations in those areas. The water quality in the embayment areas is lower than that in the main area of the river due to inadequate flushing. The areas inshore do not interact with the main channel in a way that would take advantage of the faster moving currents found in the main channel as this interaction might promote a better quality of water. In view of the situation in the embayment areas, the Applicant, on advice of his consultants, moved the proposed location of the discharge into the main channel away from the areas which were under greater stress in terms of dissolved oxygen values and in doing so avoided damage to these areas. The current velocities in the area east of the main channel are weak. There is a substantial distance from the point of discharge to the inshore areas. As the effluent moves toward the inshore or nearshore areas it will become so diluted it will not have an adverse influence on dissolved oxygen. Not only the distances involved, but also the fact that water flowing near the surface is well aerated contributes to the dilution of the effluent as it approaches the shore. Although it has been shown that some stress in the grasses along the eastern shoreline has occurred and the existence of blue-green algae has been shown, together with indications of undesirable algal production, the nutrients which are part of the effluent at the point of discharge are not expected to cause an imbalance in the natural populations of flora and fauna or create nuisance conditions or violations of transparency standards. The nitrogen increase could cause an increase in algal production in the order of one percent, which is inconsequential. The treated effluent will not adversely effect biological integrity of the St. Johns River. The benthic microinvertebrate community in this part of the river is fairly low density due to the fluctuations in salinity levels and predation by fish and blue crabs and given the nature of this substrate which is unstable with low levels of dissolved oxygen. The organisms that are predominant have a tolerance to siltation and fluctuations in dissolved oxygen. The treated effluent will not adversely effect the microinvertebrate community. Petitioners point out the fact that when DO concentrations decrease below optimum levels, fish and other organisms suffer. The fish reduce their movement, feeding and reproduction and they are less disease resistant. They are placed in a position of having to leave the area or risk death if the impacts of the decrease in dissolved oxygen are severe. The influence of the effluent at the point of discharge in this project is not expected to have significant impact on fish and other organisms within these topics of concern expressed in the paragraph. Even though the dissolved oxygen deficit extends in amounts below 0.1 mg/L as far as 2.1 km upstream and 4.5 km downstream and within a wide breadth of the center portion of the river, those deficits will not be significant to the water quality. The BOD associated with the discharge, allowing for mixing will not depress dissolved oxygen levels below DER standards of 5 mg/L. The combination of BOD and nutrient discharge will not cause an imbalance of algal production in the river, nor will it contribute to the dominance of nuisance algal species. The BOD nutrient loading associated with the discharge into the St. Johns will not promote significant ecological impacts on the St. Johns River, to include the possibility of more frequent and severe algae blooms, increase in benthic oxygen demand, risk of increase eutrophication, destruction of grass beds or decline in the fishery. With the advent of discharge in the St. Johns DO fluctuations in the river will not be greater nor will there be an occurrence of a swing from substandard dissolved oxygen levels to supersaturated dissolved oxygen. While the discharge from the Applicant's plant contains pollutants such as cadmium, zinc, arsenic, copper and organic decomposition products, the treatment provided the wastewater is expected to overcome any acute toxicity associated with these materials individually or in combination. Chronic toxicity is not expected related to these materials. The effects of these materials are not expected to cause physiological and behavioral responses which are abnormal in organisms such as reduced locomotion and reproduction or increase susceptibility to diseases to include ulceration and increased mortality. Treatment contemplated and provision of a mixing zone will allow compliance with the standards related to cadmium. Reference has been made to a development known as St. Johns Harbor which is in the vicinity of the proposed discharge and can be expected to promote some pollution in Palmo Cove and the St. Johns River. Although St. Johns Harbor development is proceeding through stages of permit review, it does not appear that it has reached a place in which exact information about its implications as a pollution source can be set out. In discussing the St. Johns Harbor Development, Petitioners emphasized that this eventuality and other matters which deal with cumulative impact have not been satisfactorily addressed. There is no indication than any other substantial development or activity other that St. Johns Harbor is contemplated in this area associated with the permit review at hand. St. Johns Harbor eventually hopes to develop 3000 residential units. It has received the approval of the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council for the initial phase of development. It has been reviewed by the Florida Fresh Water Game and Fish Commission. The developers are proceeding with the project to include the sale of lots. Nonetheless, that development has not reached the phase where its implications would form the basis of a denial of this project based upon the theory of cumulative impact. While Petitioners contend that stormwater runoff from the St. Johns Harbor project will be a problem, assuming an inadequacy in the design which that developer employs to deal with that matter, this eventuality is not expected based on a review on the facts presented. Reference is made to the Ulcer Disease Syndrome which fish in the St. Johns have suffered from. The principal area in which this event has occurred is north of the area expected to be influenced by this discharge. Nonetheless, diseased fish have been found in Palmo Cove. This Ulcer Disease Syndrome is caused by heavy metals and hydrocarbons, and these materials act in league. The advent of additional heavy metals and other pollutants, such as those being discharged from the Applicant's plant could cause further deterioration in the condition of fish suffering from Ulcer Disease Syndrome. Having considered the facts, this outcome is not expected. Ambient levels of 18 other pertinent pollution constituents in the vicinity of the point of discharge were ascertained by the Applicant's consultants on the basis of field observations and historical United States Geological Survey and Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission data. This formed a basis of an assessment of average and worst case values. This information indicates compliance with those parameters for purposes of water quality standards at the point of discharge. Implementation of Construction Permit Permit Conditions Applicant's Exhibit A-10 is a copy of the DER intent to issue the construction permit. It sets forth seventeen specific permit conditions, and these conditions should be imposed in the permit. The following are additional conditions that should be set forth in the construction permit: The operation and maintenance manual required by original Condition 10 shall provide that the DAF treatment system be cleaned regularly with a mild chlorine solution and that the wastewater from this maintenance be placed in a vehicle and carried off the premises for disposal at an appropriate location. This wastewater from the cleanup shall not be discharged from the plant into state waters. The operation and maintenance manual shall provide that a dosage level of chlorine to clean the pipeline that will result in comp- liance with all water quality standards at the end of the pipeline be added to a fraction of fresh water used to flush the system at the cessation of discharges each day. DER must approve this dosage amount before it becomes part of the operation and maintenance manual. The operation and maintenance manual shall set forth a regular schedule for pumping the accumulated sludge or solid materials from the sump pit. The operation and maintenance manual shall provide that as much as 50 gallons per minute of fresh tapwater may be added to recycled wastewater for pressurization. Any discharge created with this addition may not exceed 250 gallons per minute. Any discharge created above 200 gallons per minute shall be consti- tuted only of tap water. Two machine scallop processing operations at the plant will be limited to an average of 18 hours per day and no more than 90 hours in a week. Monitoring in Trout Creek shall continue as specified in paragraph 17(E) of the Consent Order as long as discharges into Trout Creek continue. On each occasion when the DAF treatment system is in operation, the Applicant shall have a fully trained operator on site. The terms of the construction permit shall expire on December 31, 1986. The constructed pipeline shall be leak tested once a month from June to September and every other month during other months of the year. If a leak in the pipeline is detected it shall be repaired within 20 days and retested for leaks within 15 days thereafter. The carrying out of any leak testing and repairs shall hereunder shall be certified by a professional engineer. Pre-pipeline Operations Petitioners have pointed out the fact that when two or more pollutants are present, as in the instance of the effluent discharged by the Applicant's plant, those pollutants tend to act in a synergistio manner. That can exacerbate the circumstance where you find low dissolved oxygen. This is particularly a matter of concern when discussing Trout Creek. This is unlike the impacts of the discharge into the St. Johns River which are not expected to exceed standards or promote adverse effects. The implications of operation within Trout Creek to allow necessary permit review by DER and the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources can be overcome once the discharge is withdrawn from Trout Creek and may be addressed by DER more immediately if the dissolved air flotation unit, after a reasonable period of adjustment, does not perform in the fashion that it appears to be capable of. In the instance of discharge into Trout Creek, the material discharged tends to remain in that area for a relatively long period in that the creek is small and has very little flow and poor flushing characteristics. DO levels will be depressed, the