The Issue Whether Petitioner, Miami Yacht Divers, Inc., is entitled to reimbursement for cleanup costs.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering claims against the Florida Coastal Protection Trust Fund. Petitioner is a company located in Dade County, Florida, which performs commercial diving operations. Such operations include oil pollution containment and clean-up. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Dan Delmonico was the principal officer or owner for the Petitioner who supervised the operations of the company. In April of 1993, Mr. Delmonico discovered a fuel discharge next door to the premises of Defender Yacht, Inc., a company located on the Miami River in Dade County, Florida. The source of the discharge was an abandoned sunken vessel. This derelict vessel had no markings from which its ownership could be determined. Upon discovering the vessel, Mr. Delmonico did not contact local, state, or federal authorities to advise them of the discharge. Instead, Mr. Delmonico contacted several colleagues whose help he enlisted to assist him to clean up the discharge. In this regard, Mr. Delmonico procured the services of a diver and a crane company to remove the vessel from the water. Additionally, Mr. Delmonico utilized a boom and oil absorbent clean-up pads to remove the discharged fuel from the water. In total, Mr. Delmonico maintains it took four work days to complete the removal of the discharge and the salvage of the derelict vessel. At no time during this period did Mr. Delmonico contact local, state, or federal authorities to advise them of the foregoing activities. No official from any governmental entity supervised or approved the clean-up operation or salvage activity which is in dispute. After the fact Petitioner filed a reimbursement claim with the United States Coast Guard. Such claim was denied. Upon receipt of such denial, Petitioner filed the claim which is at issue in the instant case. In connection with this claim with Respondent, Petitioner submitted all forms previously tendered to the Coast Guard including the standard claim form, labor receipts, rental receipts, supply receipts, trailer and storage receipts, cash expenses, a job summary, and photographs. On or about September 20, 1996, Respondent issued a letter denying Petitioner's claim for reimbursement for expenses associated with the above-described salvage and clean-up activities. The grounds for the denial were the Petitioner's failure to obtain prior approval for the activities and the absence of "good cause" for the waiver of prior approval. Additionally, the Respondent maintained that Petitioner had failed to provide evidence that a pollutant discharge existed and that the removal of the vessel was necessary to abate and remove the discharge. It is undisputed by Petitioner that prior approval for the clean-up activities was not obtained. Petitioner timely disputed the denial and was afforded a point of entry to challenge such decision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's claim for reimbursement. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kathelyn M. Jacques Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 N. Paul San Filippo, Esquire Seidensticker & San Filippo Parkway Financial Center 2150 Goodlette Road, Suite 305 Naples, Florida 34102
The Issue The issues in this case are whether IP is entitled to issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Number FL0002526-001/001-IW1S ("the proposed permit"), Consent Order No. 04-1202, Authorization for Experimental Use of Wetlands Order No. 04-1442, and Waiver Order No. 04-0730 (collectively, "the Department authorizations"), which would authorize IP to discharge treated industrial wastewater from its paper mill in Cantonment, Escambia County, Florida, into wetlands which flow to Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay.
Findings Of Fact Introduction A. The Parties The Department is the state agency authorized under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (2006),2 to regulate discharges of industrial wastewater to waters of the state. Under a delegation from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department administers the NPDES permitting program in Florida. IP owns and operates the integrated bleached kraft paper mill in Cantonment, Escambia County, Florida. FOPB is a non-profit Alabama corporation3 established in 1988 whose members are interested in protecting the water quality and natural resources of Perdido Bay. FOPB has approximately 450 members. About 90 percent of the members own property adjacent to Perdido Bay. James Lane is the President of FOPB. Mellita A. Lane, Zachary P. Lane, Peter A. Lane, and Sarah M. Lane are the adult children of Dr. Jacqueline Lane and James Lane. Dr. Lane and James Lane live on property adjacent to Perdido Bay with their son Peter. The Adjacent Waters The mill's wastewater effluent is discharged into Elevenmile Creek, which is a tributary of Perdido Bay. The creek flows southwest into the northeastern portion of Perdido Bay. Elevenmile Creek is a freshwater stream for most of its length but is sometimes tidally affected one to two miles from its mouth. Elevenmile Creek is designated as a Class III water. Perdido Bay is approximately 28 square miles in area and is bordered by Escambia County on the east and Baldwin County, Alabama on the west. The dividing line between the states runs north and south in the approximate middle of Perdido Bay. U.S. Highway 90 crosses the Bay, going east and west, and forms the boundary between what is often referred to as the "Upper Bay" and "Lower Bay." The Bay is relatively shallow, especially in the Upper Bay, ranging in depth between five and ten feet. Perdido Bay is designated as a Class III water. Sometime around 1900, a manmade navigation channel was cut through the narrow strip of land separating Perdido Bay from the Gulf of Mexico. The channel, called Perdido Pass, allowed the salt waters of the Gulf to move with the tides up into Perdido Bay. Depending on tides and freshwater inflows, the tidal waters can move into the most northern portions of Perdido Bay and even further, into its tributaries and wetlands. The Perdido River flows into the northwest portion of Perdido Bay. It is primarily a freshwater river but it is sometimes tidally influenced at and near its mouth. The Perdido River was designated an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) in 1979. At the north end of Perdido Bay, between Elevenmile Creek and the Perdido River, is a large tract of land owned by IP called the Rainwater Tract. The northern part of the tract is primarily freshwater wetlands. The southern part is a tidal marsh. Tee and Wicker Lakes are small (approximately 50 acres in total surface area) tidal ponds within the tidal marsh. Depending on the tides, the lakes can be as shallow as one foot, or several feet deep. A channel through the marsh allows boaters to gain access to Tee and Wicker Lakes from Perdido Bay. The Mill 1. Production Florida Pulp and Paper Company first began operating the Cantonment paper mill in 1941. St. Regis Paper Company (St. Regis) acquired the mill in 1946. In 1984, Champion International Corporation (Champion) acquired the mill. Champion changed the product mix in 1986 from unbleached packaging paper to bleached products such as printing and writing grades of paper. In 2001, Champion merged with IP, and IP took over operation of the mill. The primary product of the mill continues to be printing and writing paper. The mill is integrated, meaning that it brings in logs and wood chips, makes pulp, and produces paper. The wood is chemically treated in cookers called digesters to separate the cellulose from the lignin in the wood because only the cellulose is used to make paper. Then the "brown stock" from the digesters goes through the oxygen delignification process, is mixed with water, and is pumped to paper machines that make the paper products. There are two paper machines located at the mill. The larger paper machine, designated P5, produces approximately 1,000 tons per day of writing and printing paper. The smaller machine, P4, produces approximately 400 to 500 tons per day of "fluff pulp." 2. The Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant The existing wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) at the mill is described in the revised NPDES permit as a "multi-pond primary and secondary treatment system, consisting of a primary treatment system (primary settling basin, polymer addition, two solids/sludge dewatering basins, and a floating dredge), and secondary treatment system (four ponds in series; two aerated stabilization basins with approximately 2,200 horsepower (HP) of aeration capacity, a nutrient feed system, two non-aerated polishing ponds and a final riffle section to re-aerate the effluent)." The WWTP is a system for reducing the biological oxygen demand (BOD) of the mill's wastewater by bacteria. IP’s wastewater is nutrient deficient when it enters the WWTP. Nutrients in the form of phosphorus and nitrogen must be added for the growth of bacteria. The WWTP begins with a primary settling basin in which suspended solids settle to the bottom. The solids form a sludge that is pumped by hydraulic dredge into two dewatering basins. The dewatering basins are used alternately so that, as one pond is filled, water is removed from the other pond. After being dewatered, the sludge is removed and allowed to dry. Then, it is transported to a landfill located about five miles west of the mill on land owned by IP. The water removed from the dewatering basins moves into to the first aeration basin. The aeration basin has floating aerator devices that add oxygen to facilitate biological conversion of the wastewater. The wastewater then flows sequentially through three more basins where there is further oxygenation and settling of the biological solids. The discharge from the fourth settling basin flows through a riffle section where the effluent is aerated using a series of waterfalls. This is the last element of the treatment process from which the mill's effluent enters waters of the state. Chemicals are added during the treatment process to control phosphorus and color. Chemicals are also added to suppress foam. Sanitary wastewater from the mill, after pretreatment in an activated sludge treatment system, is "sewered" to the mill's WWTP and further treated in the same manner as the industrial wastewater. A separate detention pond collects and treats stormwater from onsite and offsite areas and discharges at the same point as the wastewater effluent from the WWTP. Stormwater that falls on the industrial area of the mill is processed through the WWTP. The discharge point from the WWTP, and the point at which the effluent is monitored for compliance with state effluent limitations, is designated D-001, but is also called the Parshall Flume. The effluent is discharged from the Parshall Flume through a pipe to an area of natural wetlands. After passing through the wetlands, the combined flow runs through a pipe that enters Elevenmile Creek from below the surface. This area is called the "boil" because the water can be observed to boil to the surface of Elevenmile Creek. From the boil, the mill effluent flows approximately 14 miles down (apparently misnamed) Elevenmile Creek to upper Perdido Bay. Regulatory History of the Mill Before 1995, the mill had to have both state and federal permits. The former Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) issued St. Regis an industrial wastewater operating permit in 1982 pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The EPA issued St. Regis an NPDES permit in 1983 pursuant to the Clean Water Act. When it acquired the facility in 1984, Champion continued to operate the mill under these two permits. In 1986, Champion obtained a construction permit from DER to install the oxygen delignification technology and other improvements to its WWTP in conjunction with the conversion of the production process from an unbleached to a modified bleached kraft production process. In 1987, Champion applied to DER for an operating permit for its modified WWTP and also petitioned for a variance from the Class III water quality standards in Elevenmile Creek for iron, specific conductance, zinc, and transparency. DER's subsequent proposal to issue the operating permit and variance was formally challenged.4 In 1988, while the challenges to the DER permit and variance were still pending, Champion dropped its application for a regular operating permit and requested a temporary operating permit (TOP), instead. In December 1989, DER and Champion entered into Consent Order No. 87-1398 ("the 1989 Consent Order"). The 1989 Consent Order included an allegation by DER that the mill's wastewater discharge was causing violation of state water quality standards in Elevenmile Creek for dissolved oxygen (DO), un-ionized ammonia, and biological integrity. The 1989 Consent Order authorized the continued operation of the mill, but established a process for addressing the water quality problems in Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay and bringing the mill into compliance in the future. Champion was required to install equipment to increase the DO in its effluent within a year. Champion was also required to submit a plan of study and, 30 months after DER's approval of the plan of study, to submit a study report on the impacts of the mill's effluent on DO in Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay and recommended measures for reducing or eliminating adverse impacts. The study report was also supposed to address the other water quality violations caused by Champion. A comprehensive study of the Perdido Bay system was undertaken by a team of 24 scientists lead by Dr. Robert Livingston, an aquatic ecologist and professor at Florida State University. The initial three-year study by Dr. Livingston's team of scientists was followed by a series of related scientific studies, which will be referred to collectively in this Recommended Order as "the Livingston studies." The 1989 Consent Order had no expiration date, but it was tied to the TOP, which had an expiration date of December 1, 1994. Champion was to be in compliance with all applicable water quality standards by that date. The TOP established the following specific effluent discharge limitations for the mill: Monthly Average Maximum Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) (Mar-Oct) 4,500 lbs/day 6,885 lbs/day (Nov-Feb) 5,100 lbs/day 6,885 lbs/day Total Suspended Solids (TSS) (Mar-Oct) 8,000 lbs/day 27,000 lbs/day (Nov-Feb) 11,600 lbs/day 27,000 lbs/day Iron 3.5 mg/l Specific Conductance 2,500 micromhos/cm Zinc .075 mg/l The limits stated above for iron, specific conductance, and zinc were derived from the variance granted to Champion. Champion was also granted variances from the water quality standards for biological integrity, un-ionized ammonia, and DO. The 1989 Consent Order, TOP, and variance were the subject of the Recommended Order and Final Order issued in Perdido Bay Environmental Association, Inc. v. Champion International Corporation, 89 ER FALR 153 (DER Nov. 14, 1989). Champion's deviation from the standards for iron, zinc, and specific conductance pursuant to the variance was determined to present no significant risk of adverse effect on the water quality and biota of Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay. The mill effluent's effect on transparency (reduced by color in the mill effluent) was considered a potentially significant problem. However, because it was found that there was no practicable means known or available to reduce the color, and there was insufficient information at that time to determine how Champion's discharge of color was affecting the biota, Champion was allowed to continue its discharge of color into Elevenmile Creek pending the results of the Livingston studies. In the administrative hearing, the petitioners argued that it was unreasonable to put off compliance for five years, but the hearing officer determined that five years was reasonable under the circumstances. One finding in the Recommended Order and a reason for recommending approval of the TOP and Consent Order was: After the studies referred to in the consent order, the Department will not allow Champion additional time to study problems further. Significant improvements will be required within the five year period and at the end of that period, the plant will be in compliance with all water quality standards or will be denied an operating permit, with related enforcement action. The requirement of the 1989 Consent Order that Champion be in compliance with all applicable standards by December 1994, was qualified with the words "unless otherwise agreed." In considering this wording, the hearing officer opined that any change in the compliance deadline "would require a new notice of proposed agency action and point of entry for parties who might wish to contest any modification in the operational requirements, or changes in terms of compliance with water quality standards." The mill was not in compliance with all water quality standards in December 1994. No enforcement action was taken by the Department and no modification of the 1989 Consent Order or TOP was formally proposed that would have provided a point of entry to any members of the public who might have objected. Instead, the Department agreed through correspondence with Champion to allow Champion to pursue additional water quality studies and to investigate alternatives to its discharge to Elevenmile Creek. In 1994 and 1995, Champion applied to renew its state and federal wastewater permits, which were about to expire. The Department and EPA notified Champion that its existing permits were administratively extended during the review of the new permit applications. Today, the Cantonment mill is still operating under the 1989 TOP which, due to the administrative extension, did not terminate in December 1994, as stated on its face. In November 1995, following EPA's delegation of NPDES permitting authority to the Department, the Department issued an order combining the state and federal operating permits into a single permit identified as Wastewater Permit Number FL0002526-002-IWF/MT. In summary, the permit requirements currently applicable to the operation of the Cantonment paper mill are contained in the following documents: January 3, 1983, EPA NPDES Permit December 13, 1989, DER Temporary Operating Permit (TOP) December 13, 1989, DER Consent Order December 12, 1989, DER Variance November 15, 1995, DEP Order (combining the NPDES permit and the State-issued wastewater permit) April 22, 1996, DEP Letter (clarifying November 15, 1995, Order regarding 1983 NPDES Permit) During the period from 1992 to 2001, more water quality studies were conducted and Champion investigated alternatives to discharging into upper Elevenmile Creek, including land application of the effluent and relocation of the discharge to lower Elevenmile Creek or the Escambia River. In 2001, IP and Champion merged and IP applied to the Department to have the mill permit and related authorizations transferred to IP. Dr. Lane formally challenged the proposed transfer, but she was determined to lack standing. One conclusion of law in the Recommended Order issued in the 2001 administrative case was that the mill was in compliance with the consent order, TOP, and variance. That conclusion was not based on a finding that Champion was in compliance with all applicable water quality standards, but that the deadline for compliance (December 1, 1994) had been extended indefinitely by the pending permit renewal application. In 2001, Dr. Lane twice petitioned the Department for a declaratory statement regarding the Department's interpretation of certain provisions of the 1989 Consent Order. The first petition was denied by the Department because Dr. Lane failed to adequately state her interests and because she was a party in a pending case in which the Consent Order was at issue. Dr. Lane second petition was denied for similar reasons. Over 14 years after the deadline established in the 1989 TOP for the mill to be in compliance with all applicable standards in Elevenmile Creek, IP is still not meeting all applicable standards. However, the combination of (1) Consent Order terms that contemplated unspecified future permit requirements based on yet-to-be-conducted studies, (2) the wording in the TOP that tied the deadline for compliance to the expiration of the TOP, and (3) the administrative extension of the TOP, kept the issue of Champion's and IP's compliance in a regulatory limbo. It increased the Department's discretion to determine whether IP was in compliance with the laws enacted to protect the State's natural resources, and reduced the opportunity of interested persons to formally disagree with that determination. The Proposed Authorizations A. In General In September 2002, while Champion's 1994 permit renewal application was still pending at DEP, IP submitted a revised permit renewal application to upgrade the WWTP and relocate its discharge. The WWTP upgrades consist of converting to a modified activated sludge treatment process, increasing aeration, constructing storm surge ponds, and adding a process for pH adjustment. The new WWTP would have an average daily effluent discharge of 23.8 million gallons per day (mgd). IP proposes to convey the treated effluent by pipeline 10.7 miles to a 1,464-acre wetland tract owned by IP5, where the effluent would be distributed over the wetlands as it flows to lower Elevenmile Creek and upper Perdido Bay. IP revised its permit application again in October 2005, to obtain authorization to reconfigure the mill to produce unbleached brown paper for various grades of boxes. If the mill is reconfigured, only softwood (pine) would be used in the new process. On April 12, 2005, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Issue the proposed NPDES permit, together with Consent Order No. 04-1202, Authorization for Experimental Use of Wetlands Order No. 04-4442, and Waiver Order No. 04-0730. An exemption from water quality criteria in conjunction with the experimental use of wetlands for wastewater treatment is provided for in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-660.300(1). The proposed exemption order would exempt IP from Class III water quality criteria for pH, DO, transparency, turbidity, and specific conductance. The proposed waiver order is associated with the experimental use of wetlands exemption and relieves IP of the necessity to comply with two exemption criteria related to restricting public access to the area covered by the exemption. The Department and IP contend that restricting public access to Tee and Wicker Lakes is unnecessary. The proposed Consent Order is an enforcement document that is necessary if the mill is to be allowed to operate despite the fact that its wastewater discharge is causing violations of water quality standards. A principal purpose of the proposed Consent Order is to impose a time schedule for the completion of corrective actions and compliance with all state standards. The proposed Consent Order would supersede the 1989 Consent Order. The Proposed NPDES Permit 1. WWTP Upgrades IP's primary objective in upgrading the WWTP was to reduce the nitrogen and phosphorus in the mill's effluent discharge. The upgrades are designed to reduce un-ionized ammonia, total soluble nitrogen, and phosphorus. They are also expected to achieve a modest reduction of BOD and TSS. Upgraded pond 1 is expected to convert soluble BOD to suspended solids and to accomplish other biological conversions seven or eight times faster than the current pond 1. The modification of pond 3 to an activated sludge system is expected to more rapidly remove and recycle the solids back into pond 1. Pond 3 will have a much larger bacterial population to treat the effluent. There would also be additional pH control at the end of pond 3. IP would continue to use its Rock Crossing Landfill for disposal of wastewater sludge removed from the WWTP. Authorization for the landfill is part of the proposed NPDES permit. Groundwater monitoring beneath the landfill is required. The WWTP upgrades would include increased storm surge capacity by converting two existing aeration and settling basins (ponds 2 and 4) to storm surge basins. The surge basins would allow the mill to manage upsets and to withstand a 25-year, 24-hour storm event of 11 inches of rain. Rainfall that falls into the production areas would flow to the WWTP, and be impounded in ponds 2 and 4. After the storm event this impounded water would flow back through the WWTP where it would be treated before flowing through the compliance point and into the pipeline to the wetland tract. The Department required IP to monitor for over 129 pollutants in its stormwater runoff from the mill’s manufacturing facility, roads, parking lots, and offsite nonpoint sources. No pollutants were found in the stormwater at levels of concern. The average volume of mill discharge would be mgd. IP plans to obtain up to 5 mgd of treated municipal wastewater from a new treatment facility planned by the Emerald Coast Utility Authority (ECUA), which would be used in the paper production process and would reduce the need for groundwater withdrawals by IP for this purpose. The treated wastewater would enter the WWTP along with other process wastewater, be treated in the same manner in the WWTP, and become part of the effluent conveyed through the pipeline to the wetland tract. 