The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) should grant the Petitioner's applications, filed under F.A.C. Rule 10D-6.045, for variances from the F.A.C. Rule 10D-6.046(1)(c) requirement that on-site treatment and disposal systems (OSTDS's) be placed no closer than 200 feet from public drinking water wells serving a facility with a sewage flow of more than 2,000 gallons per day (gpd).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Joseph DiGerlando, owns three lots (1, 2 and 26) in the San Remo subdivision in Hillsborough County, which was platted in 1977. There is a public water well located between lots 1, 2 and 26. The well serves the entire San Remo subdivision, a 55-lot residential development having a total sewage flow much greater than 2,000 gallons per day (gpd) (although the sewage flow from homes built on lots 1, 2 and 26 can be expected to total no more than approximately 1350 gpd.) There is no way for the Petitioner to construct an on-site sewage treatment disposal system (OSTDS) on each of the three lots so that no part of any OSTDS will be closer than 200 feet from the San Remo well, measured horizontally across the ground surface to the well head. Measuring horizontally across the ground surface to the well head: an OSTDS on lot 1 could be placed no farther than 156 feet from the well; an OSTDS on lot 2 could be placed no farther than 184 feet from the well; according to drawings in the Petitioners' application, an OSTDS on lot 26 could be placed no farther than approximately 185 feet from the well. (Although lot 26 is larger than the others, it is contiguous to a surface water body, and the required setback from the surface water body decreases the area available for siting an OSTDS on the lot. The evidence was not clear exactly how far an OSTDS on lot 26 would be from the San Remo well.) HRS concedes: (1) that requiring 200-foot setbacks from the San Remo well will place the Petitioner under a hardship that was not caused intentionally by his own actions; and (2) that no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of sewage on his lots 1, 2 and 26. (It is not clear how or why HRS determined that utilization of a joint OSTDS to serve all three lots through the imposition of cross-easements on the lots would not be a reasonable alternative to at least one or two of the variance applications.) The San Remo well, which is 400 feet deep, has a steel casing from the surface of the well to 100 feet below the ground surface. The steel casing prevents the entry of ground water into the well above the bottom of the casing. If the distances between the proposed OSTDS's and the San Remo well were measured diagonally, through the ground, from the proposed OSTDS's to the bottom of the steel casing of the well: the proposed OSTDS on lot 1 would be 185 feet from the well; the proposed OSTDS on lot 2 would be 209 feet from the well; and the proposed OSTDS on lot 26 would be even farther from the well. (The evidence was not clear exactly how much farther.) In fact, due to the draw-down effect of the well, the path groundwater would travel from the proposed OSTDS's to the bottom of the steel casing of the San Remo well would curve upward somewhat from, and be somewhat longer than, the diagonal line running directly between those two points. (The evidence is not clear exactly how much longer the curved path would be.) If the distances between the proposed OSTDS's and the San Remo well were measured first horizontally across the ground surface to the well head and then vertically down to the bottom of the steel casing of the well: the proposed OSTDS on lot 1 would be 253 feet from the well; the proposed OSTDS on lot 2 would be 281 feet from the well; and the proposed OSTDS on lot 26 would be even farther from the well. (Since the bottom of the OSTDS's will be three feet below the ground surface, the vertical component of the measurement is only 97 feet instead of the full 100 feet between the well head and the bottom of the casing.) When applying the HRS rules on distances required between OSTDS's and existing public water wells, HRS measures from the OSTDS horizontally across the ground surface to the well. The evidence was that HRS's method of measurement is consistent both with the methods used by the federal EPA and with the scientific data on which the technical advisory board based the distances in the HRS rules. The Petitioner's expert witness testified that there is a 17-foot thick layer of sand and clay between 53 and 70 feet below the ground surface in the vicinity of the San Remo well and that the sand and clay layer would prevent contamination from the OSTDS's from reaching the bottom of the steel casing of the well. (He also testified that is a white lime rock layer between 70 and 90 feet below the ground surface and inferred that the white lime rock layer would add some degree of protection.) The opinions of the Petitioner's expert are accepted. Petitioner's expert is a civil, sanitary and environmental engineer, not a geologist or hydrogeologist; however, his experience is in the area of wastewater treatment and disposal is extensive. Meanwhile, HRS presented no competent evidence whatsoever to contradict the Petitioner's expert. The Petitioner proposes to use Norweco Singulair Bio-Kinetic Waste Water Treatment Systems. These systems treat waste better than a standard septic tank system. Instead of the single septic tank, they have three distinct chambers: first, a retreatment chamber; second, an aeration chamber to reduce biological oxygen demand (BOD) and total dissolved solids (TDS); and, finally, a clarification or filter chamber that further reduces BOD and TDS. With the proposed systems, BOD and TDS will be reduced to approximately a fourth of the BOD and TDS levels that would enter the drainfield from a septic tank system. In addition, unlike in a septic tank system, the proposed systems utilize chlorine tablets in conjunction with the clarification chamber to kill bacteria and viruses. It is found that the evidence presented in this case, taken as a whole (and in particular in the absence of any competent evidence to contradict the credible opinions of the Petitioner's expert) was sufficient to prove that the proposed OSTDS's would not adversely affect the health of members of the public. Except for a fleeting reference in its Proposed Recommended Order, HRS has not taken the position that the Petitioner's proposed OSTDS's will significantly degrade the groundwater or surface waters. The reference in the Proposed Recommended Order would seem to reflect that HRS's concern about the impact of the Petitioner's proposed OSTDS's on groundwater quality is limited to its public health concerns.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) enter a final order granting the Petitioner's applications for variances, on the condition that the Petitioner utilizes the proposed Norweco Singulair Bio- Kinetic Waste Water Treatment Systems. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-6483 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted but conclusion of law, subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. 3.-6. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as to "significantly degrade the groundwater or surface waters"; HRS did not make this an issue, except with respect to public health concerns. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. However, accepted that HRS presented no evidence sufficient to support a finding on the issue. See Section 120.58(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1994). Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as to "relevant criteria"; not proven and as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted but conclusion of law, subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. 3.-7. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as contrary to facts found and as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (As found, HRS did not contend that the Petitioner's OSTDS's would "significantly degrade the groundwater or surface waters." HRS only raised this issue with respect to public health concerns.) 10.-12. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (These were hearsay statements that were not sufficient to support findings as to the matters asserted. See Section 120.58(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1994).) COPIES FURNISHED: Raymond R. Deckert, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 4000 W. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33614 Nelson D. Blank, Esquire Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin Frye, O'Neill & Mullis, P.A. 2700 Barnett Plaza 101 E. Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33601-1102 Robert L. Powell Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Kim Tucker, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Kamran Khajeh-Noori, who does business as Khajeh-Noori Laboratory, transacts that business at 2742 North Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida. Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, is an agency of State government whose principal business is at 1323 Winewood Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has promulgated a Rule 10D-41.60, Florida Administrative Code, which allows the revocation, suspension, limitation, annulment or denial of renewal of the certification of various laboratories based upon certain stated reasons. In particular, the rule states: Denial or Revocation of Certification. A laboratory certification may be denied, revoked, suspended, limited, annulled or renewal denied for any or all of the following reasons: Making false statements on an application or on any document associated with certification. Demonstrating incompetence or making consistent errors in analyses. Permitting unauthorized personnel to perform analyses. Falsifying the results of analyses. Failure to employ approved labora- tory methodology in the performance of analyses required by the Act. Failure to properly maintain facilities and equipment. Failure to properly report analytical test results or to maintain required records of test results. Failure to participate success- fully in the DHRS performance evaluation and/or quality control program. Violating or aiding and abetting in the violation of any provision of these regulations or the rules promulgated here- under. The stated specific authority for this rule is Section 403.863, Florida Statutes, and the rule purports to implement that same provision of law. Section 403.863, Florida Statutes, is part of the Florida Safe Drinking Water Act. Petitioner, through his laboratory, was engaged in the business of analyzing water samples prior to the enactment of the Florida Safe Drinking Water Act. Following that enactment and the adoption of certification rules by the Department, he received a certificate from HRS to continue the operation of his water testing laboratory. In keeping with the various provisions found in Chapter 10D-41, Florida Administrative Code, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has conducted surveys of the Khajeh-Noori Laboratory and subsequent to those surveys has filed an Administrative Complaint under the authority of Rule 10D-41.60, Florida Administrative Code. This Administrative Complaint has been the subject of a formal hearing in State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Kamran Khajeh-Noori d/b/a Khajeh-Noori Laboratory, DOAH Case No. 81- 2979. That hearing was held on the same date as the present matter, that is August 11, 1982. The possible outcome of that proceeding might lead to the revocation, suspension, or annulment of the certification granted Khajeh-Noori Laboratory, thereby prohibiting the performance of those activities allowed by his certificate.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) is currently engaged in widening State Road (SR) 5, the Overseas Highway, to four lanes on Marathon Key. To handle surface water runoff from a portion of the project, DOT received approval from the South Florida Water Management District for a surface water management system which included two retention ponds (west pond and east pond) to be located on Marathon Airport.1 On May 23, 1985, DOT filed an application with DER for authorization to construct four Class V, group five stormwater drainage wells within the retention ponds on Marathon Airport. DOT proposed to locate three wells within the west pond and one well within the east pond to comply with a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) request that water levels be minimized to deter the attraction of birds which could present a hazard to aircraft navigation. By letter dated August 12, 1985, DER forwarded to DOT permit number US44-104852, dated July 26, 1985, for construction of the subject wells. Upon its receipt of the permit, DOT let the contracts for the widening of SR 5; however, neither DER nor DOT published notice of DER's intent to issue the requested permit. On November 29, 1985, a few days after he received actual notice that the permit had been issued, Robert C. Ernst filed a request for hearing with DER contesting its issuance. Mr. Ernst owns a home which lies atop the groundwaters to be impacted by the subject permit and which abuts Dodge Lake, a Class III surface water body; Mr. Ernst uses the waters of Dodge Lake for swimming, fishing, and other recreational pursuits. On December 20, 1985, Mr. Ernst and others, on behalf of Neighbors for Clean Canals (NCC), filed a request for hearing challenging the same permit. NCC was alleged to be a neighborhood association, formed December 17, 1985, to represent the interests of property owners affected by the proposed project; however, no such proof was offered at hearing. The retention ponds proposed by DOT are designed to accommodate the first inch of stormwater runoff.2 Significantly, the first 1/2" of runoff from a highway system contains the bulk of pollutants. By retaining this runoff, and permitting it to evaporate or percolate through the soils underlying the retention ponds, any adverse impact to the ground waters is minimized. DOT's proposal to install four injection wells within the ponds will deprive them of their retention capability. These wells will, within a 12-20 hour period, inject the first 1/2" of runoff (over 1 million gallons) directly into the groundwaters. Therefore, evidence of the nature of the pollutants, the quality of the receiving waters, and the geologic and hydrologic qualities of the area are significant. Highway runoff contains high concentrations of pollutants ranging from toxic mutagenic and carcinogenic substances such as heavy metals (primarily lead and zinc), pesticides, and herbicides to oxygen consuming materials and solids which cause damages such as siltation and eutrophication. These pollutants, including oils, greases, and copper, can have significant adverse effects upon the quality of the receiving waters and the life forms it supports. Underlying the proposed retention ponds is an aquaclude which extends from the surface to a depth of 30-40 feet. This aquaclude, a hard layer formation with very poor percolation qualities, will preclude any waters injected below it from returning to the surface and will direct their flow laterally. Since the maximum depths of Dodge Lake and the 100th Street Canal are 13' and 21' respectively, injection of the stormwater runoff at 50', well below the existing aquaclude, provides reasonable assurances that these water bodies will not be adversely impacted by the proposed project. However, the impacts to the groundwater and other water bodies is not so clear. Other than sampling the groundwater to establish its character as Class III groundwater,3 DOT and DER did not perform any water quality analysis. Accordingly, the existing quality of the receiving groundwaters was not shown. Further, there was no showing of the hydrologic characteristics of the area. Therefore, there was no evidence of the mixing or dilution of the contaminants which would be injected, or of their ultimate point(s) of discharge into the surface waters surrounding Marathon Key.4 DOT and DER assert that "specific conditions" #4 and #5 attached to the subject permit will provide assurances that injection of the stormwater runoff will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards. Those conditions provide: The following parameters shall be sampled at Well W-2 Florida Department of Transportation drawing sheet 3 of 5 and Well E-1 Florida Department of Transportation drawing sheet 4 of 5 and reported quarterly to the Department ninety (90) days following certification and placement of this facility in operation. The parameters to be sampled are: Napthalene, Lead and volatile organic compounds including: Trichloroethylene, Tetrachloroethylene, Carbon Tetrachloride, Vinyl Chloride, 1,1,1,-Trichloroethane, 1,2- Dichloroethane, Benzene, and Ethylene Dibromide. The discharge authorized by this permit shall be consistent at all times with the water quality standards set forth in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. Should conditions in the receiving stream warrant, the Permittee may be required by the Department to upgrade, reduce, or cease the discharge approved by this permit and adopt an alternative method of disposal within a reasonable period of time. Under specific condition #4, the ground waters will be sampled at one injection well within each of the retention ponds. Without evidence of the mixing and flow characteristics of the groundwater, the reliability of the proposed monitoring program is questionable since it was not shown where, transitionally or ultimately, the pollutants would settle. Absent such proof, there is no evidence that the wells are sited so as to detect any water quality violations. Therefore, specific conditions #4 and #5 do not provide reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards.
Conclusions The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings. Petitioners, Robert C. Ernst and Neighbors for Clean Canals (NCC), pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, contest the decision of DER to issue a permit to DOT to construct four Class v, group five-stormwater drainage wells. Pertinent to this proceeding, Section 120.57 provides: The provisions of this section apply in all proceedings in which the substantial interests of a party are determined by an agency. When standing is resisted, as it is in this proceeding, the burden is on the protestant to prove standing. State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, v. Alice P., 367 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, does not attempt to define substantially affected persons. The Florida courts have, however, adopted the federal "injury-in-fact" and "zone of interest" tests governing standing. Montgomery v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 468 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 1st DCA) 1985). Under this two-prong test, a person is substantially affected if he can demonstrate that he will suffer "injury-in- fact" which is of sufficient immediacy to entitle him to relief and the injury is of a type or nature which the proceeding is designed to protect (the "zone of interest"). Where, as here, an association institutes a proceeding on behalf of its members, it can be accorded standing only when it demonstrates that a substantial number of its members, although not necessarily a majority, are substantially affected by the proposed agency action, the nature of the injury is of a type which the proceeding is designed to protect: and, the relief requested is of a type appropriate for an association to receive on behalf of its members. See Florida Home Builders Assoc. v. Department of Labor and Employment Security, 412 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1982). Mr. Ernst has demonstrated his standing to maintain this action. His home lies atop the groundwaters to be impacted by the proposed project and he uses the waters proximate to the proposed wells which could be adversely impacted if the wells were not properly constructed or sited. NCC failed, however, to demonstrate its standing since it failed to offer any evidence that a substantial number of its members could be substantially affected by the proposed project or that the interest sought to be protected was within the association's general scope of interest and purpose. Although Mr. Ernst has demonstrated standing, DOT asserts that his petition was untimely since it was filed more than three months after DOT received its permit. DOT's assertion is without merit. It is established law that persons whose substantial interests may be