presence of a deficit in dissolved oxygen caused by the discharge from the DAF unit would increase the probability of fish kills when contrasted with a circumstance where there is no further deficit of dissolved oxygen. Given the explanation of why a fish kill occurred based upon the past use of fly bait by the Applicant and the fact that there is no indication of fly bait in the present plans, a fish kill in Trout Creek in the time of interim discharged does not seem probable. With the advent of discharge into Trout Creek, the possibility is enhanced for algae blooms and increased eutrophication. There would also be some accumulation of toxic substances. Additionally, there would be some influence on juvenile fish which are more sensitive to pollutants and the possibility exists that it could reach levels that are lethal to bass larvae and juvenile sports fish. The creek would lose some of its viability as a nursery and some fish would leave the creek. These events are not irreversible and can be reasonably remedied with the cessation of discharge into the creek. Moreover, as in the instance with the problem with fish kills, if some set of circumstances attributable to the discharge were to occur in such dimensions as to cause long term impacts in Trout Creek, DER could take action against the construction permit. Dissolved oxygen in Trout Creek can be below the 5 mg/L standard. Data of the E.S.E. group showed that at Highway 13 bridge, approximately fifty yards from the plant in December 1984 and January 1985, values were as low as 0.1 and 0.2 mg/L, and readings could be frequently below 2 mg/L at Highway 13. In April through June 1985, periodic surface dissolved oxygen concentrations were in the range of 3 mg/L and as low as 2.4 mg/L. DO concentrations generally found at the bottom of Trout Creek could be as little or lower than 1 mg/L at times. In July 24, 1985, at the time when the plant had not been operating for approximately a month, the DO concentrations were 2.9 mg/L at mid-depth and 0.8 mg at the bottom. Within Trout Creek in the area of the Pacetti marina, Consultant White measured DO concentrations in the range 1-3 mg/L. On August 10, 1985, six weeks after operations had stopped at the Smith facility, DO concentrations were found to be 3 mg at the surface, less at mid-depth and 0 near the bottom. Computer modeling was not done to ascertain the impacts of a discharge directly into Trout Creek from the DAF unit. The modeling done by the Petitioner's consultant, Parks, using some of the concepts considered in the Applicant's modeling for the St. Johns River is inapplicable to the circumstances in Trout Creek. Trout Creek has also served as a nursing ground for reproduction and habitat for young fish. During the course of the operations by the Applicant in the discharge of essentially untreated effluent, the beds of bass and sun fish have not been seen within the creek. Water quality improves with the DAF unit and sediment loading by heavy metals decreases. Trout Creek is a stressed system at present. It has low levels of dissolved oxygen, high nutrient concentrations and the presence of heavy metals in undesirable amounts. The low numbers of pytoplankton species give some indication of a highly stressed ecosystem. The present officials of DER, Palmer, Owen and Fox, expressed their concerns about dissolved oxygen in those instances where there would be a decrease in ambient DO concentrations. This has particular importance in discussing the problems associated with the discharge into Trout Creek, as opposed to the point of discharge contemplated in the St. Johns River, which risk is minimized given the characteristics of that area and the higher readings of ambient dissolved oxygen in that water, as contrasted with low readings within Trout Creek. A literal interpretation of the position of the agency officials would lead to the conclusion suggested by the Petitioners that no discharge should be allowed into Trout Creek, even on an interim basis. However, such a position would be inherently unfair considering the fact that some discharge would occur into the creek before the installation of the pipeline, whether based upon simultaneous permit review by DER and the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources in the easement case or sequential review as is contemplated in this instance. Admittedly, the amount of time involved in the discharge into Trout Creek increases in view of the severance of the easement case from the present proceedings. This circumstance occurred in view of the desire on the part of the DNR to see the actual treatment efficiencies involved with the dissolved air flotation unit as opposed to the theoretical possibilities of that equipment. In the present situation, it would be a reasonable policy choice for DER to allow an interim discharge into Trout Creek pending the opportunity for DNR to monitor the quality of the effluent produced by the DAF unit and make a decision about the easement, thus allowing installation of the pipeline if the easement is granted. This arrangement contemplates that DER should closely monitor the quality of the effluent produced by the DAF unit, to make certain, after the Applicant has been given the opportunity to make necessary adjustments to that unit, that the Applicant is not allowed to continue to discharge into Trout Creek following this period of adjustment, when it is shown that the Applicant's equipment is not performing as expected. In any event, the discharge of effluent into Trout Creek will continue over a limited period of time and the system can be expected to quickly return to its healthier state after the removal of the discharge from Trout Creek. This has occurred in the past when the operations of the plant ceased and occurred at a time when the wastewater was of a more damaging quality than contemplated by that associated with the DAF unit. In summary, it would be a reasonable policy choice to allow the interim discharge into Trout Creek on this occasion. Dredge and Fill Permit Characteristics of Pipeline Corridor The pipeline corridor encompasses portions of Trout Creek, Palmo Cove and the St. Johns River. The bottom sediments where the pipeline is to be installed are constituted of soft, and sometimes extremely soft, flocculent silt. Although these sediments are easily resuspended, dispersement of these sediments will only occur while the pipeline is being installed. In placing the pipeline, it is the intention of the Applicant to simply allow the pipe to sink into the sediment. The soft substrate is several feet deep in some places within the proposed corridor. Nonetheless, the pipe is expected to stabilize as it sinks into the material. There are places within the corridor where a crusty material may be found on the surface of or just beneath the substrate. These are locations where jetting or mechanical excavation may be necessary. Jetting may also be necessary along the approximately 155 foot stretch of the corridor that crosses the State of Florida, Department of Transportation right-of-way. This requirement would occur in view of the fact that the Department of Transportation mandates that the pipeline be at a minimum of 30 inches below the creek bottom. In those instances where jetting or other mechanical excavation might be utilized, silt screens would be used to control the short term turbidity. In the areas within the pipeline corridor where tree trunks and branches have been found, these obstructions can be removed without incident. Taking into account the nature of the substrate, at the location where the diffuser will be placed at the end of the pipeline, special attention will be given to that installation to avoid having the diffuser settle into the soft silty material. Given the fact that the silty material is several feet deep and the related fact that the Applicant has not done specific testing of the depth, density and compressibility of this silty material, careful attention should be given to anchoring the diffuser and making certain that the exhaust ports within that device are correctly positioned. The need for this close attention is borne out by the fact that a test pipe which was placed in the silty material settled approximately two and a half feet within several weeks. The matter of the security of the diffuser is also critical, given the fact that the diffuser will be located within one foot of the bottom. Through proper installation, the Applicant can avoid having the diffuser settle into the silty material over time. The installation techniques satisfactorily address the potential problems. Projected Impacts (1) Environmental The icthyological and macroinvertebrate communities within the pipeline corridor have been examined by the Applicant in the person of his consultants. It was found that there are a variety of freshwater fishes within Trout Creek, such as large-mouth bass and sun fish, and a moderate density of macroinvertebrates. The St. Johns River proper is dominated by estuarine and marine aquatic organisms. Infaunal macroinvertebrate densities in the area of the pipeline corridor in the St. Johns River are not high. In placing the pipeline, the effects on aquatic and benthic communities within the corridor or upon water quality do not pose a threat to those communities or to water quality. During the installation of the pipeline, some disturbance of the benthic organisms can be expected; however, those organisms will be able to recolonize quickly. The mere presence of the pipeline is not expected to cause long-term impacts on biological resources or water quality. (b) Navigation In the area of the intended placement of the pipeline related to Trout Creek, boating clubs utilize that vicinity for purposes of anchorage. Those clubs have as many as twenty to thirty boats whose size varies from twenty to fifty-five feet in length. Some of those boats carry anchors which can weigh forty-five pounds or more. Typically, in anchoring one of these craft, the anchor rope is tied down and the engines reversed to set the anchor. Although testimony was given to the effect that the anchors being set might puncture the pipeline, given the explanation about the placement of the pipeline and the nature of the pipe itself, problems with puncturing the pipeline as it might interfere with navigation or environmental concerns such as turbidity plumes due to a puncture of the pipeline are not expected. Nor are the activities associated with retrieval of the anchors via the use of electric winches or hoists seen to be a problem in the sense of snagging the pipeline and rupturing the pipeline when the anchors are brought aboard the vessels. In summary, the pipeline will not be an interference to navigation in the sense of boat anchorage or other aspects of navigation associated with boating. Moreover, the Applicant is willing to indicate the location of the pipeline on navigational charts to assist boaters in avoiding potential problems with anchorage. This is a desirable arrangement and should be done. Comparison of Projected Impacts with Statutory and Regulatory Criteria The dredge and fill activities associated with the pipeline are not expected to cause long-term or short-term adverse impact on biological resources or water quality, or are they expected to interfere with the conservation of natural resources or marine productivity or interfere with navigation to such an extent to be contrary to public interest. The placement of the pipeline will not promote unacceptable interference with fish and other natural resources or destroy clam beds or grass flats, such as would be contrary to the public interest. Permit Conditions Appropriate permit conditions are as follows: Installation of the pipeline shall be conducted within Trout Creek only during weekdays. Pipeline installation activities within Trout Creek shall not block navigation. The pipeline shall be constructed within 60 days following the receipt of all necessary approval, to include the grant of an easement by the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources for the placement of the pipeline over submerged sovereignty lands. All conditions set forth in the DER draft permit. See Applicant's Exhibit A-57.