2. Effluent Limitations The effluent limitations required by the proposed permit include technology-based effluent limits (TBELs) that apply to the entire pulp and paper industry. TBELs are predominantly production-based and are designed to limit the amount of pollutants that may be discharged per ton of product produced. The Cantonment mill has not had a problem in meeting TBELs. The TBELs that IP must meet are in the "Cluster Rule" promulgated by the EPA and adopted by the Department. The mill already meets the TBELS applicable to its current bleaching operation. In fact, EPA determined that the mill was performing in the top 5 percent of similar mills in the nation. The mill would have to meet the TBELs for a brown kraft operation if that conversion is made by IP. The proposed permit also imposes water quality- based effluent limits (WQBELs) that are specific to the Cantonment mill and the waters affected by its effluent discharge. The WQBELs for the mill are necessary for certain constituents of the mill's effluent because the TBELs, alone, would not be sufficient to prevent water quality criteria in the receiving waters from being violated. For example, the TBEL for BOD for similar pulp and paper mills is 15,943 pounds per day (ppd) on a monthly average, but the WQBEL for BOD for the Cantonment mill would be 4,500 ppd in summer and 5,100 ppd in winter. Dr. Livingston developed an extensive biological and chemical history of Perdido Bay and then evaluated the nutrient loadings from Elevenmile Creek over a 12-year period to correlate mill loadings with the biological health of the Bay. Because Dr. Livingston determined that the nutrient loadings from the mill that occurred in 1988 and 1989 did not adversely impact the food web of Perdido Bay, he recommended effluent limits for ammonia nitrogen, orthophosphate, and total phosphorous that were correlated with mill loadings of these nutrients in those years. The Department used Dr. Livingston’s data, and did its own analyses, to establish WQBELs for orthophosphate for drought conditions and for nitrate-nitrite. WQBELs were ultimately developed for total ammonia, orthophosphate, nitrate-nitrite, total phosphorus, BOD, color, and soluble inorganic nitrogen. The WQBELs in the proposed permit were developed to assure compliance with water quality standards under conditions of pollutant loadings at the daily limit (based on a monthly average) during low flow in the receiving waters. The proposed permit also establishes daily maximum limits (the most that can be discharged on any single day). For BOD, the daily maximum limit is 9,000 ppd. William Evans, the Department employee with primary responsibility for the technical review of the proposed Department authorizations, said that setting the daily maximum limit at twice the monthly average was a standard practice of the Department. The maximum daily limits are not derived from the Livingston studies. Dr. Glen Daigger, a civil and environmental engineer, designed a model for the WWTP and determined the modifications necessary to enable the WWTP's discharge to meet all TBELs and WQBELs. Petitioners did not dispute that the proposed WWTP is capable of achieving the TBELs and WQBELs. Their main complaint is that the WQBELs are not adequate to protect the receiving waters. 3. Discharge to the Wetland Tract IP proposes to relocate its discharge to the wetland tract as a means to end decades of failure by the mill to meet water quality standards in Elevenmile Creek. Discharging to the wetland tract, which flows to the marine waters of lower Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay, avoids many of the problems associated with trying to meet the more stringent water quality standards applicable in a freshwater stream. An effluent distribution system is proposed for the wetland tract to spread the effluent out over the full width of the wetlands so that their full assimilative capacity is utilized. This would be accomplished by a system of berms running perpendicular to the flow of water through the wetlands, and gates and other structures in and along the berms to gather and redistribute the flow as it moves in a southerly direction toward Perdido Bay and lower Elevenmile Creek. The design incorporates four existing tram roads that were constructed on the wetland tract to serve the past and present silviculture activities there. The tram roads, with modifications, would serve as the berms in the wetland distribution system. As the effluent is discharged from the pipeline, a point designated D-003, it would be re-aerated6 and distributed across Berm 1 through a series of adjustable, gated openings. Mixing with naturally occurring waters, the effluent would move by gravity to the next lower berm. The water will re-collect behind each of the vegetated berms and be distributed again through each berm. The distance between the berms varies from a quarter to a half mile. Approximately 70 percent of the effluent discharged at D-003 would flow by gravity a distance of approximately 2.3 miles to Perdido Bay. The remaining 30 percent of the effluent would flow a shorter distance to lower Elevenmile Creek. A computer simulation performed by Dr. Wade Nutter, an expert in hydrology, soils, and forested wetlands, indicated that the effluent discharged at D-003 will move through the wetland tract at a velocity of approximately a quarter-of-a-foot per second and the depth of flow across the wetland tract will be about one-half inch. It would take four or five days for the effluent to reach lower Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay. As the treated effluent flows through the wetland tract, there will be some removal of nutrients by plants and soil. Nitrogen and phosphorous are expected to be reduced approximately ten percent. BOD in the effluent is expected to be reduced approximately 90 percent. Construction activities associated with the effluent pipeline and berm modifications in the wetland tract were permitted by the Department in 2003 through issuance of a Wetland Resource Permit to IP. The United States Army Corps of Engineers has also permitted this work. No person filed a petition to challenge those permits. A wetland monitoring program is required by the proposed permit. The stated purpose of the monitoring program is to assure that there are no significant adverse impacts to the wetland tract, including Tee and Wicker Lakes, and is referred to as the No Significant Adverse Impact (NSAI) analysis. A year of "baseline data" on the wetlands and Tee and Wicker Lakes was collected and submitted to the Department for use in developing the NSAI analysis, but was not made a part of the record in this case. After the discharge to the wetland tract commences, the proposed permit requires IP to submit wetland monitoring reports annually to the Department. A monitoring program was also developed by Dr. Livingston and other IP consultants to monitor the impacts of the proposed discharge on Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay. It was made a part of the proposed permit. The Exemption for Experimental Use of Wetlands Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-660.300(1) provides an exemption from water quality criteria for the experimental use of wetlands. The proposed Authorization for Experimental Use of Wetlands Order would exempt IP from Class III water quality criteria for pH, DO, transparency, turbidity, and specific conductance. The proposed exemption order sets forth "interim limits" for pH, DO, color, turbidity, and specific conductance. The proposed exemption order also states that IP may petition for alternative water quality criteria pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 66D.300(1)(b)(c) and (d). The exemption is for 5 years beginning with the commencement of discharge into the wetland tract at D-003. The exemption it can be renewed by IP by application to the Department. The Waiver To qualify for the experimental use of wetlands exemption, Florida Administrative Code Rules 62- 660.300(1)(a)3 and 4 require, respectively, that the public be restricted from the exempted wetland area and that the waters not be used for recreation. IP proposes to prevent public access to the area of the wetland tract where the effluent distribution system is located. This is the freshwater area of the wetland tract and includes the four berms. However, IP does not want, nor believe it is necessary, to prevent public access and recreation on Tee and Wicker Lakes within the tidal marsh below berm 4. These lakes are accessible by boat from Perdido Bay and are used now by the public for boating and fishing. The Proposed Consent Order The proposed Consent Order establishes a schedule for the construction activities associated with the proposed WWTP upgrades and the effluent pipeline and for incremental relocation of the mill's discharge form Elevenmile Creek to the wetland tract. IP is given 24 months to complete construction activities and begin operation of the new facilities. At least 25 percent of the mill's effluent must be diverted to the wetland tract. At least 25 percent of the effluent is to be diverted to the wetland tract when the new facilities begin operations. The volume of effluent diverted to the wetlands is to increase another 25 percent every three months thereafter so that three years after issuance of the permit 100 percent of the effluent is being discharged into the wetland tract and there is no longer a discharge at D-001 into Elevenmile Creek.7 The proposed Consent Order establishes interim effluent limitations that would apply immediately upon the effective date of the Consent Order and continue during the 24-month construction period when the mill will continue to discharge into Elevenmile Creek. Other interim effluent limits would apply during the 12-month period following construction when the upgraded WWTP would be operating and the effluent would be incrementally diverted from Elevenmile Creek to the wetland tract. A third set of interim effluent limits would apply at D-003 when 100 percent of the discharge is into the wetland tract. They include the interim limits for specific conductance, pH, DO, color, and turbidity established through the experimental use of wetland exemption. The proposed Consent Order requires IP to submit a report within six months with the results of the 2004 transparency study. The Department must be satisfied that the study shows the transparency standard will not be violated before the wetlands can be used for the discharge. This report has already been submitted to the Department, but the Department has not yet completed its review of the report. Nevertheless, it was admitted into the record as IP Exhibit 79. The proposed Consent Order provides that, in the event IP's does not receive treated sanitary wastewater from the planned ECUA facility, IP will notify the Department and submit an alternate compliance plan to the Department for the Department's approval. The submittal and approval of an alternate compliance plan would extend the time for compliance with water quality standards by another six months. The Department amended the proposed Consent Order at the conclusion of the hearing to provide for notice to the public and an opportunity for persons to object to the Department's action on any alternate compliance plan. The Consent Order requires a "Plan of Action" to determine "whether there remains a critical period for ortho-phosphate loading to lower Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay." The proposed Consent Order requires IP to submit within 97 months (which would allow for five years of discharge to the wetland tract) a final report on whether there has been significant adverse impacts in the wetlands and Tee and Wicker Lakes resulting from the discharge of effluent pursuant to the interim limits for pH, DO, specific conductance, turbidity, and color. If the NSAI analysis shows no significant adverse impact has occurred, the proposed Consent Order contemplates that IP or the Department would establish alternative water quality criteria that would apply permanently in the wetland tract. IP is required by the Consent Order to submit quarterly progress reports of its progress toward compliance with the required corrective actions and deadlines. The Consent Order imposes a "stipulated penalty" of $500 per day for noncompliance with its terms. It also contains a statement that a violation of its terms may subject IP to civil penalties up to $10,000 per day. The Principal Factual Disputes A. The Evidence in General Much of the water quality and biological data presented by Petitioners were limited in terms of the numbers of samples taken, the extent of the area sampled, and the time period covered by the sampling. Much of the expert testimony presented by Petitioners was based on limited data, few field investigations, and the review of some, but not all relevant permit documents.8 On the other hand, the Livingston studies represent perhaps the most complete scientific evaluation ever made of a coastal ecosystem. Even Dr. Lane called the Livingston studies "huge" and "amazing." Therefore, with regard to the factual issues raised by Petitioners that involved scientific subjects investigated in the Livingston studies, Petitioners' data and the expert opinions based on those data were generally of much less weight than the data and conclusions of the Livingston studies. However, the Livingston studies did not address all of the factual issues in dispute. Some of the evidence presented by Petitioners regarding historical water quality conditions in Perdido Bay and Elevenmile Creek was lay testimony. The lay testimony was competent and sufficient to prove the existence of environmental conditions that are detectable to the human senses, such as an offensive smell, a dark color, or a sticky texture. Historical Changes in Perdido Bay Petitioners claim that, before the Cantonment mill began operations in the 1940s, Perdido Bay was a rich and diverse ecosystem and a beautiful place for swimming, fishing, boating, and other recreational activities. Petitioners blame the mill effluent for all the adverse changes they say have occurred in Perdido Bay. Petitioners claim that the water in Perdido Bay was much clearer before the mill was built. James Lane, who has lived on the Bay for 65 years, said he began to notice in the late 1940s that the water was becoming dark and filled with wood fibers. Mr. Lane recalls that there used to be an abundance of fish in the Perdido Bay, including croakers, pinfish, flounder, redfish, minnows, and catfish. Now Mr. Lane sees few of these fish in the Bay and he believes the remaining fish are unfit to eat because they look diseased to him. Mr. Lane said there were extensive areas of sea grasses in the Bay which supported large numbers of shrimp, crabs, and mussels, but these grasses are now gone. The Lane family used to