affected by proposed agency action must be accorded a point of entry into the proceedings. See Capeletti Brothers, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 362 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Until accorded notice, actual or constructive, such person has not been offered a point of entry. Rule 17-103.150, F.A.C., provides a method to assure constructive notice is given to all substantially affected persons, and to limit the time within which a request for an administrative hearing may be filed. That rule provides that each person who filed an application for a DER permit may publish a notice of proposed agency action in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the activity will be located. If notice is published, a person whose substantial interests might be affected by the proposed action must file his request for hearing within 14 days of the date of publication. Significantly, the rule also provides: Since persons whose substantial interests are affected by a Department decision on a permit application may petition for an administrative proceeding within fourteen (14) days after receipt of notice and since, unless notice is given or published as prescribed in this rule, receipt of notice can occur at any time, the applicant or persons benefiting from the Department's action cannot justifiably rely on the finality of the Department's decision without the notice having been duly given or published. DOT elected not to publish notice under the provisions of Rule 17-103.150, F.A.C., and cannot justifiably rely on the finality of DER's decision. Mr. Ernst's petition for hearing, filed within a few days of his receipt of notice, was timely. 5 DER has jurisdiction over the permitting of the proposed four Class V, group five-stormwater drainage wells pursuant to Section 403.087, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 17-4 and 17-28, F.A.C. A party seeking approval to inject stormwater drainage into Class G-III water must provide reasonable assurances that the project will not violate water quality standards set forth in Rule 17-3.402(1), F.A.C. That rule provides: All ground water shall at all places and at all times be free from domestic, industrial, agricultural, or other man-induced non- thermal components of discharges in concentrations which, alone or in combination with other substances, or components of discharges (whether thermal or non-thermal): Are harmful to plants, animals, or organisms that are native to the soil and responsible for treatment or stabilization of the discharge relied upon by Department permits or Are carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, or toxic to human beings, unless specific criteria are established for such components in Rule 17-3.404: or Are acutely toxic to indigenous species of significance to the aquatic community within surface waters affected by the ground water at the point of contact with surface waters or Pose a serious danger to the public health, safety, or welfare; or Create or constitute a nuisance or Impair the reasonable and beneficial use of adjacent waters. DOT has failed to provide reasonable assurances that the proposed stormwater discharge will not cause or contribute to a violation of the groundwater standards set forth in Rule 17-3.402(1), Florida Administrative Code. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order: Dismissing the petition for hearing filed by Neighbors for Clean Canals, and Denying the issuance of permit number US44-104852 to the Department of Transportation. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 16th day of April, 1986.
Findings Of Fact By letter dated August 10, 1979, Indian River County (hereafter "County") submitted to the Department of Environmental Regulation (hereafter "Department" or "DER") applications for construction permits for the Gifford Area sewer treatment plant and collection improvements thereto, a domestic wastewater treatment and disposal system located in the County. (DER Exhibits Nos. 1 & 2). After receiving the permit applications submitted by the County, the Department's Orlando District Office requested additional information to determine whether reasonable assurances were provided that the facility would not discharge, emit or cause pollution in violation of Department standards. (Testimony of William Bostwick; testimony of Chancellor; DER Exhibits Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8). The County, through its consulting engineers Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc., responded to the Department's requests for additional information. (DER Exhibits Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8). The Department presented testimony of two professional engineers in its employ, Mr. William M. Bostwick and Mr. Gerald Chancellor, both of whom were accepted as expert witnesses in the field of sewage treatment technology and the processing and evaluation of permit applications for sewage treatment plants. Both witnesses testified that in their expert and professional opinion, based on their review of all plans, test results and other information submitted by the County, the applicant provided the Department with reasonable assurances that the proposed construction and operation of the sewage treatment facility and its collection system would not discharge, emit or cause pollution in violation of Department standards. (Testimony of Bostwick; testimony of Chancellor). The standards applicable to the subject construction permit applications involve (a) treatment level and (b) ambient standards of the receiving waters. The proposed system provides a minimum of ninety (90) percent treatment to incoming wastewaters. Because of the added features of surge tanks, gas chlorination, and dual blowers and motors, the ninety (90) percent minimum treatment was expected to be exceeded. (Testimony of Bostwick; testimony of Chancellor). The secondarily treated effluent from the proposed sewage treatment plant will be dispersed by spray irrigation. Because the effluent is expected to percolate to area groundwaters, the ambient groundwater standards of Section 17-3.101, Florida Administrative Code are applicable. The discharge from the facility will not cause any violation of the groundwater quality standards of the Florida Administrative Code. (Testimony of Bostwick; testimony of Chancellor; testimony of Aront). Although the design of the plant does not contemplate surfacewater discharge, if it did, it would meet the waste load allocation of Indian River County which permits discharge to surfacewaters. When the treated waste leaves the sprinkler head, it will meet secondary water treatment standards. (Testimony of Bostwick; testimony of Chancellor). In the course of evaluating a permit application for a wastewater treatment plant, the Department considers only Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and its implementing rules and regulations and does not consider local issues relating to zoning, the propriety of expenditure of public funds or the like. (Testimony of Bostwick). There is presently no state standard regulating permissible levels of viruses in effluent discharged to either surface of groundwaters. Large numbers of viruses exist in the effluent discharged from spray irrigation treatment plants which operate at a ninety (90) percent treatment level. The viruses contained in the discharge remain viable as they percolate through the soil. The greatest concern exists when humans are in physical contact with such discharge. However, the present sewage treatment facility in its existing condition is a greater threat to public health than the proposed spray irrigation system. (Testimony of Dr. Welling, Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 1, 2 & 3). Research concerning viral standards for effluent discharge is in an experimental stage. The Department is examining this question for possible future rule drafting. Neither the federal government nor any state, with the exception of Maryland, has adopted viral standards. (Testimony of Welling) The design of Use Gifford plant contemplates a series of perimeter monitoring wells through which groundwater samples can be attained and tested for compliance with groundwater standards end the presence of viruses. (Testimony of Aront) The plant will spray irrigate effluent at the rate of one (1) inch per week. Although surface run off is not expected, any that occurs due to heavy rains, etc., will be discharged into a perimeter ditch surrounding the plant. The plant design is formulated to retain effluent on site. (Testimony of Chancellor). There are four (4) different types of soil on the site with a water permeability of moderately rapid to very rapid. These soils have a percolation rate which makes the site suited for the intended purpose provided surface drainage is obtained. On a conservative basis the site could accept up to fourteen (14) inches of water per day or ninety-eight (98) inches per week. (Testimony of Connell; testimony of Eng; DER Exhibit No. 6). The parties stipulated prior to the hearing to the following: The project complies with local zoning laws; and The applicable provisions of law are Sections 403.086, 403.087, 403.088, Florida Statutes, and Rules 17-3.091, 17-4.03, 17-4.07 and 17-4.26, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department issue a construction permit to the County on condition that sample effluent from the monitoring wells on the subject facility be regularly analyzed for compliance with Department rules and the existence of infectious viruses. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1980, at Tallahassee, Florida 32301. SHARYN SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 COPIES FURNISHED: Sherman N. Smith, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 1030 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 George G. Collins, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 3686 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Segundo J. Fernandez, Esquire Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On July 5, 1978, Gulfside applied to DER for the issuance of a permit to operate a wastewater treatment plant on property owned by it on Perdido Key in Escambia County, Florida. The proposed plant is designed to serve a condominium complex consisting of 64 units, with the expectation that 350 gallons of water per day per unit will be discharged into the system, thus requiring a minimum plant capacity of 22,400 gallons per day. The plant described in the application has a capacity to handle 24,000 gallons per day. The proposed plant will use an extended aeration process whereby effluent is routed from the individual units through a filter within the proposed plant and then discharged into two percolation ponds associated with the facility. The plant is designed to remove 90 percent of B.O.D. and suspended solids. In addition, the plant is designed with duplex blowers and pumps to insure continued operation in the event of failure of one of the units. An emergency generator is included to provide back-up power for the entire plant, including blowers, pumps and chlorinators. Perdido Key, where the proposed plant is to be located, is a barrier island located off the coast of Escambia County, Florida, near the Florida- Alabama border. There is substantial residential development presently on Perdido Key, but no central sewer system exists to service the area. Currently, only septic tanks and package sewer plants are available for waste treatment purposes on the island. Adjacent to Perdido Key is Old River, which has been classified a Class III water. Soils on Perdido Key are primarily sandy, and as a result, have a high percolation rate. The problem of high percolation rate through the soils of Perdido Key was adequately addressed by Gulfside in the design of percolation ponds associated with the proposed plant. The two percolation ponds are designed to be located at a minimum of four feet elevation above maximum high ground water level. In fact, during DER's review of this application, Gulfside agreed to raise the bottom elevation of these percolation ponds in response to a concern regarding their initial location in close proximity to the water table. The problem of the expected fast percolation rate was addressed in designing the size of these percolation ponds, and also taken into consideration in designing the method of distributing effluent across the bottom surface of the ponds. With regard to the latter consideration, initial design of the project contemplated a single point for discharge of effluent into each percolation pond. However, Gulfside has agreed to redesign these percolation ponds in such a fashion to discharge effluent more evenly throughout the bottom area of the ponds too combat the problem of the excess percolation rate. The proposed percolation ponds are designed with surface areas in excess of 15,000 square feet. The ponds were initially designed utilizing a six-to-one slope, which would have given twice the bottom surface area of the three-to-one slope eventually required by DER in the process of reviewing the application. The three-to-one slope shown in the plans and specifications results in a bottom surface area of 2,974 square feet. However, the engineering report submitted with the application indicates that percolation ponds will have a bottom surface area of 4,480 square feet. From the evidence, it would appear appropriate for the ponds to have a minimum bottom surface area of 4,480 square feet. From the evidence, this problem can easily be rectified by raising the bottom elevation of the percolation ponds by approximately one foot. This requirement should be imposed as a condition to the granting of the requested permit. The proposed plant, although designed to remove 90 percent of B.O.D. and suspended solids, is not designed to remove nutrients from the effluent. However, the evidence establishes that these nutrients. Will be removed by a combination of filtration through soil substrata and biological action in the percolation ponds. Gulfside has also agreed to install a spartina marsh waterward of the percolation ponds to act as a final nutrient scrubber. The system design is reasonably calculated to assure removal of harmful quantities of nutrients, and no competent evidence was adduced to indicate that the system design was not sufficient for this purpose. Thus, although the treatment plant is proposed to be located only 50 feet from Old River, there is no indication that it will, in fact, result in any adverse impacts to that water body. In addition, DER has no rules or guidelines regulating distances from which package sewer plants, such as that proposed in this application, should be located from bodies of water such as Old River. It should be noted here that the application which is the subject of this proceeding is solely for the purpose of construction of the proposed facility. DER has imposed a permit condition requiring an initial four months operation for appropriate testing to determine compliance with the rules and regulations promulgated by DER before issuance of an operation permit. If testing demonstrates noncompliance with DER's rules and regulations, the operating permit for the facility can be denied. Testimony adduced at the hearing established that members of Petitioner, Southest Escambia Improvement Association, Inc., own property in the vicinity of the proposed facility, and that they utilize waters surrounding Perdido Key for sailing, swimming, crabbing and other recreational uses. Both Petitioner and Gulfside have submitted Proposed Findings of Fact. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 have been substantially adopted in this Recommended Order. Gulfside's Proposed Findings of Fact numbered 1 through 5 have also been substantially adopted in this Recommended Order. To the extent that Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by either Petitioner or Gulfside are not adopted in this Recommended Order, they have been specifically rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
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
Findings Of Fact The petitioners Petitioners are special taxing districts and political subdivisions of the State of Florida, which were created pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes. The petitioners and their pertinent structures and operations were authorized by Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of providing irrigation, drainage and flood protection for the landowners within their respective boundaries. In order to effect this purpose, the petitioners designed and operate their water control structures to pump excess stormwater and surface water directly to Lake Okeechobee (the "Lake") in the case of East Beach Water Control District (East Beach) and directly to the Rim Canal at the southern end of the Lake in the case of South Shore Drainage District (South Shore), East Shore Water Control District (East Shore), and South Florida Conservancy District (South Florida). East Beach covers a total area of approximately 6,542 acres located along the southeast shore of the Lake. Approximately 75-80 percent of the lands contained within the District are used for agriculture, with most of those lands planted in sugarcane. The remaining 20-25 percent of the drainage area is urbanized. The urban area includes the City of Pahokee. South Shore covers a total area of approximately 4,230 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake. Approximately 80-85 percent of the lands contained within the District are used for agriculture, with most of those lands planted in sugarcane. The remaining 15-20 percent of the drainage area is urban and industrial. The urban area includes a portion of the cities in South Bay, Lake Harbor, Bean City, South Shore Village, and sparsely scattered home sites throughout the District. East Shore covers a total area of approximately 8,136 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake. With the exception of lands developed as canals, levees, roads, and other service-related systems, the entire district is used for agricultural purposes. South Florida covers a total area of approximately 32,754 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake with 28,649 acres located in Palm Beach County and 4,105 acres located in Hendry County. Approximately 85-90 percent of the land is used for agricultural purposes and the remaining 10-15 percent is used for urban or industrial purposes. The City of Belle Glade constitutes a major part of the urban land with the remainder situated around the cities of South Bay, Lake Harbor and other scattered home sites. Here, the parties have stipulated that petitioners have standing to maintain this challenge. Background Before 1986, petitioners' discharges into the Lake had not been regulated by the respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (Department). In 1985 the Governor of the State of Florida issued Executive Order Number 86-150. This executive order observed that the Lake Okeechobee Technical Committee, formed to study water quality and water supply conditions in the Lake, had found the Lake to be in danger of becoming hypereutrophic because of the excessive amounts of nutrients, especially phosphorus, it was receiving, and had recommended corrective actions to substantially reduce the nutrient load and provide for long-term monitoring, research and management needs for the Lake. To protect and preserve the Lake, the executive order directed, inter alia, that the Department "bring all private and publically controlled backpumping sources into the lake under permit review or under enforcement for operating without a permit." Pursuant to that executive order, the Department, in concert with petitioners, began the process of regulating petitioners' discharges into the Lake. The Department initially attempted to have the petitioners enter into consent orders; however, the petitioners objected to that concept. Ultimately, both the Department and petitioners agreed to the issuance of short-term operating permits (TOPs) containing specific conditions aimed at determining the composition of the discharges from petitioners' systems and at reducing the pollution loading into the Lake. The TOPs, issued December 30, 1986, and effective until September 23, 1988, were issued pursuant to the Department's regulatory authority over pollution sources contained in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. 