The Issue Whether Permit No. DO19-101251 issued to Mr. Vail on July 11, 1985 to construct and operate an on-site wastewater treatment and disposal system should be revoked?
Findings Of Fact Mr. Vail is the owner and operator of a business called the St. George Inn and Restaurant (hereinafter referred to as the "Inn"). The Inn is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Franklin Boulevard and Pine Avenue on St. George Island, Florida. In May of 1984 Mr. Vail spoke with an employee of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services about obtaining a permit to construct a septic tank on his property for use by the Inn for the treatment and disposal of wastewater. Mr. Vail was instructed to submit a design of the septic tank for approval. Mr. Vail contracted with McNeill Septic Tank Company for the design and construction of the septic tank. The evidence failed to prove when Mr. Vail applied with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for a permit. As of March, 1985, however, Mr. Vail had not received approval or disapproval of his application from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Mr. Vail, therefore, went to the Governor's office to seek help in getting a response. Shortly after contacting the Governor's office, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services informed Mr. Vail that he needed to obtain a permit from the Department and not from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. On or about March 18, 1985, Mr. Vail filed an Application to Operate/Construct Industrial Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems (hereinafter referred to as the "Application"), with the Department. The Application was prepared by Brown and Associates Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors, Inc., Mr. Vail's engineering consultant. The Application was certified by Benjamin E. Brown, Professional Engineer. Mr. Vail signed the Application as "owner" and indicated that he was aware of the contents of the Application. In the Application, "St. George Inn Restaurant" is listed as the "Source Name." Under Part II, A of the Application, the applicant is asked to "[d]escribe the nature and extent of the project." In response to this request, the following answer was given: This project will provide a sewage disposal system for a one hundred and fifty (150) seat restaurant on St. George Island. Sizing of the septic tank system is based on 50 GPD/seat and secondary treatment will be provided by the design proposed. Under Part III, A of the Application, the applicant is asked to provide the following information and the following answers were given: Type of Industry Restaurant . . . . 3. Raw Materials and Chemicals Used Food preparation only. Normal Operation 12 hrs/day 7 days/week . . . . If operation is seasonal, explain This restaurant will be used the most during the summer months which corresponds with ocean/beach recreation & the tourist trade. Nowhere in the Application is it indicated that the permit applied for involved anything other than a restaurant. The Application gives no information from which the Department could have known that the proposed wastewater treatment and disposal system would handle waste from guest rooms or an apartment. In the Application Mr. Vail sought approval of a permit to construct and operate a wastewater treatment and disposal system to serve a 150 seat restaurant. In the Application Mr. Vail sought a permit for a system which was to have a design flow of 7,500 gallons per day based on 50 gallons, per seat, per day water usage. An employee of the Department wrote a memorandum dated May 5, 1985, recommending approval of the Application. The Department determined, however, that the size of the property on which the Inn was to be located was not large enough for the drain field necessary to accommodate a 150 seat restaurant. Therefore, Mr. Brown modified the proposed system and resubmitted application data indicating that a 108 seat restaurant would be constructed. The design flow of the new proposal was 2,160 gallons per day based on 20 gallons per seat per day. Mr. Brown had requested that the Department approve a system based upon the newly submitted design flow. The Department and Mr. Brown both agreed that this design flow was adequate; that it was reasonable to anticipate and provide for the treatment and disposal of a maximum of 2,160 gallons per day design flow. The effect of reducing the design flow and the number of seats was to allow a shortened drain field which could be accommodated by the size of the property the Inn was to be located on. On June 27, 1985, Mr. Vail arranged for a notice to be published in the Apalachicola Times. That notice provided, in pertinent part, the following: State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Notice of Proposed Agency Action on Permit Application The department gives notice of its intent to issue a permit to Jack Vail to construct a restaurant and on-site wastewater treatment and disposal system [sic] at Franklin Boulevard and Pine Avenue, St. George Island. The treatment consists of grease trap, septic tank, and sand filter followed by disposal into a drainfield. The project meets applicable standards and will not impair the designated use of the underlying ground water. There is no anticipated impact on surface waters or air quality. . . . . This notice was sent to Mr. Vail by the Department and he made arrangements for it to be published. Nowhere in the notice is it indicated that the system to be approved by the Department is for anything other than a restaurant. On July 11, 1985, less than four months after the Application was filed with the Department, the Department issued Permit Number DO19-101251 (hereinafter referred to as the "Permit"). In the cover letter sent with the Permit the Department indicated that the Permit allowed Mr. Vail "to construct and operate a 2,160 gallon per day, on-site wastewater treatment and disposal system serving St. George Inn Restaurant. . . ." The Department also indicates in the Permit that it is for the "St. George Inn Restaurant." The Permit also provides, in pertinent part, the following with regard to the purpose of the Permit: The above named applicant, hereinafter called Permittee, is hereby authorized to perform the work or operate the facility shown on the application and approved drawing(s), plans, and other documents attached hereto or on file with the department and made a part hereof and specifically described as follows: Construct and operate a 108 seat restaurant with an on-site wastewater treatment and disposal system. Wastewater flows shall be a maximum of 2,160 gallons per day generated by domestic facilities and kitchen wastes . . . Construction shall be in accordance with application dated March 18, 1985 and additional information submitted April 29, 1985, specifications and other supporting documents prepared by Brown and Associates and certified by Benjamin E. Brown, P.E. and submitted to the Department on June 5, June 17, and June 20, 1985. The Permit also contains the following "General Condition" number 2 and "Specific Condition" number 15: . . . . 2. This permit is valid only for the specific processes and operations applied for and indicated in the approved drawings and exhibits. Any unauthorized deviation from the approved drawings, exhibits, specifications, or conditions of this permit may constitute grounds for revocation and enforcement action by the department. . . . . 15. The Department shall be notified and prior approval shall be obtained of any changes or revisions made during construction. . . . . The Permit provides the following with regard to the effect of the conditions of the Permit: The terms, conditions, requirements, limitations, and restrictions set forth herein are "Permit Conditions", and as such are binding upon the permittee and enforceable pursuant to the authority of sections 403.161, 403.727, or 403.859 through 403.861, Florida Statutes. The permittee is hereby placed on notice that the Department will review this permit periodically and may initiate enforcement action for any violation of the "Permit Conditions" by the permittee . . . . During the week after the Permit was issued, Mr. Vail obtained a building permit from Franklin County for the construction of the "inn." In February, 1986, after construction of the Inn had begun, Department inspectors went to the construction site of the Inn. The Permit authorized this inspection and other inspections carried out by the Department. The Department determined that the Inn being constructed by Mr. Vail included a restaurant, an apartment on the third floor of the Inn with two bathrooms, and eight guest rooms on the second floor, each containing a bathroom. This was the first time that the Department knew that Mr. Vail's facility was to include guest rooms and living quarters in addition to containing a 108 seat restaurant. In March of 1986, the Department sent a warning letter to Mr. Vail notifying him of the violation of the General Conditions of his Permit: the use of the approved system for the treatment and disposal of wastewater from the ten bathrooms in the guest rooms and the two bathrooms in the apartment in addition to the 108 seat restaurant. On April 1, 1986, Department personnel met with Mr. Vail and Mr. Brown. The Department reminded Mr. Vail and Mr. Brown that the Permit requested and approved by the Department was for a 108 seat restaurant only. The Department had not authorized a system which was to be