enjoy swimming in Perdido Bay but stopped swimming years ago because the water felt sticky and often had a brown foam or scum on the surface. Mr. Lane and others members of FOPB claim to have gotten infections from swimming in the Bay. Mr. Lane and other witnesses described the odor of Elevenmile Creek near the mill as unpleasant and, at times, offensive. They consider the Creek to be too polluted for swimming. Donald Ray, who has been a Department biologist for 30 years, said he has received many complaints from citizens about the conditions in Perdido Bay. He said the foam that occurs in Perdido Bay is not natural foam, but one that persists and leaves a stain on boats. On the other hand, it is Dr. Livingston's opinion that the ecological problems of Perdido Bay are due primarily to the opening of Perdido Pass around 1900. The opening of the pass allowed Gulf waters to enter Perdido Bay and caused salinity stratification in the Bay, with marine waters on the bottom and fresh water from the Perdido River, Elevenmile Creek, and other tributaries on the top. The stratification occurs regularly in the lower Bay, but only during low flow conditions in most of the upper Bay, Perdido River, and Elevenmile Creek. It restricts DO exchange between the upper and lower water layers and results in low DO levels in the lower layer. Low DO, or "hypoxia," is the primary cause of reduced biological diversity and productivity in Perdido Bay. Dr. Livingston's initial study of the Perdido Bay system (1988-91) included an investigation of historical conditions, using documents and maps, anecdotal statements of area residents, as well as historic water quality and sediment data. Dr. Livingston found general agreement from most sources that: [P]rior to the 1940s, the various rivers and the bay in the Perdido Basin were quite different from what they are today. Eyewitness accounts from 1924 indicate a bay that was clear and "bluish" in color; the bottom could be seen at depths of five feet. According to resident' accounts, seagrasses grew from Garth Point to Witchwood; the grassbeds provided cover for many shrimp that were taken at the time. Flounder were taken with gigs and crabs were taken with hand nets. According to these accounts, the water from the various rivers and creeks in the area was relatively clear, and white sand/gravel bottoms were dominant forms of habitat in the freshwater and estuarine systems. The water was tea- colored but clear. Redfish, trout, blue crabs, shrimp, and mullet were abundant. * * * [T]hrough the early 1900s, the Elevenmile Creek was said to be crystal clear with soft white sand and good fishing. * * * According to various reports, in the early 1950s, the waters of Elevenmile Creek turned black, with concentrations of foam observed floating on the surface. By 1986, more than 28 million gallons of largely untreated effluent was flowing into the Elevenmile Creek- Perdido Bay system each day. Experiments by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission had shown that the creek waters were lethal. The Florida Board of Health reported that Elevenmile Creek was "grossly polluted" and that Perdido Bay had been "greatly degraded within the 1.5 mile radius of where Elevenmile Creek dumped into the bay." Nevertheless, Dr. Livingston discounted much of this historical record, especially with regard to the belief that the mill's effluent had adversely affected Perdido Bay, because it was not based on what he considers reliable scientific data. He found "little evidence in the long- term sediment record of a direct response to historical activities of the pulp and paper mill, suggesting that the flushing capacity of Perdido Bay quickly diluted effluents that enter Perdido Bay from Elevenmile Creek." The evidence is persuasive that the salinity stratification in Perdido Bay is a major cause of low DO in the Bay.9 However, the stratification does not explain all of the observed changes in water quality, biological productivity, and recreational values. The stratification does not account for the markedly better conditions in the Bay that existed before the Cantonment paper mill began operations. The Livingston studies confirmed that when nutrient loadings from the mill were high, they caused toxic algae blooms and reduced biological productivity in Perdido Bay. As recently as 2005, there were major toxic blooms of heterosigma in Tee and Wicker Lakes caused by increased nutrient loading from the mill. Other competent evidence showed that the mill's effluent has created nuisance conditions in the past, such as foam and scum, which adversely affected the recreational values of these public waters. Some of the adverse effects attributable to the mill effluent were most acute in the area of the Bay near the Lanes' home on the northeastern shore of the Bay, because the flow from the Perdido River tends to push the flow from Elevenmile Creek toward the northeastern shore. Petitioners were justified in feeling frustrated in having their concerns about the adverse impacts of the mill's effluent discounted for many years, and in having to wait so long for an effective regulatory response. However, with regard to many of their factual disputes, Petitioners' evidence lacked sufficient detail regarding the dates of observations, the locations of observations, and in other respects, to distinguish the relative contribution of the mill effluent from other factors that contributed to the adverse impacts in the Bay, such as salinity stratification, natural nutrient loading from the Perdido River and other tributaries, and anthropogenic sources of pollution other than the paper mill.10 Petitioners generally referred to the mill effluent and its impacts to Perdido Bay as if they have been relatively constant for 65 years. The Livingston studies, however, showed clearly that the mill effluent and its impacts, as well as important factors affecting the impacts, such as drought, have frequently changed. Focusing on the fact that the average daily BOD loading allowed under the proposed permit would be same as under the 1989 TOP (4,500 ppd), Petitioners remarked several times at the final hearing that the proposed permit for the mill was no different than the existing permit. According to Petitioners, if the mill is allowed to operate under the proposed permit, one can predict that the future adverse impacts to Perdido Bay will be the same as the past adverse impacts. However, the 1989 TOP and the proposed permit are very different. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the impacts would be the same. Petitioners' evidence was generally insufficient to correlate past adverse impacts to Perdido Bay with the likely impacts that would occur under the proposed permit. In contrast, that was the focus of the Livingston studies. Development of the WQBELs Whether Perdido Bay is an Alluvial System and Whether Elevenmile Creek is a Blackwater Stream Alluvial systems are generally characterized by relatively high nutrient inputs from tributaries and associated wetlands that provide for high biological productivity in the receiving bay or estuary. Petitioners disagree with Dr. Livingston's characterization of the Perdido Bay system as an alluvial system. Petitioners presented the testimony of Donald Ray, a Department biologist, who said that the Perdido River is not an alluvial river and the natural nutrient loadings to Perdido Bay are less than would occur in an alluvial system. Although it is curious that two experienced biologists cannot agree on whether Perdido Bay is part of an alluvial system, the dispute is immaterial because it was not shown by Petitioners that any of the four proposed Department authorizations is dependent on the applicability of the term "alluvial." The WQBELs developed by Dr. Livingston, for example, were not dependent on a determination that Perdido Bay meets some definition of an alluvial system, but were based on what the data indicated about actual nutrient loadings into Perdido Bay and the Bay's ecological responses to the loadings. If the dispute is not immaterial, then Dr. Livingston's opinion that Perdido Bay is part of an alluvial system is more persuasive, because he has greater experience and knowledge of the coastal bay systems on the Florida Panhandle than does Mr. Ray. Petitioners also take exception to Dr. Livingston's characterization of Elevenmile Creek as a blackwater creek. Petitioners claim Elevenmile Creek is naturally clear to "slightly tannic" stream. This dispute, however, is also immaterial because the proposed permit calls for the termination of the mill's discharge to Elevenmile Creek, including its contribution of color to the Creek. Petitioners assert that Dr. Livingston's characterizations of Perdido Bay as an alluvial system and Elevenmile Creek as a blackwater creek show he is biased and that his "overall analysis" lacks credibility. Dr. Livingston's opinions on these points do not show bias nor compromise the credibility of his overall analysis of the Perdido Bay system, which is actually the product of many scientists and based on 18 years of data.11 2. Selection of 1988 and 1989 Mill Loadings as a Benchmark for the WQBELs Generally, the Department establishes effluents limits for nutrients based on Chlorophyl A analysis. However, the Livingston studies showed that Chlorophyl A was not significantly associated with plankton blooms in Perdido Bay. Therefore, the Department accepted Dr. Livingston's recommendation to base the WQBELs for nutrients on the nutrient loading from the mill in 1988 and 1989, which the Livingston studies showed were good years for Perdido Bay with respect to its biological health. Phytoplankton are a fundamental component of the food web in Perdido Bay. The number of phytoplankton species is a sensitive indicator of the overall ecological health of the Bay. The Livingston studies showed that the loadings of ammonia and orthophosphate from the mill had a direct effect on the number of phytoplankton species. In the years when the mill discharged high loadings of ammonia and orthophosphate, there were toxic algae blooms and reduced numbers of phytoplankton species. In 1988 and 1989, when the loadings of ammonia and orthophosphate were lower, there were no toxic algae blooms, and there were relatively high numbers of phytoplankton species. Petitioners dispute that 1988 and 1989 are appropriate benchmarks years for developing the WQBELs because Petitioners claim there were high nutrient loadings and algae blooms in those years. Mr. Ray testified that the Department received citizen complaints about algae blooms in those years. Dr. Livingston's analysis was more persuasive, however, because it distinguished types of algae blooms according to their harmful effect on the food web and was based on considerably more water quality and biological data. Petitioners also presented water quality data collected from 1971 to 1994 by the Bream Fishermen Association at one sampling station in the northeastern part of Perdido Bay, which indicate that in 1988 and 1989, the concentrations of nutrients were sometimes high. The proposed nutrient WQBELs were derived from data about the actual response of the Perdido Bay ecosystem over time to various inputs. The sampling data from the Bream Fishermen Association were not correlated to ecosystem response and, therefore, are insufficient to refute Dr. Livingston's evidence that 1988 and 1989 were years of relatively high diversity and productivity in Perdido Bay. Furthermore, nutrients loadings would be reduced under the proposed permit. 