2/ Pertinent to this case, Section 403.088, Florida Statutes, provided, and continues to provide, as follows: 403.088 Water pollution operation permits; temporary permits; conditions-- (1) No person, without written authorization of the department, shall discharge into waters within the state any waste which by itself or in combination with the wastes or other sources, reduces the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them . . . (2)(a) Any person intending to discharge wastes into the waters of the state shall make application to the department for an operation permit. Application shall be made on a form prescribed by the department and shall contain such information as the department requires. If the department finds that the proposed discharge will reduce the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them, it shall deny the application and refuse to issue a permit. . . (3)(a) A person who does not qualify for an operation permit or has been denied an operation permit under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) may apply to the department for a temporary operation permit . . . After consideration of the application, any additional information furnished, and all written objections submitted, the department shall grant or deny a temporary operation permit. No temporary permit shall be granted by the department unless it affirmatively finds: The proposed discharge does not qualify for an operation permit; The applicant is constructing, installing, or placing into operation, or has submitted plans and reasonable schedules of constructing, installing or placing into operation, an approved pollution abatement facility or alternate waste disposal system, or that the applicant has a waste for which no feasible and acceptable method of treatment or disposal is known or recognized but is making a bona fide effort through research and other means to discover and implement such a method; The applicant needs permission to pollute the waters within the state for a period of time necessary to complete research, planning, construction, installation, or operation of an approved and acceptable pollution abatement facility or alternate waste disposal system; There is no present, reasonable, alternative means of disposing of the waste other than by discharging it into the waters of the state; The denial of a temporary operation permit would work an extreme hardship upon the applicant; The granting of a temporary operation permit will be in the public interest; or The discharge will not be unreasonably destructive to the quality of the receiving waters. A temporary operation permit issued shall: Specify the manner, nature, volume, and frequency of the discharge permitted; Require the proper operation and maintenance of any interim or temporary pollution abatement facility or system required by the department as a condition of the permit; Require the permitholder to maintain such monitoring equipment and make and file such records and reports as the department deems necessary to ensure compliance with the terms of the permit and to evaluate the effect of the discharge upon the receiving waters; Be valid only for the period of time necessary for the permit holder to place into operation the facility, system, or method contemplated in his application as determined by the department; and Contain other requirements and restrictions which the department deems necessary and desirable to protect the quality of the receiving waters and promote the public interest. And, Section 403.927, Florida Statutes, provided, and continues to provide, as follows: 403.927 Use of water in farming and forestry activities.-- . . . it is the intent of the Legislature to provide for the construction and operation of agricultural water management systems under authority granted to water management districts and to control, by the department or by delegation of authority to water management districts, the ultimate discharge from agricultural water management systems. . . . The department may require a stormwater permit or appropriate discharge permit at the ultimate point of discharge from an agricultural water management system or a group of connected agricultural water management systems. . . (4) As used in this section, the term: * * * (b) "Agricultural water management systems" means farming and forestry water management or irrigation systems and farm ponds which are permitted pursuant to chapter 373 or which are exempt from the permitting provisions of that chapter. The agricultural water management systems owned and operated by petitioners fall within the definition of "agricultural water management systems" set forth in Section 403.927(4)(b), Florida Statutes. Consistent with the provisions of Section 403.088, Florida Statutes, Rule 17-4.070(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides: A permit shall be issued to the applicant upon such conditions as the Department may direct, only if the applicant affirmatively provides the Department with reasonable assurance based on plans, test results, installation of pollution control equipment, or other information, that the construction, expansion, modification, operation, or activity of the installation will not discharge, emit or cause pollution in contravention of Department standards or rules. However, for discharges of wastes to water, the Department may issue temporary operation permits under the criteria set forth in Section 403.088(3), F.S. Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code, further delineates the specific procedures to obtain permits and the specific standards for issuing and denying permits. In July 1988, petitioners applied for an extension of their TOPs. The monthly water quality monitoring data petitioners had submitted to the Department reflected, however, that the discharges from petitioners' systems were in contravention of the Department's rules and standards. Accordingly, since petitioners had not met the obligations set forth in the TOPs, the Department advised petitioners that the TOPs would not be extended and that they were required to apply for new operating permits. The new permit applications Following the Department's refusal to extend the TOPs, petitioners filed applications for operating permits for their discharges, and the Department, consistent with its previous reviews, undertook its review pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. Effective July 1, 1989, however, Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, was amended with regard to, inter alia, the definition of stormwater management systems so as to include pumped discharges such as petitioners. Further, pertinent to this case, Part IV of Chapter 373 provided: 373.416 Permits for maintenance or operation-- (1) . . . the governing board or department may require such permits and impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that the operation or maintenance of any stormwater management system, dam, impoundment, reservoir, appurtenant work, or works will comply with the provisions of this part and applicable rules promulgated thereto, will not be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the district, and will not be harmful to the water resources of the district. 373.418 Rulemaking; preservation of existing authority.-- It is the intent of the Legislature that stormwater management systems be regulated under this part incorporating all of existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403. Neither the department nor governing boards are limited or prohibited from amending any regulatory requirement applicable to stormwater management systems in accordance with the provisions of this part. It is further the intent of the Legislature that all current exemptions under chapters 373 and 403 shall remain in full force and effect and that this act shall not be construed to remove or alter these exemptions. In order to preserve existing requirements, all rules of the department or governing boards existing on July 1, 1989, . . . shall be applicable to stormwater management systems and continue in full force and effect unless amended or replaced by future rulemaking in accordance with this part. Upon the amendment of Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, petitioners amended their pending applications to reflect their desire that the applications be processed pursuant to the newly amended provisions of Part IV, Chapter 373, as they relate to stormwater management systems. The Department, acknowledging the amendments to chapter 373, processed the applications accordingly; however, in view of the provisions of section 373.418(1) which "incorporat[ed] all of the existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403," the Department did not in fact change the standards by which these applications were reviewed, to wit: Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. On March 14, 1991, the Department issued a notice of permit denial to each petitioner. In each of the denials, the Department noted the provisions of Section 373.416(1), Florida Statutes, ["the . . . department may require such permits and impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that the operation . . . of any stormwater system . . . will comply with the provisions of this part and applicable rules promulgated thereto . . . and will not be harmful to the water resources of the district"] and Section 373.418(1), Florida Statutes, ["incorporating all of existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403"], and concluded that the applications should be denied for the following reasons: The Department has completed its review of the subject application, supporting documents and the discharge monitoring reports submitted by the applicant as required by Department Permit NO. IT50- 125678. Based on this review the Department has made the determination that the applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurances that the discharge from the agricultural stormwater management system proposed by the applicant will be in compliance with the aforementioned sections of Chapter 373, F.S. and the Class I Surface Water Quality Standards adopted by the Department pursuant to Chapter 403.061, F.S. and contained in Section 17-302.540, F.A.C. and the Antidegradation Policy for Surface Water Quality contained in Section 17-302.300(3), F.A.C. The Department's action is facially consistent with the provisions of chapter 373, and chapter 403 incorporated therein, as well as the existing rules