used for a 108 seat restaurant and ten additional bathrooms. Pursuant to General Condition 14, the Department informed Mr. Vail that it needed an engineer's evaluation of the ability of the system which had been approved to handle the additional flow which could be expected from the additional ten bathrooms. By letter dated April 1, 1986, the Department memorialized the meeting and indicated that Mr. Vail could operate a 100 seat restaurant and the apartment during the interim. By letter dated May 8, 1986, Mr. Brown asked for additional time to submit the evaluation requested by the Department. The Department approved this request by letter dated May 14, 1986. By letter dated May 16, 1986, Mr. Brown submitted an engineering evaluation which proposed modifications to the approved system to handle the additional ten bathrooms. By letter dated June 13, 1986, the Department indicated that the evaluation was generally acceptable" but requested additional information. In January, 1987, before the additional information was submitted, Mr. Brown died in an airplane accident. No evidence was presented to explain why the information requested by the Department in June of 1986 had not been submitted before January, 1987. In March, 1987, the Department inspected Mr. Vail's facility again. In April, 1987, the Department informed Mr. Vail that the Department would take action to revoke the Permit. Before the Administrative Complaint was issued, the Department requested that certain information be provided on behalf of Mr. Vail by an engineer in an effort to resolve the dispute. Mr. Vail did not, however, obtain the services of an engineer. Instead, Mr. Vail sent the Department information purporting to show the amount of water which had been used at the Inn. That information failed to prove the ability of the system that the Department had approved to handle the maximum wastewater which could be expected from maximum use of the 108 seat restaurant and ten additional bathrooms. At best, the information submitted by Mr. Vail is partial proof that the system is capable of handling the wastewater that has been generated at the Inn for the period of time for which the information relates. No competent substantial proof has been submitted to indicate that the system is capable of handling the maximum wastewater flows which may be experienced or even that the system is adequately handling the current flow. All that has been proved is that there is no apparent problem with the system in handling the current flow. In September, 1987, the Department issued the Administrative Complaint. Pursuant to this Complaint, the Department has sought the revocation of the Permit and prescribed certain orders for corrective action. No application has been submitted by or on behalf of Mr. Vail to the Department to construct and operate a wastewater treatment facility designed to accommodate the sewage flows which may be generated by the Inn as it has been constructed. Although the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and other agencies were aware that the Inn includes a restaurant and guest rooms, the Department was never so informed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a Final Order requiring that Mr. Vail comply with all of the corrective orders, except Paragraph 18, contained in the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NUMBER 87-4242 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which Proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 Conclusion of law. 2 1. 3 6. 4 10. 5 12 and 13. 6 14. 7 15. 8 18. 9 19. 10 20. 11-12 16. 13 21. 14 23. 15 24. 16 25. 17 26. 18-19 27. 20 28. 21 29 22 Hereby accepted. Mr. Vail's Proposed Findings of Fact 1A 15. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. Hearsay and irrelevant. Although technically true, this is not the issue in this case. The evidence did not prove that the system "can in actuality handle three times the amount permitted." Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. 2A Not supported be the weight of the evidence. Exhibit 6 indicates that the Department was aware that the Inn included "hotel rooms" but not the number. Irrelevant. The evidence did not prove that the Department was aware of the scope of the project. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 3A Irrelevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. Even if this were true, the fact remains that the Department was unaware that the Inn included guest rooms or an apartment. Irrelevant. 4A-B Irrelevant. 5A-B Irrelevant. 6A 2-4. B 5. 6 and 11. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 12. 13 and 15. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 7A-C Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. 8A-D Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. 9A-B Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. 10-12 Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard L. Windsor, Esquire State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Mr. John Vail St. George Inn Post Office Box 222 St. George Island, Florida 32328 Dale Twachtmann, Secretary State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issues in this case are: Whether Mr. Decker had an improperly maintained septic system on his property. Whether Mr. Decker illegally repaired his on-site sewage treatment and disposal system. Whether the Department of Health properly issued a citation to Mr. Decker for violation of Sections 381.0065(4) and 386.041(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On April 25, 1997, an employee of the Department of Health, Volusia County Health Department, David Stark, inspected Mr. Decker's property known as Bulow Creek Farm. Mr. Decker provides low-cost rental housing on this property which utilizes an onsite well to provide drinking water. Mr. Stark observed a wet area in the ground with the smell of sewage near the building identified as Apartment Building C, which houses seven (7) apartments. Mr. Stark identified this area as a sewage leak. On May 28, 1997, Mr. Stark returned to Mr. Decker's property with another Volusia County Health Department employee, Ed Williams. They both observed a wet area in the ground with the smell of sewage in the vicinity of the septic tank serving Apartment Building C. Mr. Stark identified this area as a sewage leak. Mr. Stark issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) to Mr. Decker which stated the raw sewage leak was a sanitary nuisance and provided that Mr. Decker should have his drainfield repaired in accordance with the repair permit Mr. Decker had previously obtained from the Department. The NOV stated the repair should be completed no later than June 11, 1997. A repair permit is valid for a period of eighteen (18) months. Mr. Decker's permit expired on April 20, 1997. Repairs must be inspected by the Department as they are made. On June 13, 1997, Mr. Stark mailed Mr. Decker a letter reiterating the need for repair of his septic system and enclosed a Notice of Intended Action giving Mr. Decker a deadline of June 20, 1997 to make the needed repairs. Mr. Stark received a letter dated June 29, 1997, from Mr. Decker, informing him that Mr. Decker, himself, had repaired the drainfield for Apartment Building C. The letter described the new tank and drainfield which Mr. Decker had installed, and Mr. Decker stated his repair was a "cheaper version of what you wanted me to do in the first place." Mr. Decker had not sought the required inspections for the repairs which he had made to the septic system, and the repairs were not inspected and approved by the Department. The Department cited Mr. Decker for having an improperly built or maintained septic system, and for failing to repair the system in accordance with the terms of the permit. The citation levied a $500 civil fine for Mr. Decker's violation.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department issue a final order affirming the civil penalty against Mr. Decker and requiring Mr. Decker to repair his septic system according to permit. If Mr. Decker fails to effect the repairs, the Department should initiate action to abate this public health hazard. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 6th day of March, 1998.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's applications for (1) a general permit to operate a used oil refining facility and 2) an operation permit to operate an industrial waste water treatment system, at the same facility, in conjunction with the used oil refining operation, should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Sometime in the 1950's George Davis, the owner and operator of Davis Refining Corporation, became interested in used oil recycling and refining. From that time on, Mr. Davis worked towards his dream of operating a used oil recycling and refining center by gradually accumulating the land and equipment to operate such a facility. In order to further his goal, Mr. Davis acquired property located at 2606 Springhill Road in Tallahassee, Florida. Eventually, Mr. Davis applied for a permit to construct an industrial waste water treatment system in conjunction with a used oil refining facility on the Springhill Road property. On January 21, 1986, the Department issued a construction permit to the Petitioner to modify and construct an industrial waste water treatment system. The construction permit was subsequently extended on three different occasions. The last extension, granted May 30, 1989, extended the construction permit to its full statutory limit of five (5) years. The final expiration date of the construction permit was January 20, 1991. Petitioner was notified of the expiration date by the Department. During the time of the construction permit, Mr. Davis constructed an industrial waste water treatment system and an oil recycling and refining facility on his property on Springhill Road. Less than sixty days prior to expiration of the construction permit for the industrial waste water treatment system, the Petitioner submitted an application for renewal of an operation permit. The Department received the application on January 10, 1991. Unfortunately, the application for renewal of an operation permit was not the correct form since the Petitioner never had an operation permit. The application was rejected by the Department because it was the incorrect form and did not have the required permit fee. In March of 1991, after the expiration of Petitioner's industrial waste water treatment construction permit, Petitioner filed the correct application for an industrial waste water treatment operation permit and submitted the required fee. The industrial waste water operation permit application was denied by the Department because it was incomplete and lacked the required reasonable assurances that the system would not be a source of pollution in violation of water quality standards or contrary