3. DO and Sediment Oxygen Demand The parties agreed that sediment oxygen demand (SOD) is a major reason for the low DO in Perdido Bay in areas where there is salinity stratification. SOD is caused by the bacterial degradation of particulate organic matter that settles to the bottom. SOD decreases DO in the lower water layer, but also can cause a reduction of DO in the surface layer. Low DO has substantially reduced the biological productivity of Perdido Bay. Thomas Gallagher, an environmental engineer and water quality modeling expert, showed that even without the mill discharge, DO in the bottom waters of Perdido Bay would fall below the applicable Class III water quality standard of 5 mg/l. Low DO conditions are now a "natural" characteristic of the Bay, usually occurring during summer and early fall when freshwater flows are low and temperatures are high. At these times, surface water DO levels are usually above the state standard, but DO in the bottom waters usually range between 1.0 and 2.0 mg/l. Petitioners claim that the dominant source of the sediment in Perdido Bay is the carbon and nutrient loading in the mill's effluent that flows into the Bay from Elevenmile Creek. Mr. Ray, who sampled sediments in Perdido Bay over several years for the Department, believes that the mill effluent is the main source of the sediment and, consequently, the sediment oxygen demand. Dr. Livingston did extensive sediment analyses in Perdido Bay. He compared the data with sediment data from other bays on the Florida Panhandle. It is Dr. Livingston's opinion that the mill effluent contributes little to the sediments or SOD in Perdidio Bay. His initial three-year study concluded: [T]he hypoxic conditions of Elevenmile Creek are due, in part, to mill discharges. However, low dissolved oxygen conditions at depth in Perdido Bay are not due to the release of mill effluents from Elevenmile Creek, and can actually be attributed to a long history of human activities that include alteration of the hydrological interactions at the gulfward end of the estuary. The entry of saline water from the Gulf and the resulting stratification have been coupled with various forms of human development that release carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus compounds into the estuary. The landward movement of high-salinity water from the Gulf of Mexico, laden with various types of oxygen-consuming compounds from various sources, together with oxygen demand from sediments to the lower water column that is isolated from reaeration due to salinity stratification, are thus responsible for a large portion of the observed hypoxic conditions at depth in Perdido Bay. [The paper mill] is responsible for a relatively small amount of these oxygen-consuming effects. In East Bay, which is a part of Escambia Bay and a relatively pristine system, there was SOD that caused DO to fall below standards in the lower water layer. Dr. Livingston also found severe oxygen deprivation at times in the lower waters of the Styx River and Perdido River, which do not receive mill effluent. Dr. Livingston believes the low DO that occasionally occurs in these rivers is due to agricultural runoff, urban discharges, and natural organic loading from adjacent wetlands. There was extensive evidence, some of which was presented by Petitioners, showing that the mill loadings of carbon and nutrients are less than the loadings from the Perdido River. Mr. Gallagher concluded that the sediment in the Bay is mostly "terrestrial carbon," and not from the mill's effluent. His water quality modeling work determined that the mill's effluent reduced bottom layer DO by about 0.1 mg/l. Dr. Lane believes that the organic solids in the mill's effluent are accumulating in Perdido Bay sediments, but Mr. Gallagher pointed out that degrading solids cannot accumulate because they are degrading. In addition, Mr. Gallagher said that logic dictates that solids that have not settled out after spending several days in the settling basins of IP's WWTP are not going to readily settle in the more turbulent environment of Perdido Bay. Some of the solids are oxidizing or being transported into the Gulf. Mr. Gallagher determined that in summer and late fall, 60 percent of the water in the bottom layer in the upper Bay is from the Gulf and almost all the rest is from the Perdido River. He believes only 0.1 to 2.0 percent of the water in the bottom layer is mill effluent. Dr. Livingston responded to the BOD and carbon issues that "these Petitioners raised over the years" by investigating them as part of the Livingston studies. He found no relationship between loading and DO. Dr. Livingston concluded that the mill was not having much effect on SOD. Dr. Livingston and Mr. Gallagher referred to a carbon isotope study of the sediment in Perdido Bay by Coffin and Cifuentes. The isotope study was a part of the initial three-year Livingston study entitled "Ecological Study of the Perdido Bay Drainage System." The study identified a unique carbon isotope in the mill's effluent and looked for traces of the isotope in the sediments of Perdido Bay. Very little of the carbon isotope was found in the sediments, suggesting that the mill's effluent was not contributing much to the sediments. The carbon isotope study was not offered into evidence. Petitioners assert that the isotope study is hearsay and cannot be used to support a finding of fact.12 However, Dr. Livingston's opinion about the sources of the sediment was not based solely on the isotope study. The isotope study was consistent with his other studies and with Mr. Gallagher's water quality modeling analysis. Therefore, the conclusions of the isotope study serve to support and explain Dr. Livingston's expert opinion that the mill effluent is not the primary source of the sediment and low DO in Perdido Bay. Dr. Livingston summarized his opinion regarding DO and SOD as follows: "all of these lines of evidence, from all the bays that I have worked in and from them scientific literature and from our own studies, every line of evidence simply eliminated the pulp mill as the primary source of the low dissolved oxygen in the bay." 4. Long-term BOD BOD is a measurement of the oxygen demand exerted by the oxidation of carbon, nitrogen, and the respiration of algae. A five-day BOD analysis is the standard test used in the regulatory process. The use of the standard five-day BOD measurement is not restricted to organic material that is expected to completely degrade in five days. Five days is simply the time period selected to standardize the measurement. For example, the five-day BOD analysis is used in the regulation of domestic wastewater even though most of the organic material in domestic wastewater takes about 60 days to degrade and would exert an oxygen demand throughout the 60 days. It was undisputed that paper mill effluent will continue to consume DO after five days. One estimate given was that it would take 100 days to completely degrade. Some of the naturally occurring organic material flowing into Perdido Bay from the Perdido River and Gulf of Mexico would also include material with long-term BOD. Petitioners claim that long-term BOD analysis is essential to determine the true impacts of the mill's effluent on Perdido Bay, but they failed to show that the Livingston studies did not consider long-term BOD.13 The evidence shows that Dr. Livingston's studies accounted for DO demand in all its forms and for any duration. Dr. Livingston's studies focused on the response of Perdido Bay's food web to nutrients and various other inputs as they changed over time. If long-term BOD was having an adverse effect on the food web, the Livingston studies were designed to detect that effect. Dr. Livingston's opinion is that long-term BOD is not a significant problem for Perdido Bay because the Bay is part of a dynamic system and the sediments are regularly flushed out or otherwise recycled in a matter of a few months, not years.14 5. Carbon Dr. Lane, who is a marine biologist, believes a major reason for low DO in Perdido Bay is "organic carbonaceous BOD." However, Dr. Lane presented no evidence other than statements of the theoretical process by which carbon from the mill would cause low DO in the Bay. She presented no scientific data from Perdido Bay to prove her theory.14 Dr. Livingston said that 16 years of studies in the Bay have found DO and carbon to be "totally uncorrelated." Other Water Quality Issues 1. Toxicity Petitioners allege that the mill effluent has had occasional problems passing toxicity tests. Un-ionized ammonia is the likely cause, and the reduction of un-ionized ammonia in the proposed permit and the distribution of the effluent over the wetland tract should prevent toxicity problems from recurring. Dr. Livingston examined tissue samples from various fish and invertebrates and found low levels of bioconcentrating chlorine compounds in Perdido Bay that he believes were "probably associated with discharges from the Pensacola mill." Although they are toxic substances, Dr. Livingston found no diseased organisms and no evidence of food web magnification of these potentially bioaccumulable compounds. Mr. Ray testified that Perdido Bay was the worst of all the bays he has studied in terms of high sediment metals. Most of his sediment sampling was done in 1977 through 1983, years before the Livingston studies got started. His knowledge about subsequent years was based on only two samples, one in 1988 and another in 2005.16 Dr. Lane did an analysis of 12 sediment samples in Perdido Bay, Perdido River, and Elevenmile Creek in 1999 and concluded that "Eleven Mile Creek appears to be the source of all elevated levels [of metals] except silver." The Livingston studies included toxics analysis of Perdido Bay sediments, including metals, dioxin, and other chlorinated organic compounds. Dr. Livingston testified that metal concentrations in the sediments of Elevenmile Creek did not differ from the metal concentrations in the Perdido River and other streams in the area. The concentrations were not significantly different from concentrations in other bays he has studied that do not have a paper mill discharge. 2. Mutagenic Compounds Petitioners claim that there are chemicals in paper mill effluent that are mutagenic and are causing changes in the sex of fish. They introduced an exhibit from the Department's exhibit list (DEP Exhibit 38) that discussed investigations of effluent from the Cantonment mill and other Florida paper mills which found abnormally high testosterone levels and related mutations in female Gambusia fish. The most recent such study16 implicates androgens produced by the microbial degradation of natural chemicals in the trees pulped at the mills, especially softwood trees (pines), as the cause. Petitioners believe IP's proposal to begin using 100 percent pine at the Cantonment mill could cause mutations in fish and other animals exposed to the mill's effluent. Although IP and the Department are aware of the sex change studies, there was no evidence presented that the subject was investigated or addressed by them in the permitting process. DEP Exhibit 38 is hearsay and no non-hearsay evidence was presented on the issue of mutagenic compounds in the mill's effluent. Therefore, no finding of fact in this Recommended Order can be based on the data and analysis in DEP Exhibit 38.18 Furthermore, Petitioners did not raise the issue of mutagenic compounds in the mill's effluent discharge in their petitions for hearing or in the pre-hearing stipulation.19 Antidegradation Policy Petitioners claimed the proposed permit violated the antidegradation policy for surface waters established in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.300(1). An element of that policy is to require, for any discharge that degrades water quality, a demonstration that the degradation is necessary or desirable under circumstances which are clearly in the public interest. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-4.242(1)(a) contains a list of factors to be considered and balanced in applying the antidegradation policy. These include consideration of whether the proposed project would be beneficial to public health, safety, or welfare and whether the discharge would adversely affect the, conservation of fish and wildlife, and recreational values. The greater weight of the evidence supports the position of IP and the Department that the proposed discharge to the wetland tract would be an improvement over the existing circumstances. However, as discussed below, there was an insufficient demonstration that the discharge would not cause significant adverse impact to the biological community within the wetland tract, and there was an insufficient demonstration that the Perdido River OFW would not be significantly degraded. Without sufficient demonstrations on these points, it is impossible to find that the degradation has been minimized. Petitioners did not prove that the proposed project was not in the public interest, but the burden was on IP to show the opposite. Because IP did not make a sufficient demonstration regarding potential adverse impacts on the biological community within the wetland tract and on the Perdido River OFW, IP failed to prove compliance with Florida's antidegradation policy. Perdido River OFW Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.300(2) contains the standards applicable to OFWs and prohibits a discharge that significantly degrades an OFW unless the proposed discharge is clearly in the public interest or the existing ambient water quality of the OFW would not be lowered.20 Petitioners contend that the water quality of the Perdido River would be significantly degraded by the mill's effluent under the authorizations. Mr. Gallagher's modeling analysis predicted improved water quality in the Perdido River for DO and several other criteria over the conditions that existed in 1979, the year the river was designated as an OFW. However, the modeling also predicted that the discharge would reduce the DO in the river (as it existed in 1979) by .01 mg/l under unusual conditions of effluent loading at the daily limit (based on a monthly average) during a drought. Mr. Gallagher's modeling indicated that a very small (less than 0.1 mg/l) reduction in DO in the surface water of the lower Perdido River would occur as a result of the proposed project. He considered that to be an "insignificant" effect and it was within the model's range of error. However, IP made the wrong comparisons in its modeling analysis to determine compliance with the OFW rule, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-4.242(2). Mr. Gallagher used the model to compare the DO levels in the Perdido River that would result from the mill's discharge of BOD at the proposed permit limit of 4,500 ppd with the predicted DO levels that would have existed in 1979 if St. Regis was discharging 5,100 ppd of BOD. IP should have compared the DO levels resulting from the proposed permit with the actual DO levels in 1979, or at least the DO levels that the model would have simulated using actual BOD loadings by St. Regis in 1979. The DO levels that would have existed in 1979 if St. Regis had discharged 5,100 ppd of BOD are irrelevant. No DO data from 1979 were presented at the hearing and no explanation was given for why DO data for 1979 were not used in the analysis. No evidence was presented that St. Regis discharged 5,100 ppd of BOD as a monthly average