adopted pursuant to such chapters which require, whether the system be exempt or not, that discharges comply with state water quality standards. See e.g., Sections 373.416, 373.418, 403.088 and 403.927, Florida Statutes, and Rules 17- 4.070(1), 17-25.060, 17-25.080, and Chapter 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code. Availing themselves of the point of entry accorded by the notice of permit denial, petitioners filed a request for administrative hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, to contest the denial of their applications. Such proceedings are currently pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings, but distinct from this proceeding under Section 120.535, Florida Statutes. The Section 120.535 challenge The challenged policy, as alleged in paragraphs 19 of the petition, purports to be as follows: The Department has made a policy determination, which draws a distinction between "agricultural stormwater discharges" and other stormwater discharges regulated by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. The Department has identified the Petitioners' discharge as "agricultural stormwater discharges" and has subjected the petitioners to a set of rules and criteria that the Department has not adopted but which are apparently different from the general stormwater regulations adopted pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Such articulation of the challenged policy is substantially identical to petitioner's statement of the issue identified in their proposed final order, as follows: The issue for determination in this case is whether the Department's policy to apply criteria different from that contained in its "Regulation of Stormwater Discharge" Rule 17-25, Florida Administrative Code, and/or Rule 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code, of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), when seeking to regulate an agricultural stormwater management system, as defined in Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes, constitutes a rule . . . . The premises for the petitioners' challenge are their contention that the Department has drawn a distinction between the agricultural stormwater discharges of petitioners and other stormwater discharges, which is not supported by statutory or duly promulgated rules, and that the Department has applied criteria, which are not supported by statutory or duly promulgated rules, to evaluate petitioners' applications. The credible proof fails, however, to support petitioners' premises. Contrary to the assertions raised by petitioners, the statutory and duly promulgated rules heretofore discussed provide ample authority for the Department's action, and there is no credible proof that the Department is applying any criteria that is not apparent from an application or reading of such statutes and existing rules. Indeed, Rule 17-25.060(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides: The permit requirements of Chapter 17-4 or other applicable rules, rather than those of this chapter, shall apply to discharges which are a combination of stormwater and industrial or domestic wastewater or which are otherwise contaminated by non-stormwater sources unless: (a) the stormwater discharge facility is capable of providing treatment of the non- stormwater component sufficient to meet state water quality standards . . . . Here, the proof is compelling that the Department's decision was predicated on existing statutory and rule authority, and that it did not apply any criteria not promulgated as a rule or not contained within existing statutory authority to evaluate petitioners' applications, or treat petitioners' discharges differently than any other stormwater discharge contaminated by non-stormwater sources.
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.
Findings Of Fact On or about October 30, 1984, Lawrence E. Bennett, a consultant engineer for Peninsula, forwarded to DER's domestic waste engineering section an application to construct/operate a domestic wastewater treatment and disposal system along with the appropriate plans and a check for the fee. The package included proposals for construction of a 300,000 gpd splitter box and addition of a 100,000 gpd contact stabilization plant. Thereafter, on May 22, 1985, Mr. Bennett submitted a revised copy of the application pertaining to the 100,000 gpd expansion initially submitted as above. The revised application reflected Peninsula's proposed outfall to the Halifax River which was applied for under separate permit. By application dated October 7, 1983, as revised on May 15, 1985, Peninsula proposed to construct an outfall discharge into the Halifax River from the secondary treatment plant. By letter dated October 29, 1984, Mr. Bennett advised DER, inter alia, that the discharge rate would be an ADF of 1.25 mgd. The application for the additional 100,000 gpd plant and splitter box also provided for a chlorination facility. This expansion was needed because 200,000 gpd capacity is already committed to serve current residents and customers of the utility. The new construction is designed to accommodate established future demand. In Mr. Bennett's opinion, the design of this facility will accommodate all DER criteria and standards. The outfall facility proposed in the second project will be a pvc forced main for a part of the distance with iron pipe for the remainder and a lift station attached to pump the effluent to a point in the river selected where the river is deep enough to meet DER water criteria. The initial permit application on this project called for discharge into a portion of the river which did not meet water quality standards. As a result; DER suggested discharge point closer to the center of the river, and this change is now planned. At this point, the outflow will meet DER standards. Intents to issue the permits, as modified, were issued in August 1985. Peninsula has also filed for permits with the Florida Public Utilities Commission, the United States EPA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for these projects. The plans are based on the estimated population expansion called for in the next few years. Peninsula is fully capable, financially, of providing and paying for the projected improvements. In the past, it has always provided sufficient funding to do that which is called for under its permits and which is necessary. The waters in question here are Class III waters of the State, mainly recreational. There is no shellfish harvesting in the area because of the pollution of the Halifax River, condition which has existed since at least 1941. Results of tests conducted by experts for Peninsula show the quality of the water presently coming out of the treatment plant is cleaner than that currently existing in the Halifax River. The outfall pipe in question will have the capability of handling approximately 1,200,000 gpd. Latest reports from the water treatment plant indicate that the current average daily flow is 150,000 gpd representing approximately 75% of capacity. The design estimated for this project was based on a 250 gpd per unit use rate multiplied by the estimated number of units presently existing and to be constructed in the period in question. It is estimated however, that within two to three years even this project will be insufficient and Peninsula will have to file an additional request for expansion. Construction will have no detrimental environmental effect on the waters of the Halifax River. Mr. Bennett recommends discharge into the river rather than pumping the effluent backup to Port Orange because the local dissipation rate into the Halifax River, which is called for under these projects, is much quicker than that at Port Orange. Studies run on siting of the outfall pipe location which is close to Daggett Island included studies relating to dilution calculation and water quality of the effluent versus water quality of the river near the outfall. The project was, therefore, sited in such a manner as to provide for the least possible detrimental effect. Those studies, however, were for the original outfall location, not the present location as proposed by DER which is approximately 150 to 200 feet away. In the experts' opinion, however, there is very little difference in the two sites. The Daggett Island site is not unique in any way. It is a mangrove swamp of approximately 3 to 4 acres with nothing on it. Once the pipe is buried, it will be difficult to know that it is there. Even during construction, there would be little detrimental effect or disruption to the river ecology. Mr. Bennett's conclusions are confirmed by Mr. Miller; a DER engineer specializing in wastewater facility permits who has reviewed the plans for expansion of the plant for completeness and adequacy and found that they were both. The approval of the outfall pipe initially was made in Tallahassee based on the original siting. He reviewed it again, however, and determined that both projects are environmentally sound and conform to the DER standards. Rule 17-6, Florida Administrative Code, requires surface water discharge to have secondary treatment activity prior to discharge and the discharge cannot exceed 20% 80D and suspended solids. According to DER studies; the secondary treatment afforded the water at this location was adequate with the caveat that the District might want to require an extension of the outfall to the main channel of the river to promote tidal flushing of the effluent. It was this change which was; in fact, made by the District office. Without the change, the incoming tide would take the wastewater up into Daggett Creek. By moving it as suggested, west of the point of Daggett Island, the tide would go up river rather than into the creek taking the effluent with it. Concern over the creek is due to its limited natural flushing as opposed to the greater natural flushing of the river. It was the intent of all parties to achieve the desired result and move the outfall point; if at all possible, at no increase in cost. Consequently, the pipeline was moved at the same length with a slight possible addition to take the outlet to the same depth and this change became a condition to the issuance of the permit. The Peninsula will also need a dredge and fill permit in order to accomplish the work in question. The