to the public interest. On October 29, 1990, Petitioner submitted a Used Oil Recycling Facility General Permit Notification to the Department. By letter dated November 28, 1992, the Department timely denied use of a general permit to operate a Used Oil Recycling Facility because the application lacked the requisite reasonable assurances that the proposed operation of the facility would not discharge, emit, or cause pollution so as to violate water quality standards or be contrary to the public interest. Even though the construction permit has expired and no additional permits have been issued by the Department the Petitioner continues to accept used oil and oily industrial waste water from outside sources for treatment. Currently, the facility consists of a used oil refining plant, industrial waste water treatment system, and separator (coalescer) system and water treatment pond. Munson Slough separates the facility into two parts. The used oil refining portion of the facility together with the industrial waste water treatment system input and separator (coalescer) system are located on the east side of Munson Slough. The refining portion of the facility is immediately adjacent to the slough. The industrial waste water treatment pond is located on the west side of Munson Slough. The industrial waste water treatment pond is likewise immediately adjacent to the slough. The industrial waste water treatment system is an integral part of the used oil recycling operation. Used oil and oily waste water are accepted from outside sources and are put through the separator system to separate the oil from the water and other contaminants. The separated oil is then re-refined at the refinery. The remaining industrial wastewater contains oily materials, solids, and volatiles. The separated water is pumped through a pipe underneath Munson Slough to the industrial waste water treatment pond. Additionally, the surface and stormwater runoff from the refining facility on the east side of Munson Slough also goes through the same industrial waste water treatment system and is pumped into the waste water treatment pond. Runoff from the refinery contains various pollutants as well as pollutants from any spills occurring at the refinery. Both the general permit for the refining facility and the operation permit for the industrial waste water treatment system depend on the ability of the waste water treatment system and pond to adequately handle the waste water and runoff water from the refining facility without permitting leaks of the wastewater into the environment. The industrial waste water treatment pond is lined with soil cement. Soil-cement is not a common material used in the construction of industrial waste water pond liners and the Department's personnel is not familiar with the material and its ability to function as an adequate liner for an industrial waste water pond. The soil-cement is a sand-cement mix (10 percent). The sand-cement was intended to be layered to a depth of six inches on the sides and bottom of the pond. The evidence showed that portions of the liner achieve a six inch depth. However, the evidence did not show that the soil-cement's depth is consistent throughout the liner since no as-built plans or certification for the facility were submitted to the Department and the engineer for the project at the time of its construction was not called to testify on whether the pond was constructed according to the construction plans. The sand cement liner overlays a high clay content pond bottom. The estimated (not established) permeability rate of the sand-cement pond liner is 1/100,000,000 centimeters per second and is within the Department's parameters for the adequacy of a lining material if that material is shown to actually have such a permeability rate by the time the operation permit is applied for. No materials data was submitted to the Department which demonstrated that the sand- cement liner of the pond actually achieved the permeability rate of 1/100,000,000 centimeters per second or the deterioration rate of such a liner. Likewise, no expert witness was called to establish such facts. The small amount of information given the Department on the sand-cement liner in Petitioner's application for its construction permit for the facility is inadequate to establish the actual performance of the sand-cement liner for purposes of the operation permit. Water from the industrial waste water treatment pond is discharged to the City of Tallahassee's waste water treatment system. The City of Tallahassee requires the industrial waste water treatment pond water to be tested for water quality prior to discharge to the City's waste water treatment system. The City requires that the waste water pond be aerated for approximately four (4) hours before discharge to the City waste water treatment system. One function of the aeration is to "blow off" the volatile contaminants from a used oil refining operation which might be present in the ponds water prior to aeration. However, the results of one water quality test indicated the presence of volatile substances and nonvolatile substances consistent with petroleum product contamination. Unfortunately, the results of only one water quality test were presented at the hearing. No conclusions either for or against the Petitioner can be drawn from the results of one testing period. Therefore, such test results cannot be used to affirmatively establish reasonable assurances that the pond is not leaking. In an unprecedented effort to aid the Petitioner in getting approval of his applications, the Department agreed to accept Petitioner's submittals and assertions regarding the integrity of the pond's liner as reasonable assurance if several soil borings and their subsequent analyses did not reveal any indication of contamination from the pond to soil or ground water. One soil boring was obtained by Dr. Nayak and six soil borings were obtained jointly by Dr. Nayak and the Department from locations around the industrial waste water treatment pond for chemical analysis. Unfortunately, chemical analysis of the soil borings revealed the presence of contaminants consistent with contamination parameters for waste oil recyclers. Therefore leakage or improper discharge from the pond could not be ruled out and it fell to the Petitioner to demonstrate that the contamination found in the soil was not the result of leaks or discharge from the pond. Petitioner points to the fact that the pond is supposedly setting on an impermeable layer of clay. However, it is not unusual for the geological features of a site such as the one upon which the treatment pond is located to vary within the limited site area. The different sites of the soil borings around the pond revealed that the substrata differed between the bore sites. The Department's geological expert testified that, based upon his observation at the site, including observing and participating in the taking of soil samples from the borings, that groundwater contamination was likely. In short, it is impossible to determine the geological composition of the entire site by the one soil boring taken by Dr. Nayak or even by the six borings performed jointly by the parties. Dr. Nayak's testimony that he is able to determine the geological features of the pond site with one boring is not credible nor is Dr. Nayak qualified to make such an assessment even if such were an acceptable scientific method for making such determinations. Therefore, the evidence failed to demonstrate that the waste water pond is sited over an impermeable layer of clay. Moreover, even if it were, then any contaminated water improperly discharging through the bottom layer of the pond would migrate along the top of the clay until it reached Munson Slough and still be a pollution problem for water quality purposes. The Petitioner has not, at any time prior to or during the hearing, obtained any environmental background of the site. Nor was any such information introduced at the hearing. The on-site observation of the taking of soil bores, visual inspection of the site, and the chemical analysis of the soil samples taken from the borings are consistent with petroleum contamination resulting from the industrial waste water pond. There are procedures and courses of action which the Petitioner can pursue to address the apparent contamination problems and to demonstrate the reasonable assurances necessary to qualify for the required Department permit to operate the used oil recycling facility. The Department has made many suggestions to the Petitioner as to various methodologies that the Petitioner might employ in order to endeavor to provide reasonable assurances that the waste water treatment pond does not leak. These suggestions include emptying the pond and examining the liner, performing a materials balance calculation, or performing more soil borings sampling and testing, together with assembling additional hydrological data. However, other than chemical analysis of the soil borings, the Petitioner has not opted to pursue any suggested procedure for obtaining the desired permit and did not submit sufficient competent, substantial evidence of any credible or scientifically reasonable alternative explanations for the presence of indicator chemicals in the soil borings. In short, The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence nor provided any reasonable assurance that the operation of the used oil recycling facility will not discharge, emit or cause pollution. The Petitioner also has not provided reasonable assurance that the operation of the used oil recycling facility will not violate water quality standards or be contrary to the public interest. Similarly, there was insufficient evidence and no reasonable assurance submitted or offered by the Petitioner that the industrial waste water treatment system could be operated without violating water quality standards or being contrary to the public interest. Therefore Petitioner is not entitled to either a general permit for a used oil recycling facility or an operation permit for the industrial waste water treatment system used in conjunction with the used oil facility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is accordingly, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioner both the general permit to operate a used oil recycling facility and the operation permit for the industrial waste water treatment system without prejudice to reapplying for such permits. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of September, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of September, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-5140 and 92-1560 The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, and 29 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 11, 15, 27 and 30 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraph 10 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact were introductory and did not contain any factual matters. The facts contained in the 1st, 2nd and 7th sentences of paragraph 4 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence. The remainder of the paragraph is subordinate. The facts contained in the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th sentences of paragraph 5 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The remainder of the paragraph was not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in paragraphs 3, 6, 7, 10, 12 and 13 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in the 3rd and 5th sentences of paragraph 8 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence. The remainder of the paragraph is subordinate. The facts contained in the last sentence of paragraph 11 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence. The remainder of the paragraph is subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dr. S. K. Nayak 3512 Shirley Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Candi Culbreath, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue Whether the August 30, 1988 application of Petitioner James R. Regan for a permit to operate a wastewater (sewage) treatment facility should be granted in that Petitioner has provided reasonable assurances that the operation of the facility will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution in contravention of Department of Environmental Regulation standards or rules.