in 1979.21 It might have discharged substantially less.22 Petitioners did not prove that the proposed permit would significantly degrade the Perdido River, but the burden was on IP to show the opposite. Because the wrong anti-degradation comparison was made, IP failed to provide reasonable assurance that the Perdido River would not be significantly degraded by the proposed discharge. The Experimental Use of Wetlands Exemption Petitioners claim that IP did not demonstrate compliance with all the criteria for the experimental use of wetlands exemption. There are seven criteria set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-660.300(1)(a) that must be met to qualify for the exemption. IP is seeking a waiver from two of the criteria and those will be discussed later in this Recommended Order. Impact on the Biological Community a. In General Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 660.300(1)(a)1 requires a demonstration that "the wetlands ecosystem may reasonably be expected to assimilate the waste discharge without significant adverse impact on the biological community within the receiving waters." Dr. Nutter used a "STELLA" wetland model to predict the effects of discharging mill effluent to the wetland tract. The STELLA model was programmed to evaluate the "water budget" for the wetland tract, as well as simulate the fate of nitrogen, phosphorus, and total dissolved solids (TDS). Petitioners contend that the STELLA model is too limited to adequately assess potential adverse impacts on the biological community, but the model was not the sole basis upon which Dr. Nutter formed his opinions. He also relied on relevant scientific literature, his general knowledge of wetland processes, and on his 40 years of experience in land treatment of wastewater. The STELLA model predicted that there would be about a 10 percent reduction in nitrogen and phosphorus. Dr. Nutter testified that that figure was a conservative prediction and the scientific literature suggests there could be a greater reduction. Wetlands are effective in processing TSS and BOD. Dr. Nutter ran the model with the proposed permit limits and the model predicted 90 to 95 percent BOD removal before the effluent reached berm 4. Dr. Nutter expected pH levels to be in the range of background levels in the wetlands, which vary between 6.5 and 8.0.23 Dr. Nutter predicts that in high flow conditions, there will be more DO in the water flowing from the wetlands into Tee and Wicker Lakes. During low flow conditions, he predicts no change in the DO level. Background DO levels in the wetland tract now range between and 5.0 mg/l. Mr. Gallagher's water quality modeling for Perdido Bay assumed that the water flowing from the wetland tract would have a DO level of 2.0 mg/l, which Dr. Nutter believes this is a conservative estimate, meaning it could be higher. Specific Conductance A fundamental premise of the relocated discharge is that it solves the mill's decades-long failure to meet the stricter water quality standards applicable in the fresh waters of Elevenmile Creek because the new receiving waters would be marine waters. However, the majority (about 70 percent) of the wetland tract is a freshwater wetland. The tidal influence does not reach above berm 4 in the wetland tract. Before the mill's effluent reaches marine waters, it would be distributed over the entire freshwater portion of the wetland tract. Dr. Livingston explained that, but for the mill's discharge, minnows and other small "primary" freshwater fish species would be found in Elevenmile Creek. The primary fish cannot tolerate the mill's discharge because the high levels of sodium chloride and sulfide (specific conductance) cause osmoregulatory problems, disrupting their blood metabolism and ion regulation. High conductivity also eliminates sensitive microinvertebrates. Because Tee and Wicker Lakes are in the tidally influenced, southern portion of the wetland tract, the fish and other organisms in the lakes are polyhaline, which means they are adapted to rapid changes in salinity, temperature and other habitat features. That is not true of the organisms in the freshwater area of the wetland tract. A constructed wetlands pilot project was built in 1990 at the Cantonment mill. The initial operational phase of the pilot project was July 1991 through June 1993. A second phase was conducted for just three months, from September 1997 through December 1997. The pilot project generated some information about "benthic macroinvertebrate diversity," which was "low to moderate." In addition, there were "observations" made of "three amphibian species, three reptile species, approximately 31 bird species, three fish species that were introduced, and two mammal species." The information generated by the pilot project is ambiguous with respect to the effect of the effluent on fish and other organisms attributable to the specific conductance of the effluent, indicating both successes and failures in terms of survival rates. Moreover, the data presented from the pilot wetland project lacks sufficient detail, both with respect to the specific conductivity of the effluent applied to the wetlands and with respect to the response of salt-intolerant organisms to the specific conductivity of the effluent, to correlate the findings of the pilot project with the proposed discharge to the wetland tract. Freshwater wetlands do not have naturally high levels of specific conductance. The specific conductance in the wetland tract is 100 micromhos/cm or less.24 The proposed interim limit for specific conductance for the discharge into the wetland tract is "2,500 micromhos/cm or 50% above background, whichever is greater." Using total dissolved solids (TDS) as a surrogate for analyzing the effects on specific conductance, Dr. Nutter predicted that average TDS effluent concentrations would only be reduced by 1.0 percent.25 His prediction is consistent with the literature on the use of wetlands for wastewater treatment, which indicates wetlands are not effective in reducing TDS and specific conductance. The wetland tract would not assimilate TDS in mill's effluent. The potential exists, therefore, for the discharge to cause specific conductance in the freshwater area of the wetland tract to reach levels that are too high for fish and other organisms which can only live, thrive, and reproduce in waters of lower specific conductance. It was the opinion of Barry Sulkin, an environmental scientist, that the "freshwater community" would be adversely impacted by the salts in the effluent. Although the freshwater area of the wetland tract is not dominated by open water ponds, creeks, and streams,26 the evidence shows that it contains sloughs, creeks, and other surface water flow. No evidence was presented about the biological community associated with the sloughs, creeks, and other waters in the wetland tract, other than general statements about the existing plants and the trees that are being planted. Petitioners did not prove that granting the exemption would cause significant adverse impact to the biological community in the freshwater area of the wetland tract, but it was IP's burden to affirmatively demonstrate the opposite. Because IP did not adequately address the impact of increased specific conductance levels on fish and other organisms in the freshwater area of the wetland tract, IP did not provide reasonable assurance that the proposed discharge would be assimilated so as not to cause significant adverse impact on the biological community within the wetland tract. Tee and Wicker Lakes When the Department issued the proposed exemption order, it did not have sufficient data and analyses regarding Tee and Wicker Lakes to determine with reasonable confidence that these waterbodies would not be adversely impacted by the proposed discharge. A transparency study of the lakes, which IP introduced as an exhibit at the final hearing, had not previously been reviewed by Department staff. Dr. Livingston is still developing data and analyses for the lakes to use in the NSAI analysis. The proposed NSAI monitoring plan states that one of its objectives is to determine the "ecological state" of the tidal ponds, including whether the ponds "could comprise an important nursery area for estuarine populations." In addition, the monitoring is to determine "the normal distributions of salinity, temperature, color, and dissolved oxygen" in the tidal ponds. These are data that must be known before a determination is possible that the discharge would not have a significant adverse impact on the biological community associated with the lakes. Petitioners did not prove that granting the exemption would cause significant adverse impact to the biological community of Tee and Wicker Lakes, but it was IP's burden to affirmatively demonstrate the opposite. Because insufficient data exists regarding baseline conditions in Tee and Wicker Lakes, IP did not provide reasonable assurance that the proposed discharge would not cause significant adverse impact on the biological community within the wetland tract. 2. Public Interest and Public Health Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 660.300(1)(a)2. requires the applicant to demonstrate that "granting the exemption is in the public interest and will not adversely affect public health or the cost of public health or other related programs." Public Interest Petitioners made much of a statement by Mr. Evans that the public interest consideration in this permit review was “IP’s interest”. Petitioners claimed that this statement was an admission by the Department that it gave no consideration to the public interest. However, in context, Mr. Evan's statement was not such an admission. Moreover, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.300(6) expressly provides that the public interest is not confined to activities conducted solely for public benefits, but can also include private activities conducted for private purposes. The proposed exemption order does not directly address the public interest criterion, but it notes that "existing impacted wetlands will be restored." In IP's application for the exemption, it states that the exemption would "contribute to our knowledge of wetlands in general and to the refinement of performance guidelines for the application of pulp mill wastewater to wetlands." Petitioners dispute that the wetland tract is being restored. The evidence shows that some restoration would be accomplished. The natural features and hydrology of the tract have been substantially altered by agriculture, silviculture, clearing for pasture, ditching, and draining. The volume of flow in the discharge would offset the artificial drainage that occurred. A mixture of hardwood tree species would be planted, which would restore more of the diversity found in a natural forested wetland. However, an aspect of the project that could substantially detract from the goal of restoration is the transformation of the freshwater wetlands to an unnatural salty condition. Dr. Nutter said that the salt content of the mill's effluent was equivalent to Gatorade, but for many freshwater organisms, that is too salty. Another public benefit of the exemption that was discussed at the final hearing is that it would allow IP to relocate its discharge from Elevenmile Creek and thus end its adverse impacts to the Creek. That public benefit is not given much weight because IP has not shown that its adverse impacts to Elevenmile Creek cannot be eliminated or substantially reduced by decreasing its production of paper products. The evidence shows only that IP has attempted to solve its pollution problems through environmental engineering.27 A sufficient public interest showing for the purpose of obtaining the experimental use of wetlands exemption should not be a rigorous challenge if all the other exemption criteria are met, because that means the proposed wetland discharge was shown to have no harmful consequences. The public interest showing in this proceeding was insufficient, however, because the other exemption criteria were not met and there is a reasonable potential for harmful consequences. Public Health Petitioners raised the issue of the presence of Klebsiella bacteria, which can be a public health problem when they occur at high levels. The more detection of Klebsiella, however, does not constitute a public health concern. Petitioners did not show that Klebsiella bacteria exist in the mill's effluent at levels that exceed applicable water quality standards. Petitioners also did not present competent evidence about the likely fate of Klebsiella bacteria in the proposed effluent distribution system. Dr. Lane's statement that Klebsiella bacteria might be a problem is not sufficient to rebut IP's prima facie showing that the proposed permit will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards applicable to pathogenic bacteria. Petitioners also point to past incidents of high total coliform concentrations in Elevenmile Creek in support of their contention that the proposed exemption poses a risk to public health. However, these past incidents in Elevenmile Creek are not sufficient to prove that fecal coliform in the effluent discharged to the wetland tract will endanger the public health. IP proposes to restrict access to the wetland distribution system. Furthermore, the fate of bacteria in the wetlands is much different than in the Creek. The more persuasive evidence is that the wetland tract would destroy the bacteria by solar radiation and other mechanisms so that bacteria concentrations in waters accessible by the public would not be at levels which pose a threat to public health. Protection of Potable Water Supplies and Human Health Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 660.300(1)(a)5. requires the applicant for the exemption to demonstrate that "the presently specified criteria are unnecessary" to protect potable water supplies and human health, which presupposes that the applicant has applied for an exemption from water quality criteria applicable to human health. IP has not requested such an exemption and, therefore, this particular criterion appears to be inapplicable. Even if it were applicable, the evidence does not show that the effluent would cause a problem for potable water supplies or human health. 