outfall plans (both construction and discharge) meet the requirements set forth in the pertinent provisions of Rule 17-6, Florida Administrative Code. DER evaluated post- construction, concluding that the new point source discharge would not violate these standards. However, prior to approval of these projects, DER did not perform a biological, ecological, or hydrographic survey in the area. As a result, it cannot be said that the criteria outlined in Rule 17-4.29(6), Florida Administrative Code, will not be adversely affected by the outfall pipe. Nonetheless, these surveys were not deemed necessary here. EPA denial of the NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit, would have no impact on DER's intent to issue the instant permits. NPDES permits have no bearing on the state permitting process. If the NPDES permit is denied, the utility cannot discharge its effluent into the river. The state permit merely authorizes the construction. The NPDES permit applies to the outfall portion of the project, not to the treatment plant. Only if it could be shown there was a longstanding adverse effect on the water quality so as to bring it below standards, would this construction not be permitted. The depth of the water in the proposed area of the outfall is five feet. A 12-inch pipe would extend below the soil with an upturn to exit into the bottom of the river. Short term impacts of actual construction are not relevant to the permitting process. If there are any, they would be related to and considered in the dredge and fill permitting process. This conclusion is supported by the testimony of Jan Mandrup-Poulsen, a DER water quality specialist who, in his analysis of the instant projects, first looked at the plans for the outfall just a week before the hearing. By this time, the water quality section of DER had previously considered the project and he is familiar with the suggested change in the outfall location. In November 1985, he spent several days on a boat on the Halifax River in this area collecting data. His inquiry and examination showed that in the area in question, there are no grass beds, oyster beds, or anything significant that would be adversely affected by the location of the pipe and the outlet. The pipe outlet, as suggested, is far enough out into the river to keep it under sufficient water at all times to promote adequate flushing. In his opinion, the proposed discharge will be quickly diluted and will not violate the standards or other criteria set out in Section 17-3.121, Florida Administrative Code. In contrast to the above, Mr. Richard Fernandez, a registered civil engineer with a Master's Degree in environmental engineering, who did a study of these projects for TPI, indicated that the County 201 plan relating to this area, mandated by the federal government, calls for the eventual closing of all independent wastewater treatment plants with ultimate delivery of all wastewater to the Port Orange facility. If implemented, this plan calls for the conversion of the Peninsula facility to a pump station for the transmittal of effluent to Port Orange. In his opinion, the proposed discharge standard, as evaluated here, for the secondary treatment facility, is very high for such a facility. He feels the surface water discharge content of dissolved oxygen and suspended solids should be lower. In addition, he is of the opinion that the degree of treatment of discharged water required by the facilities in question here is too low and lower than typical secondary discharge points elsewhere in the area. Nonetheless, Mr. Fernandez concludes that while the intended facility here would probably not lower the quality of river water below standards, it is not in the public interest to construct it. Having considered the expert testimony on both sides, it is found that the construction requested here would not create sufficient ecological or environmental damage to justify denial. The proposals in the 201 plan calling for the transmittal of all effluent to Port Orange would not be acceptable to DER. The cost of such a project and the ecological damage involved would be so great as to render the project not even permittable. The currently existing percolation ponds used by the facility at Port Orange are not adequate to serve current needs and leech pollutants into the surrounding waterway. While the exact transmission routes called for under the 201 plan are not yet set, there would be substantial ecological problems no matter what routing is selected. There would be substantial damage to bird habitat, mangrove, and other protected living species unless some way were found to get the pipe across the river in an environmentally sound fashion. Consequently, DER has taken the position that the current proposals by Peninsula are superior to any plan to transmit waste to Port Orange.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED THAT DER: Enter an order dismissing with prejudice Volusia County's Petition in DOAH Case No. 85-3029 and, Issue permits to Peninsula Utilities, Inc., for the construction of a 100,000 gpd expansion to its existing wastewater treatment plant and to construct a river outfall line as was called for in the amended specifications listed in the application for this project. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Martin S. Friedman, Esquire Myers, Kenin, Levinson & Richards 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301. Deborah Getzoff, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lester A. Lewis, Esquire Coble, McKinnon, Rothert, Barkin, Gordon, Morris and Lewis, P.A. P. O. Drawer 9670 Daytona Beach, Florida 32020 Ray W. Pennebaker, Esquire Assistant County Attorney P. O. Box 429 Deland, Florida 32720 Victoria Tschinkel Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings Of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, TPI 1-2. Accepted in paragraph 17. 3-4. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Peninsula 1-13. Accepted in the Findings of Fact of the Recommended Order. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, DER 1. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 1 and 2. 2-3. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 5. 4-5. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 20 and 21. 6. 7. Accepted in Finding of Fact 19. 8. Accepted in Finding of Fact 14. 9. Accepted in Finding of Fact 9. 10. Accepted in Finding of Fact 8 and 21. 11. Accepted in Finding of Fact 14 and 17. 12-13. Accepted in Finding of Fact 14 and 17. 14-15. Rejected as a statement of evidence and not a Finding of Fact. Accepted in Finding of Fact 17. Recitation of Mr. Miller's testimony is not a Finding of Fact. The conclusions of Mr. Mandrup- Poulsen's testimony is not a Finding of Fact. Recitation of Mr. Mandrup-Poulsen's testimony testimony is not a Finding of Fact. Accepted in Finding of Fact 23. Recitation of testimony is rejected as not a Finding of Fact. Conclusions drawn from that testimony accepted in Finding of Fact 24.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the City of Tarpon Springs (“City”) is entitled to a industrial wastewater facility permit for its proposed discharge of demineralization concentrate into the Gulf of Mexico adjacent to Pasco County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Henry Ross is a resident of Tarpon Springs. In his petition for hearing, he alleges that he is a recreational fisherman and a "consumer of fish taken from the area" where the proposed wastewater discharge would occur. He presented no evidence at the final hearing to prove these allegations. Neither the City or the Department stipulated to facts that would establish Ross's standing. The City of Tarpon Springs is a municipality in Pinellas County and the applicant for the industrial wastewater permit that is challenged by Ross. The Department is the agency charged by law with the duty, and granted the power, to regulate the discharge of pollutants into waters of the State. The Proposed Permit - General Due to the cost of obtaining potable water from Pinellas County Utilities, the City decided to look for another source of drinking water. In February 2004, an alternative water supply plan was developed by the City’s Office of Public Services which analyzed potable water supply options. It determined that the withdrawal and treatment of brackish groundwater represented the best option for the City. The proposed permit authorizes the City to discharge industrial wastewater into waters of the State. The wastewater is demineralization concentrate, which is produced when RO technology is used to remove salts from brackish water to convert it to potable water. The wastewater would be produced in conjunction with the operation of a not-yet-constructed WTP that would supply public drinking water to the residents of the City. The City must also obtain a consumptive use permit from the Southwest Florida Water Management District for the proposed withdrawal of groundwater. Whether the Town is entitled to a consumptive use permit is not at issue in this proceeding. The industrial wastewater permit would authorize a maximum daily discharge of 2.79 million gallons per day ("mgd") of RO concentrate. The initial operation of the WTP, however, is expected to discharge 1.05 mgd. The RO concentrate would be transported via a force main from the WTP in the City to an outfall in Pasco County. The outfall would discharge the wastewater into a canal which is already being used for the discharge of cooling water from Progress Energy Florida, Inc.’s Anclote Power Generation Facility. The outfall would be 50 feet north of the point in the canal where Progress Energy is required to demonstrate compliance with its own permitting requirements, so as not to interfere with Progress Energy's ability to demonstrate compliance. There is a floating barrier in the channel north of the proposed point of discharge, and a fence along the side of the canal, to prevent swimmers, boaters, and persons on foot from getting near the Progress Energy power plant. The floating barrier and fence would also prevent swimmers, boaters, or pedestrians from reaching the proposed discharge outfall and the area of the canal where the discharge will initially mix. After being discharged into the canal, the wastewater would become diluted and flow northward, out of the canal and into the open waters of the Gulf. The prevailing currents in area would most often force the wastewater south toward Pinellas County and the mouth of the Anclote River. To determine the characteristics of the wastewater, the City's consultants collected water from the three proposed well fields for the new WTP and ran the water through a small, pilot-scale RO unit to generate an RO concentrate that is representative of the proposed RO discharge. It was determined that eight constituents of the wastewater would likely be present in concentrations that would exceed applicable state water quality standards: aluminum, copper, iron, gross alpha (a radioactivity measurement), total radium, selenium, nickel, and zinc. The Mixing Zones The Department may authorize mixing zones in which a wastewater discharge is allowed to mix with the receiving waters. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-4.244. Within the mixing zone, certain minimum water quality criteria must be met. At the outer boundary of the mixing zone, the applicable state water quality standards must be met. In this case, the water quality standards for Class III marine waters are applicable. The City's consultants analyzed the wastewater, receiving waters, and other factors and used an analytical model to simulate a number of mixing scenarios. In cooperation with Department staff, a separate mixing zone was established for each of the eight constituents that are not expected to meet water quality standards at the outfall. The largest mixing zone, for copper, is 1,483.9 square meters. The smallest mixing zone, for nickel, is 0.7 square meters. The mixing zones are conservatively large to assure sufficient mixing. Under most conditions, the mixing is expected to occur in a smaller area. Toxicity Analysis Among the minimum criteria that must be met within a mixing zone is the requirement to avoid conditions that are acutely toxic. See Fla. Admin Code R. 62-302.500(1)(a). A wastewater discharge is tested for potential acute toxicity by exposing test organisms to the undiluted discharge and determining whether more than 50 percent of the organisms die within a specified time period. The test organisms, mysid shrimp and silverside minnow, are sensitive species. Therefore, when a discharge is not acutely toxic to these organisms, it can be reasonably presumed that the discharge would not harm the native organisms in the receiving waters. The acute toxicity test for the proposed RO concentrate indicated zero toxicity. The Department requested that the City also analyze the potential chronic toxicity of the proposed discharge. A wastewater discharge shows chronic toxicity if exposure to the discharge adversely affects the growth and weight of the test organisms. The tests performed on the representative discharge showed that the proposed discharge of RO concentrate would not create chronic toxicity in the mixing zones. Petitioner’s expert witness, Ann Ney, did not review the toxicity analyses or other water quality data that were submitted to the Department by the City. However, she expressed a general concern about a salty discharge that could create stratification in the canal with higher salinity at the bottom of the canal that might be hypoxic (little or no dissolved oxygen). The more persuasive evidence shows that salinity stratification, or a hypoxic condition, is unlikely to occur. The proposed permit requires the City to conduct quarterly chronic toxicity tests. The permit also requires the City to periodically test the water and sediments for any unexpected cumulative effects of the discharge. Evaluation of Disposal Options Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-620.625(6) requires that an applicant for a permit to discharge demineralization concentrate must investigate disposal options potentially available in the project area. The City evaluated blending the discharge concentrate with the City's re-use water irrigation program or with the City’s domestic wastewater discharge into the Anclote River. The RO concentrate was too salty for irrigation use and there was an inadequate volume of domestic wastewater available throughout the year. In addition, the Anclote River is an Outstanding Florida Water and, therefore, is afforded the highest water quality protection under Department rules. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-4.242(2). The City also looked at underground injection but that was economically unreasonable and there was concern about upward migration of the discharge. It was economically unreasonable to discharge the concentrate farther out into the Gulf. Anti-degradation Analysis For a proposed new discharge, a permit applicant must demonstrate that the use of another discharge location, land application, or recycling that would avoid the degradation of water quality is not economically and technologically reasonable. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-4.242(1)(d). As discussed above, the City investigated other disposal options, but they were not economically or technologically reasonable. An applicant for a permit authorizing a new discharge must demonstrate that any degradation is desirable under federal standards and under circumstances that are clearly in the public interest. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.300(17). In determining whether a proposed discharge is desirable under federal standards and under circumstances that are clearly in the public interest, the Department is required by Rule 62-4.242(1)(b) to consider the following factors: Whether the proposed project is important to and is beneficial to public health, safety or welfare (taking into account the policies set forth in Rule 62-302.300, F.A.C., and, if applicable, Rule 62-302.700, F.A.C.); and Whether the proposed discharge will adversely affect conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; and Whether the proposed discharge will adversely affect the fishing or water-based recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed discharge; and Whether the proposed discharge is consistent with any applicable Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan that has been adopted by a Water Management District and approved by the Department. The proposed project is important to and is beneficial to public health, safety or welfare because it would provide drinking water for the public. In addition, the treatment and use of brackish groundwater converts otherwise unusable water into a valuable resource. The use of brackish water avoids the use of water in the surficial aquifer that is used by natural systems, such as wetlands. The Florida Legislature has found that the demineralization of brackish water is in the public interest, as expressed in Section 403.0882, Florida Statutes (2010): The legislature finds and declares that it is in the public interest to conserve and protect water resources, provide adequate supplies and provide for natural systems, and promote brackish water demineralization as an alternative to withdrawals of freshwater groundwater and surface water by removing institutional barriers to demineralization and, through research, including demonstration projects, to advance water and water by-product treatment technology, sound waste by-product disposal methods, and regional solutions to water resources issues. The proposed discharge would not adversely affect conservation of fish and wildlife. Because the discharge is not toxic to sensitive test organisms provides reasonable assurance that the native fish and other aquatic life would not be adversely affected by the discharge. The only identified threatened or endangered species that frequents the canal waters is the endangered Florida Manatee. Manatees use the canal because of its relatively warm waters. Manatees come to the surface to breathe and they drink fresh water. There is no reason to expect that a manatee moving through the mixing zones would be adversely affected by the RO concentrate. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, which has primary responsibility for the protection of endangered and threatened species, did not object to the proposed permit. Manatees and many other aquatic species use seagrasses as food or habitat. There are no seagrasses in the area of the canal into which the RO concentrate would be discharged, but there are dense seagrass beds nearby. The proposed discharge would have no effect on the seagrasses in the area. The proposed discharge would not adversely affect fishing or water-based recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed discharge. Because the proposed discharge is non-toxic and would meet Class III water quality standards before reaching the closest areas where humans have access to the canal and Gulf waters, there is no reason to believe that the proposed discharge would be harmful to humans. The proposed discharge would not adversely affect recreational activities, such as swimming, boating, or fishing. Petitioner presented the testimony of two fishermen about fishing resources and water flow in the area, but no evidence was presented to show how the proposed discharge would reduce marine productivity. Petitioner contends that the proposed discharge would adversely affect the Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve. However, the aquatic preserve is two miles away. The proposed discharge would probably be undetectable at that distance. It would have no effect on the waters or other resources of the aquatic preserve. With regard to the requirement that the proposed discharge be consistent with an adopted and approved Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan for the area, there is no such plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order determining that Petitioner lacks standing, and approving the issuance of the industrial wastewater facility permit to the City. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Nona R. Schaffner, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Thomas J. Trask, Esquire Frazer, Hubbard, Brandt & Trask, LLP 595 Main Street Dunedin, Florida 34698 Henry Ross 1020 South Florida Avenue Tarpon Springs, Florida 34689 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Beason, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Mimi Drew, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