Findings Of Fact The sewage treatment plant that is the focus of this proceeding is "Weakley Bayou, Inc.," a corporation. The real property upon which it is located is owned by the wife of James R. Regan. Despite corporate status, Weakley Bayou, Inc. has been operated at the option and control of James R. Regan since its inception in the early 1970's. The permit application here at issue was made in Mr. Regan's name, and he has been treated as if he were the corporation throughout all stages of the permit process. Mr. Regan brought the Petition for Formal Hearing in his own name. He was also accepted as the qualified representative for himself and the corporation. "Weakley Bayou, Inc." is an aerobic gravity flow wastewater treatment plant located in Escambia County. In 1988 James R. Regan applied for a renewal of the operating permit for the facility. The Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) issued an Intent to Deny on December 16, 1988, based on agency perceptions derived from observations, monitoring of Petitioner- generated reports, and grab samples, that the facility did not meet the requirements set down in Rule 17-6 F.A.C. Specifically, the Intent to Deny focused on the following problems: A reclaimed water sample taken on December 6, 1988 revealed the facility was exceeding BOD5 (Biological Oxygen Demand) and TSS (Total Suspended Solids) limits in violation of specific condition number 17 of Permit Number D017-71682. The BOD5 was 232.8 mg/l and TSS was 1,430 mg/l. The same sampling showed the facility was exceeding 200/100 ml for fecal coliform in violation of specific condition number 17 of permit number D017-71682 and Rule 17- 6.180(1)(b)4.d., Florida Administrative Code. The fecal coliform was 79,000/100 ml. Ground water monitoring samples show the levels of nitrates in excess of 10 mg/l in well #l on two out of last four quarterly samples, which is in violation of Rule 17- 6.040(4)(q) paragraph 4.2, Florida Administrative Code. During the inspection on December 6, 1988, the sludge blanket in the clarifier was overflowing the weirs, solids had accumulated in the chlorine contact chamber and percolation ponds in violation of Rule 17- 6.110(3) and 17-6.180(2) (e) , Florida Administrative Code. Auxiliary electrical power is not provided as required by Rule 17-6.040(4) (c) and 17-6.110(3), Florida Administrative Code. The applicant was notified March 14, 1988, that emergency power would be required. During the period (1984-1988) that Petitioner's sewage treatment plant has been permitted by DER, it has been periodically inspected and the Petitioner's self-generated reports have been monitored. From time to time after inspections, Petitioner has been notified of pollution and contaminant hazards or violations pursuant to agency standards, which hazards or violations required corrections in order to retain his permit. Among these hazards and violations have been noted large sewage spills, overflows, poor equipment condition, and substandard plant operation. In most instances, Petitioner cooperated with DER and at least attempted to adjust the plant's operation to conform to the notifications. However, as of December 15, 1988, DER notified Petitioner of the following problems with the plant: sludge blanket in the clarifier overflowing the weir, solids accumulation in the chlorine contact chamber, solids accumulation in both percolation ponds, no auxiliary power on the site, and high levels of nitrates (6.9 ppm) in Monitoring well -1. DER's test of an effluent grab sample tested BOD at 232.8 mg/L and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) at 1430 mg/L. That is, samples taken by DER during an inspection indicated excessive levels of TSS, BOD, and fecal coliform, in violation of Chapter 403 F.S. and Chapter 17-6 F.A.C. Mr. Regan admitted that for approximately four years, broken and unrepaired pipes and fittings at his plant had caused sewage spills or overflows of approximately eight thousand gallons of sewage sludge. He contended that the surface enrichment around Monitoring Well #1 was caused by a separation of a two-inch PVC skimmer line which was corrected in March 1988. Although Mr. Regan established that the leak in the pipe had been repaired, the evidence does not permit a finding that this enrichment was solely from that source, that it will dissipate over a reasonable time, or that it has not polluted the ground water. 1/ Thus, there is no reasonable assurance that fixing the leak, by itself, protects the environment. Over a period of time, Petitioner's own groundwater monitoring reports showed excessive nitrate levels and these have worsened since late 1988, according to witness Ray Bradburn. Petitioner contended that a grab sample is not as accurate as a composite sampling. Although DER witnesses concur in this contention of Petitioner with regard to grab samples generally, and although one DER witness suggested that part of the December 1988 grab sample reading by itself would not cause him to deny the permit, no credible evidence disputes the accuracy of the December 6, 1988 grab sample as a grab sample.2/ Petitioner admitted that it was and continues to be his conscious management decision to keep the plant's auxiliary gasoline powered engine locked away from the plant site so as to discourage theft and vandalism, and so as to discourage childish curiosity which might expose Petitioner to liability. He was reluctant to secure the engine on the premises as a hedge against emergency shutdowns of the plant. Mr. Regan, upon advice of outside engineers, has attempted to correct many of the cited errors and omissions. However, notwithstanding the DER's express disapproval of such a method, Mr. Regan has instructed his plant operators to curtail the input of air from the plant's blower to the sewage at night so as to create a "belching" effect designed to clear out certain wastes and thereby attempt denitrification in the clarifier. DER witnesses did not explain in any detail why Regan's belching procedure was unacceptable except that addition of an expensive denitrification unit was preferable and constituted a "reasonable assurance," whereas Mr. Regan's method had not been demonstrated to be successful in the past. Mr. Regan, who bears the burden of proof in these proceedings, did not demonstrate that his "belching" system was a reasonable assurance of denitrification or offer expert witnesses to support such a theory. This sewage treatment plant is subject to a Notice of Violation which became final on September 21, 1989. 3/
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order denying the pending permit application. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of January, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 31st day of January, 1990.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to the grant of a variance for the installation of an onsite sewage disposal system ("OSDS") for his property on the Santa Fe River in Gilchrist County, Florida, in accordance with Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the owner of certain real property located in Gilchrist County, Florida, more particularly described as Lot 4, Unit 4, Ira Bea's Oasis, a subdivision. The evidence is not clear concerning whether the plat of the subdivision was actually recorded, although the evidence and the Petitioner's testimony indicates that the lots in the subject subdivision were subdivided in 1965. The evidence does not clearly reflect whether the subdivision was ever platted, however. On April 2, 1990, the Petitioner filed an application for an OSDS permit regarding the subject property. The application was for a new OSDS on the above-described property; and the system was intended to serve a single- family residence, which the Petitioner desires to construct on the subject property for a vacation and retirement home. The proposed residence would contain three bedrooms and a heated or cooled area of approximately 1,100 square feet. In the permit application process, at the Respondent's behest, the Petitioner had a survey performed by Herbert G. Parrish, registered land surveyor. That survey, in evidence as the Respondent's Exhibit 1, reveals a benchmark elevation of 21.65 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"). The proposed installation site is at an elevation of 22.5 feet above MSL. A report by the Suwannee River Water Management District, which is admitted into evidence and was submitted to the Respondent by the Petitioner with the application for the OSDS permit, shows a ten-year flood elevation for the subject property, and River Mile 10 of the Santa Fe River, at 31 feet above MSL. Thus, the subject property is located beneath the ten-year flood elevation. The property is also located within the regulatory floodway of the Santa Fe River, as that relates to required engineering certification and calculations being furnished which will assure that if OSDS's are constructed employing mounding or sand filters, and like constructions, that such related fill deposited on the property within the regulatory floodway will not raise the level of the "base flood" for purposes of the rules cited hereinbelow. No evidence of such certification by an appropriately-registered engineer was offered in this proceeding concerning the installation of a mounded system and its effect on the base flood level. The