4. Contiguous Waters Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 660.300(1)(a)6. requires a showing that "the exemption will not interfere with the designated uses of contiguous waters." Contiguous waters, for the purpose of this criterion, would be Elevenmile Creek, Perdido Bay, and the Perdido River. Petitioners argue that Tee and Wicker Lakes should be considered contiguous waters for the purpose of this criterion of the exemption rule. However, Tee and Wicker Lakes are within the exempted wetland tract so they are not contiguous waters. Petitioners contend that IP failed to account for the buildup of detritus in the wetlands and its eventual export to Perdido Bay. Their contention is based primarily on the opinion of Dr. Kevin White, a civil engineer, that treatment wetlands must be scraped or burned to remove plant buildup. However, Dr. Nutter explained that periodic removal of plant material is needed for the relatively small "constructed wetland" treatment systems that Dr. White is familiar with, but should not be needed in the 1,464-acre wetland tract. Nevertheless, because IP did not provide reasonable assurances that the proposed permit and related authorizations would not significantly degrade the Perdido River OFW, IP failed to meet this particular exemption criterion regarding interference with contiguous waters. 5. Scientifically Valid Experimental Controls Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 660.300(1)(a)6. requires a showing that "scientifically valid environmental controls are provided . . . to monitor the long-term effects and recycling efficiency." Petitioners' argument about this particular criterion was largely misplaced. The term "environmental controls" modifies the term "monitor" and connotes only that the experiment would be monitored in a manner that will generate reliable information about long-term effects and performance. For monitoring purposes, IP's proposed NSAI protocol is an innovative and comprehensive plan that complies with this exemption criterion. Petitioners' objections to the lack of sufficient information about Tee and Wicker Lakes is more appropriately an attack on the sufficiency of IP's showing that its discharge would not cause a significant adverse impact on the biological community within the wetland tract. That issue was discussed above. 6. Duration of the Exemption Petitioners argue that the exemption can not exceed five years in duration, but the time schedules established by the proposed Consent Order and proposed permit would allow the exemption to be in effect for nine years. The Department's exemption order states that the five years does not begin to run until IP begins to discharge effluent at D-003 into the wetland tract. The possibility that IP might seek to renew the exemption after five years does not make the exemption something other than a five-year exemption. The Department's action on the request to renew the exemption would be subject to public review and challenge by persons whose substantial interests are affected. The Waiver The proposed waiver order would excuse IP from compliance with the criteria in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-660.300(1)(a)3. and 4., which require that public access and recreation be restricted in the area covered by the exemption for experimental use of wetlands. Without the waiver, the public would have to be excluded from Tee and Wicker Lakes. Section 120.542, Florida Statutes, requires a showing by the person seeking the waiver that the purpose of the underlying statute will be achieved by other means and the application of a rule would create a substantial hardship or would violate principles of fairness. Petitioners contend that IP failed to demonstrate substantial hardship. However, Petitioners do not want public access to Tee and Wicker Lakes restricted. The sole reason for their objection to the proposed waiver is apparently to thwart the issuance of the exemption. Section 120.542, Florida Statutes, defines "substantial hardship" as a demonstrated economic, technological, legal, or other type of hardship to the person requesting the waiver. In the proposed waiver order, the Department identifies IP's hardship as the possibility that denial of the waiver could result in denial of IP's NPDES permit and closure of the mill. The proposed waiver order then describes the number of jobs and other economic benefits of the mill that would be lost if the mill were closed. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law below, the Department's interpretation of Section 120.542, Florida Statutes, to accept a demonstration of hardship that is associated with denial of the waiver is mistaken. The statute requires that the hardship arise from the application of the rule. In this case, IP must demonstrate that it would suffer substantial hardship if it were required to restrict public access and recreation on Tee and Wicker Lakes. Petitioners claimed that IP has no authority to restrict the public from gaining access to Tee and Wicker Lakes because those are public waterbodies which the public has a right to enter and use. A substantial legal hardship for IP in complying with the exemption rule, therefore, is that compliance is impossible. The Consent Order 1. Compliance Schedule Subsections 403.088(2)(d) and (e), Florida Statutes, provide that no permit shall be issued unless a reasonable schedule for constructing, installing, or placing into operation of an approved pollution abatement facility or alternative waste disposal system is in place. Petitioners claim the time schedules for compliance are not reasonable. Petitioners presented no competent evidence, however, that the WWTP upgrades, pipeline construction, and other activities required by the proposed permit can be accomplished in a shorter period of time. One recurring theme in the Petitioners' case was that the adverse impacts associated with the continued discharge to Elevenmile Creek should not be allowed to continue, even for an interim period associated with construction of the WWTP upgrades and effluent pipeline. However, Petitioners also advocated the relocation of the discharge to the Escambia River, or to a "constructed wetlands." Both of these alternatives would have required a transition period during which the discharge to Elevenmile Creek would likely have continued. Furthermore, the Consent Order imposes interim limits on the discharge to Elevenmile Creek that would apply immediately upon issuance of the proposed permit. Although altered by the mill's effluent discharge, Elevenmile Creek is now a relatively stable biological system. The proposed permit would effectuate some improvement in the creek and Perdido Bay even during the construction phase. 2. Contingency Plan The proposed Consent Order includes a contingency plan in the event that the NSAI monitoring analysis shows adverse impacts to the biological community within the wetland tract. The plan provides for alternative responses including relocating all or part of the wetland discharge to Elevenmile Creek. Petitioners object to the plan, primarily because they contend it is vague. The provisions in the contingency plan for relocating all or part of the discharge from the wetland tract to Elevenmile Creek, appear to reflect a presumption that the negatives associated with continued discharge to the wetlands would outweigh the negatives associated with returning the discharge to Elevenmile Creek. However, it is not difficult to imagine scenarios where the harm to the biological community of the wetland tract is small in relationship to the harm to the biological community that might have reestablished itself in Elevenmile Creek. Because the selection of an alternative under the contingency plan requires the consideration of data and analyses associated with future events, it is impossible to know at this time whether future action taken by the Department and IP pursuant to the contingency plan would be reasonable. If the contingency plan is intended by the Department and IP to authorize future action when circumstances described in the plan are present, then the plan is too vague. On the other hand, there is adequate detail in the plan if the purpose of the plan is merely to establish a framework for future decision-making that would be subject to permit modification, public review and challenge. Clarification is needed. 2. Penalties Petitioners complained that the stipulated of $500 per day for violations of the proposed Consent Order is too small to provide a deterrent to a company of the size of IP. Petitioners are correct, but did not present evidence to show what size penalty would be appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order: Denying proposed revised NPDES Permit Number FL0002526- 001/001-IW1S; Disapproving revised Consent Order Number 04-1202; Denying IP's petition for authorization for the experimental use of wetlands; and Denying IP's petition for waiver. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2007, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 2007.
Findings Of Fact In May, 1986, Radar Corporation, owned by Ronald Ross, bought the assets of United Water Consultants, Inc., and continued the business of selling water purifiers under the fictitious name, United Water Consultants. As part of the agreement to purchase the United Water Consultants' assets, Ross, who had no experience in the business, insisted that the seller arrange to have an experienced manager agree to stay on and work for Radar at least until either Ross was able to learn the business adequately or could hire another suitable manager. The seller recommended, and Radar hired as manager, a man named Robert Gillette, who had about 30 years experience in the business. One of the first orders of business for Radar and Gillette was to hire staff, including telephone solicitors, the heart of the business. Among-those Gillette hired were the petitioners--Leisha F. Fickes, Petitioner in Case No. 87-2605, hired in early June, 1986; Marian C. Norz, Petitioner in Case No. 86- 2606, hired in late May, 1986; and Eileen A. Warner, Petitioner in Case No. 86- 2607, hired approximately May 20, 1986. Fickes, Norz and Warner (like all other United Water Consultants personnel) signed agreements shortly after they began work stating that they were independent contractors. But the main purpose of those agreements, as Gillette explained to them, was to help justify Radar's failure to take federal income tax withholding and social security out of their pay checks. Functionally, the petitioners had the attributes of employees. They were under the close supervision, direction and control of Gillette in the day-to-day details of their work. They were paid a salary based on an hourly wage, plus commissions on telephone solicitations that resulted in sales. Soon after the petitioners began work, Gillette began making advances towards them. At first, Gillette was not too bold and some of his advances were innocent enough to be in public. He would do things like come up behind one of them and gently massage her shoulders and neck. This type touching was not entirely unwelcome, especially to someone who had been sitting in one place making telephone calls for some length of time. But very quickly, Gillette began to subject the petitioners to coarse and unwelcomed sexual advances in private. On one occasion, Gillette came in the room where Fickes was working and, after massaging her shoulders, began to try to kiss her neck. On another occasion, Gillette loaned Fickes $20 and implied she could pay him back with sexual favors. Later, he began to take opportunities to drop pens and similar articles down her blouse and offer to retrieve them himself. One day Gillette came up behind Warner after posting recent sales and began to rub her breasts, saying "see what I got for you?" Warner pushed him away, and he angrily stormed out of the office. On one Friday, Gillette offered Warner $20 for oral sex and asked her to think about it. On Monday, Gillette followed up his offer and, when Warner declined the offer, said he thought she probably did it for her husband for free. Later, to punish Warner for her refusal to give him sexual favors, Gillette began to give her customer lists for solicitation bearing the names of people who recently had declined to buy a water purifier, and Warner's commissions dropped. When Warner complained, Gillette hold her, "you do for me, and I'll do for you." When Norz asked Gillette for higher commissions, Gillette also told her that he would get her more money in return for sexual favors. He also told her, when she refused his requests that they go out socially together, that he did not know