surface grade level of the subject property at the installation site is 9.5 feet below the ten-year flood elevation. The grade elevation of the subject property is also .5 feet below the "two-year flood elevation", and the property has been flooded once in the past three years and has been flooded approximately four times in the past 15 years. It has thus not been established in this proceeding that the property is not subject to frequent flooding. On April 18, 1990, the Respondent denied the Petitioner's application for an OSDS permit by letter of that date. The Petitioner did not make a timely request for a formal administrative hearing to dispute that denial. The Petitioner maintained at hearing that this was, in essence, because the Respondent's personnel informed him that he should seek a variance instead, which is what he did. The testimony of Mr. Fross reveals, however, that, indeed, he was advised of his opportunity to seek a variance but was also advised of his right to seek a formal administrative hearing to contest the denial of the permit itself. Nevertheless, either through the Petitioner's misunderstanding of his rights or because he simply elected to choose the variance remedy instead, the fact remains that he did not timely file a petition for formal proceeding to contest the denial of the OSDS permit itself. Even had a timely petition for formal proceeding concerning the denial of the OSDS permit application been filed, the evidence of record does not establish the Petitioner's entitlement to such a permit. As found above, the property lies beneath the ten-year flood elevation and, indeed, lies below the two-year flood elevation, which subjects the property to a statistical 50% chance of being flooded each year. This and the other findings referenced above indicate that the property has not been established to be free from frequent flooding; and although appropriate "slight-limited" soils are present at the proposed installation site, those soils only extend 50 inches below the surface grade. That leaves an insufficient space beneath the bottom of the drainfield trenches where they would be located so as to have a sufficient volume and distance of appropriate treatment soil available beneath the drain field, if one should be installed. Below 50 inches at the subject site is a limerock strata which is impervious and constitutes a barrier to appropriate percolation and treatment of effluent waste water. Thus, for these reasons, especially the fact that the property clearly lies beneath the ten-year flood elevation and because adequate proof in support of a mounded system which might raise a septic tank and drainfield system above the ten-year flood elevation has not been adduced, entitlement to the OSDS permit itself has not been established. Concerning the variance application actually at issue in this proceeding, the Petitioner has proposed, in essence, two alternative systems. The Petitioner has designed, and submitted as an exhibit, a plan for a holding- tank-type- system. By this, the Petitioner proposes a 250-gallon holding tank, with a venting pipe extending approximately three feet above the level of the ten-year flood elevation, with an attendant concrete retaining wall and concrete base to which the tank would be securely attached. The Petitioner thus postulates that flood waters would not move or otherwise disturb the holding tank and that he would insure that the holding tank was pumped out at appropriate intervals and the waste there from properly deposited at a treatment facility located above the ten-year flood elevation. The precise method of such disposal and its location was not disclosed in the Petitioner's evidence, however. Moreover, the testimony of Dr. Hunter establishes that the deposition of waste water and human waste into the tank, either through pumping, or by gravity line, if the residence were located at an elevation above the inlet to the tank, might well result in a hydraulic condition which would cause the untreated sewage to overflow from the vent pipe of the tank. Moreover, such systems do not insure that public health, the health of the occupants of the site, and ground or surface waters will not be degraded since it is very costly to pump such a tank out which would have to be done on a frequent basis. This leaves the possibility that the user of such a holding-tank-facility could surreptitiously drain the tank into nearby receiving waters or otherwise improperly empty the tank. Even though the Petitioner may be entirely honorable in his intentions and efforts in this regard and not violate the law and the rules of the above-cited chapter in his manner of disposal of the holding-tank effluent, there is no practical, enforceable safeguard against such illegal activity, especially if one considers that the property may later be conveyed to a different landowner and user of the system. The Petitioner also proposes in his testimony and evidence the possibility of using a nondischarging, composting-toilet-type system to handle sewage involving human excreta. Such a system has been shown by the Petitioner's evidence to adequately treat human sewage so that public health and the ground and surface waters involved in and near the site could be adequately safeguarded. The problem with such a system, however, is that the "gray water", that is, waste water from bathtubs, showers, lavatories and kitchens, cannot be disposed of in the composting-toilet system. Such gray water, which also contains viruses, coliform bacteria and nutrients, must be disposed of, according to the rules at issue, in an appropriate sewage disposal system, be it in a septic tank and drain field or through pumping to an appropriate disposal and treatment facility located above the ten-year flood elevation. The Petitioner's proof does not establish how such gray water could be appropriately and safely disposed of in the environmental and public health context at issue herein. Thus, the proposed alternatives suggested by the Petitioner's proof do not constitute minor deviations from the minimum requirements for OSDS's specified in Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code. Ironically, the composting-toilet system, coupled with a proper disposal system for household gray water, could constitute a reasonable alternative to a conventional system. Thus, the Petitioner's proof, itself, shows that a reasonable alternative may exist, which militates against the granting of the variance, although he did not prove how it could feasibly be accomplished. In summary, therefore, the Petitioner's proof failed to establish that no reasonable alternative exists and that the proposed system would only be a minor deviation from the minimum requirements of the Respondent's rules concerning OSDS's and their installation and operation. The Petitioner established that a reasonable alternative to a conventional OSDS might exist for purposes of granting an OSDS permit itself, had that issue been formally placed before the Hearing Officer, but did not prove how it could feasibly be accomplished and operated. This proof shows, however, that such a reasonable alternative might be found operable which, thus, fails to justify the granting of a variance based upon hardship. If the Petitioner could come forward with proof to establish the feasibility of disposal and treatment of the household gray water involved in an appropriate treatment and disposal site and facility above the ten-year flood elevation, in conjunction with use of a composting- toilet system, a later permit application might be entertained in which could be justified the granting of an OSDS permit.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Respondent denying the Petitioner's application for a variance from the statutory and regulatory requirements, cited above, for the issuance of permits. At such time as the Petitioner is able to show changed factual circumstances, as for instance, that a reasonable, feasible alternative system, which will adequately treat and dispose of all household waste water effluent in a manner comporting with the rules of Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, a permit application should be entertained. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 27th day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-4569 The Petitioner did not file proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-16. Accepted. 17. Rejected, as not supported by the preponderant evidence of record. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esq. General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Mark Moneyhan, pro se Route 3, Box 407 Perry, FL 32347 Frances S. Childers, Esq. Department of HRS District III Legal Office 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMENDED that the application of Jay Hall for a septic tank permit at Lot 1, Deerwood Estates, Baker County, Florida be DENIED. However, applicant should be given thirty days from date of the final order in this cause to raise the height of the system to Department recommended specifications. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Respondent HDR has applied to DER for a permit to construct a 60,000 gallon per day extended aeration sewage treatment plant with percolation ponds. The facility would be used to provide secondary treatment of domestic waste from the HDR Mobile Home Park. The project is in Volusia County south of the City of Oak Hill and north of the Town of Edgewater. It is bounded on the east side by the Indian River and the west side by U.S. Highway One. The mobile home project site consists of approximately 156 acres, with the proposed wastewater treatment plant located in the southwest corner of the tract. HDR submitted Application No. 85433 to DER on July 2, 1984, requesting a permit to construct a 0.6 MGD extended aeration sewage treatment plant and associated percolation ponds for the mobile home project. Supplemental information was filed with DER on August 29, 1984. DER issued a notice of intent to permit the project on November 8, 1984. The plant would provide secondary treatment of effluent with a minimum of 90 percent removal of BOD's and suspended solids through aeration, settling and chlorination processes. The system is designed to collect sewage through a gravity system and lift station. The lift station dumps the sewage into the aeration chambers where forced air is mixed with the sewage, resulting in removal of organic materials and solids. The dissolved solids are then separated in the settling tank. From the settling tank, clear effluent enters the chlorine contact chamber where chlorine disinfectant is added prior to discharge into the percolation pond. The method of treatment described above and the design of the plant are standard. If the plant is operated properly, the wastewater will meet all DER criteria for secondary sewage treatment. Plant odor will be minimized by the continual feed of forced air into the system. Silencers will be installed on blowers to minimize any adverse noise effects from the blowers' operation. Aerosol drift is not a factor with the design of this plant. Security lighting will be provided, and the plant site will be surrounded by a six foot security fence. The design provides for effluent sampling access points and there will be a flow meter for measuring effluent discharge on site. A Class C operator will be required to operate the plant. Disposal of the 90 percent treated effluent will be made into two percolation ponds. The ponds will be alternately loaded, with one pond being loaded for seven days and then resting seven days. The total surface area for the two ponds is approximately 130,000 square feet. The ponds are designed with berms of three feet with an emergency overflow one foot from the top of each berm. The two ponds together are designed to handle 200,000 gallons per day which would be the ultimate build out of this project. However, the maximum capacity of the initial phase of the wastewater treatment plant would be 60,000 gallons a day. Any expansion to the sewage treatment plant would require a separate permit. The overall elevation of the area where the ponds are to be located is approximately 14 feet above sea level. Each pond is designed so that the pond bottom is two feet above the underground water table level measured at the highest point for the rainy season. In a 100 year flood, it is expected that the effluent and water can be absorbed without an overflow. The mobile home park has a storm retention system in which any theoretical overflow would be caught. The soil type at the location of the percolation ponds consists of several layers of sands. This type of soil has good permeability in that it provides a good transfer of water through the soil and is therefore suitable for siting of the percolation ponds. Pond design is conservative in that the hydraulic loading rate has a safety factor of at least 300 percent. Once the effluent has percolated into the ponds, the discharge will meet or exceed the level of quality of the G-2 ground water within the 100 foot zone of discharge. The design of the wastewater treatment plant also includes sufficient monitoring wells and provides for adequate buffer zones from residences and drainage ditches. No surface waters of the state are located within 500 feet of the sewage treatment plant or its percolation ponds. The Indian River, which is adjacent to the Hacienda Del Rio project, is approximately 2,500 feet from the sewage treatment plant. There will be no direct discharge by the sewage treatment plant into this body of water or any surface waters, nor would any indirect effect on surface waters be measurable. Shellfish harvesting is a local industry. The waters of the Indian River immediately east of the Hacienda Del Rio property are designated Class II waters suitable for shellfish harvesting. The Indian River is also part of the Canaveral National Seashore Waters, which are designated as Outstanding Florida Waters. Concern was expressed that additional growth in the area might contribute to degradation of these Class II waters. There was, however, no evidence to indicate that the construction or implementation of the wastewater treatment plant by HCD would degrade ore pollute the Indian River (which is both Class II and Outstanding Florida Water) or any other State of Florida surface waters. It should be noted that waters north and south of the property in the Indian River are closed to shellfish harvesting, apparently due to pollution. The Town of Edgewater north of the Hacienda Del Rio project has a secondary wastewater treatment plant which discharges its effluent directly into the Indian River. The City of Oak Hill to the south of the project has no wastewater treatment plant whatsoever. Individual businesses and homes utilize septic tanks, which can cause pollution to the Indian River through seepage. The HDR sewage treatment plant would thus meet higher standards than neighboring community facilities.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue a Final Order granting the application of Hacienda Del Rio. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Betty J. Steffens, Esquire NABORS, GIBLIN & STEFFENS, P.A. 102 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William C. Henderson, Esquire HENDERSON & HENDERSON, P.A. Post Office Box 1840 New Smyrna Beach, Florida 32070 B. J. Owens, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alva Stewart, Vice President South Waterfront Park Homeowners Association 150 Charles Street Edgewater, Florida 32032 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact J. Armand Martin is the owner of a lot located in Pasco County, Florida, which includes an island surrounded by a body of water known as Sleepy Lagoon and a 15-foot strip of land on the mainland. This case arose out of Martin's efforts to develop this lot and construct a personal residence on the island. Residential dwellings surround the lagoon and Martin's island. In order to build a residence on the island, Martin had to install a septic tank. To install a septic tank Martin had to apply for a permit to install an individual sewage disposal system. It was Martin's original intent to locate the sewage treatment facility on the mainland and pipe the sewage over the bridge he planned to build to access his island. Martin made application for the required septic tank permit to the Pasco County Health Department. The inspector from the Pasco County Health Department was taken aback by the situation she encountered when she did the preliminary inspection and called in her supervisor, Donald Van Kampers, for assistance. Van Kampers eventually inspected the island and suggested that Martin put his individual sewage disposal system on the island itself, pointing out that because the island was so low the installation would probably have to include a sand filter system and possibly a chlorinating system. Van Kampers also advised Martin that he would have to seek a variance from the Staff Director of the Health Program Office pursuant to Rule 10D-6.21, Florida Administrative Code, because the island was so narrow that the system would be within 50 feet of the lagoon's waters contrary to Rule 10D-6.24(4), Florida Administrative Code. Martin received assistance from Van Kampers on his application for the variance. This application called for the filing of a site plan drawn to scale. In addition to being surrounded by Sleepy Lagoon, Martin's island circumscribes a small body of water variously referred to as a pond, lagoon and even "wetlands." Martin transmitted to Van Kampers a surveyor's drawing of his island which did not show the island's own small body of water. In an effort to assist Martin, Van Kampers filled in the proposed location of Martin's house and the individual sewage disposal system (septic tank with sand filter) on this surveyor's drawing, attached it to Martin's request for a variance and forwarded it to the Staff Director for the Health Program Office together with a recommendation of approval by the Pasco County Health Unit. This drawing did not show the body of water on the island. The Staff Director forwarded the application to the Review Committee which he appoints to review applications for variances. There is no evidence that Martin saw this drawing prior to the Review Committee's approval of the variance which, with the affirmative recommendation of the Pasco County Health Unit, was summarily granted. Subsequently, several of the residents surrounding Sleepy Lagoon and Martin's island became concerned about the potential problems which Martin's individual sewage disposal system would have on their lagoon, its environment and its ecology. Their complaints eventually came to the attention of the Staff Director of the Health Program Office, who in turn forwarded the matter to John Heber, the Department's representative to the Review Committee, for investigation. Heber conducted a personal inspection of Martin's island and compared it with the drawing filed by Van Kampers in Martin's behalf. Heber found that according to the drawing the individual sewage disposal system would be located in the middle of the water on Martin's island. Having made this discovery, Heber initiated actions which resulted in the Issuance of an Administrative Complaint to have the variance issued Martin rescinded. The Administrative Complaint alleged that Martin had "misrepresented" facts on his application for the variance by not showing the water on his island. Martin made a timely request for a formal hearing on the allegations. Martin did not fill out the drawing which accompanied his application. It was filled out by Van Kampers, who did not draw in the island's water and put the individual sewage disposal system in the middle of where the water is currently located. Van Kampers and his supervisor, both of whom visited the island, did not consider the water on the island subject to the rules which call for the reporting of lakes, streams or canals. See Rule 10D-6.23(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code. In regard to their classifications of surface waters, they are the officials charged under the regulatory scheme with determining when applicants must seek a variance. Applicants must seek a variance when, like Martin, their septic tanks are too close to certain surface waters. See Rule 10D-6.24(4), Florida Administrative Code. Clearly, they determine when a permit will be issued, when an applicant is required to seek a variance, and what waters must be reported on the scale drawing. In the instant case they classified Sleepy Lagoon as protected waters requiring Martin to seek a variance and the water on the is land as unprotected waters not requiring their inclusion on the drawing, because they determined the water was not a lake, stream or canal. The facts show that this water is not a lake, stream or canal. Under the Department's policy a sewage system can only be constructed as drawn and presented in the application for a variance. If the system in question were constructed, it would require the filling of the area where the water is located. The drawing accurately reflects the post-construction situation with the water not shown.
Recommendation The foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law show J. Armand Martin did not misrepresent his application; therefore, the facts of the allegation are not proven, and the variance should not be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of April, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara Dell McPherson, Esquire Department of HRS 2255 East Bay Drive Post Office Box 5046 Clearwater, Florida 33518 Mr. J. Armand Martin 4 Sunset Boulevard Bailey's Bluff Tarpon Springs, Florida 33589