why she was married to an "old man." As Gillette's conduct worsened, all three of the petitioners separately went directly to Ross to complain. Ross said he would look into the allegations and "take care of it." In fact, Ross did nothing. Although most of Gillette's coarser sexual advances were made in private, Norz once observed Gillette rubbing Warner's shoulders as he closed the door of the room they were in, and Warner once observed Gillette drop an article down Fickes' blouse. As they talked with one another, the petitioners began to realize the extent of Gillette's conduct and decided to approach Ross together to see if they could be more persuasive. On July 11, 1986, the petitioners met Ross in the parking lot as he came in to work and demanded to speak to him. They reiterated the facts and demanded that Ross fire Gillette or move him out of the telephone room or they would quit. Ross asked them to come back after lunch. Meanwhile, Ross confronted Gillette for the first time, and Gillette denied the allegations. Gillette demanded a direct confrontation with the petitioners, thinking they would back down. At the meeting after lunch, the petitioners re-asserted their allegations, and Gillette angrily stormed out of the room, expressing an ultimatum that it looked like it would have to be him or them. Ross, whose business would be seriously adversely affected by the departure of Gillette, his manager, told the petitioners that he would have to discuss the situation with his "colleagues" and would get back with them. They told him that they were anxious to hear from him because they (especially Warner and Fickes) needed the work but that they would no longer work under Gillette. When the petitioners did not hear from Ross, Fickes telephoned him and was told that they all had been fired, allegedly because a customer list had turned up missing. (If true, the petitioners had nothing to do with it.) Later, Ross would maintain that the petitioners voluntarily quit on July 11, 1986. Fickes and Warner earned approximately $220 per week and Norz earned approximately $195 per week at United Water Consultants. Norz made no real effort to mitigate damages by seeking other employment after July 11, 1986. Warner and Fickes, both of whom were pregnant, were unable to find other employment before the birth of their babies in August and November, 1986, respectively. Warner took about six weeks off after childbirth and worked three different jobs from late October, 1986, through July, 1987, each of which paid her approximately $140 per week. Fickes did not return to work until March, 1987, when she began earning approximately $170 per week at a restaurant. /1 At least from the time Radar took over the United Water Consultants business through at least December, 1986, at least five employees worked for the business each and every week. Radar operates the United Water Consultants business out of an address located in Largo, a municipality in Pinellas County other than the City of Clearwater.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Community Relations Board of the City of Clearwater, acting as the Commission that administers Pinellas County Ordinance 84-10, codified under Chapter 17.5 of the Pinellas County Code, enter a final order: Holding the respondents, Radar Corporation and United Water Consultants, guilty of having violated Section 2-17.5-3, Pinellas County Code, by discriminating against the petitioners, Leisha F. Fickes, Marian C. Norz and Eileen A. Warner, in employment on the basis of sex; and Ordering the respondents, Radar Corporation and United Water Consultants, jointly and severally, to pay to Leisha F. Fickes $7,740 and to Eileen A. Warner $5,880 as actual damages RECOMMENDED this 6th day of November, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSON 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 6th day of November, 1987.
The Issue Did Respondents violate the provisions of Rules 62-550.518(3), 62-555.320(4)(8), 62-560.410(2)(c), 62555.350(2), and 62-555.345, Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in the Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action, Case Nos. 96-653PW2442B and 96- 653PW2442C dated June 9, 1997?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Department, through the Polk County Health Department, under the authority of an Interagency Agreement with the Department of Environmental Protection, was the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for inspecting and clearing Public Water Systems in Polk County Florida under Section 403.121, Florida Statutes. SDS Properties Investors Group, Inc. (SDS) is a Florida corporation authorized to do business as Budget Motel. SDS is owned by Shaikh. Sanitary surveys are conducted by the Department every three years and include the inspection of Public Water Systems (PWS) . On January 26, 1996, the Department conducted a routine sanitary survey of Budget Motel (Budget) located at 1418 Highway 17 South, Lake Wales, Florida, which should have included Budget's public water system, PWS 6532442. However, Polk County's inspector, Henry Tagioff, was shown a well, by a Budget employee, that was located on the adjacent property owned by Smokey's Mobile Home Park (Smokey's) and not a part of Budget's water system. Tagioff was not aware that the well he inspected was owned by Smokey's and not on Budget's property. During the inspection, Tagioff noted several violations and advised the Budget employee that Tagioff needed to discuss these violations with Shaikh. On January 29, 1996, Tagioff and Lee Forgey, another Polk County employee, met with Shaikh to discuss the violations noted by Tagioff on January 26, 1996. During this meeting, Shaikh, Tagioff, and Forgey discussed the violations previously found by Tagioff on January 26, 1996, concerning the well on Smokey's property. At no time during this meeting did Shaikh advise Tagioff or Forgey that neither he nor Budget own the well under discussion. The record is not clear, but sometime between January and May 1996, Budget's well had collapsed and was not useable. Subsequent to Budget's well collapsing, Shaikh contracted with George Dunham, after obtaining Smokey's permission, to connect Budget's water system (PWS6532442) to Smokey's well. At the time of connecting Budget's water system to Smokey's well, Dunham advised Shaikh that this was only a temporary solution and gave Shaikh a proposal for a new well since Budget's old well could not be repaired. On May 2, 1996, Tagioff made a reinspection of Budget's water system and found that Budget's well had collapsed and was inoperable, and that Budget had connected to Smokey's well to furnish water to the motel and its guests. Tagioff advised Shaikh that Budget would need a new well since its old well was inoperable and the connection to Smokey's well was only temporary. On May 21, 1996, Mark Fallah, a Polk County employee, conducted a site inspection and prepared a report for use in connection with Budget's application with Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) for a new well permit. In connection with Fallah's site inspection and report, the Department advised Shaikh by letter dated May 21, 1996, of certain things concerning the new well that had to be completed prior to placing the well into public use. The letter provides in pertinent part as follows: Upon completion of the drilling and the verification of the grouting procedure by the Water Management District, the following items, as required by Chapters 62-555 and 62550 of the Florida Administrative Code, are to be completed prior to this water system being placed into public use. * * * 2. A continuous chlorination unit that is electrically interlocked with the well pump circuit. * * * A flow measuring device is required on all Non-Community Water Systems. A copy of the well completion report must be furnished to this office by the well driller within thirty (30) days after the well installation. Bacteriological clearance of the well must be performed by submitting twenty (20) consecutive water samples for analysis to an HRS certified laboratory. A maximum of two (2) samples per day taken at least six hours apart may be collected. Additional samples may be required until twenty (20) consecutive satisfactory samples are received. * * * After the well and plant construction is completed, contact our office for an inspection so that written clearance can be issued. It is prohibited for any Public water system to be placed into use without clearance being issued from this department. (Emphasis Furnished). SWFWMD approved Budget's new well application and issued Budget Permit No. 579811.01 for drilling a new well. However, upon completion of the new well, there were certain conditions that had to be met as indicated in the letter from the Department dated May 21, 1996. On May 31, 1996, and July 10, 1996, Fallah inspected Budget's new water system for compliance and, on both occasions, found that Budget had failed to install the chlorination unit, the flow meter, and had not submitted a well completion report or bacteriological samples. On July 15, 1996, the Department issued a Warning Notice to Shaikh advising him that the system could not be used until approved by the Department. For enforcement purposes, the file was transferred to Lewis Taylor, enforcement officer for drinking water systems for Polk County. On November 14, 1996, Taylor conducted an inspection of Budget's water system and reported that: (1) Budget's well had been placed into service without approval from the Department; (2) there was no chlorinator in operation; (3) there was no flow meter; (4) the Department had not received any bacteriological samples since November 1995; (5) there was no certified operator servicing the motel's water system; and (6) Budget had not provided public notice to its customers of its failure to monitor its drinking water. A second Warning Notice was issued by the Department and furnished to Shaikh on November 22, 19-96, which in substance advised Shaikh that Budget was in violation of Rules 62-550 and 62- 555, Florida Administrative Code, for its: (1) failure to obtain the Department's clearance before placing its new well in service; (2) failure to provide quarterly bacteriological samples; (3) failure to maintain proper chlorine residual in the water system; failure to provide a flow meter in the water system; (5) failure to provide public notification to its customers that its water system had failed to comply with Rule 62-550, Florida Administrative Code; and (6) failure to provide the Department with verification of Budget retaining a certified operator to oversee the operation and maintenance of its water system. On March 3, 1997, Tagioff and John GoPaul, US Environmental Agency, inspected Budget's water system and found that: (1) there was no chlorine residual in the system; (2) the chlorination unit located at the motel was not in use; (3) there was no flow meter within the system; (4) no quarterly bacteriological samples had been furnished to the Department; and the well had not been cleared for use by the Department. Based on the testimony of Lewis Taylor which I find credible, the Department has expended the following in the inspection of Budget's water system: (1) 20.25 hours of professional time at a rate of $30.00 per hour for a total of $607.50; (2) three hours of clerical time at a rate of $15.00 per hour for a total of $45.00; and (3) $27.00 in travel costs and postage. The total amount expended in the inspection of this water system by the Department was $679.50.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order finding Respondents guilty of the violations as charged and requiring Respondents to comply with the Orders for Corrective Action as set out in the Notice of Violation and Orders of Corrective Action in Case Nos. 96-653PW2442B and 96-653PW2442C. It is further recommended that Respondents be required to pay the costs and expenses of investigating the violations and prosecuting this matter in the amount of $679.50. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Building 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Roland Reis, Esquire Department of Health Polk County Health Department 1290 Golfview Avenue, 4th Floor Bartow, Florida 33830-6740 Habib U. Shaikh 4014 Billingsgate Road Orlando, Florida 32839-7515 SDS Properties Investors Group, Inc. d/b/a Budget Motel 1418 Highway 17 South Lake Wales, Florida 33853
Findings Of Fact Jaime Fernandez was transferred in 1977 to Clearwater Traffic Engineering Department as an electrician's helper from the Clearwater Pollution Control Department. Prior to coming to Water Pollution Control, Respondent had been a CETA employee in the Parks Department from which he was fired for incompetence (Respondent's testimony). Although the exact situation was not made clear to the Hearing Officer, it appeared that Respondent appealed his firing from the Parks Department alleging some type of discrimination, and, following a hearing, the City was required to reemploy him. At all times here relevant, Respondent was an employee in the Classified Civil Service of Clearwater. Respondent testified that the evaluations he received at Water Pollution Control were satisfactory overall, and the request for a transfer was initiated by him. As an electrician's helper, Respondent was one of six or seven electrician's helpers. When he was subsequently transferred to the position of ET helper, he was the only ET helper in the Traffic Engineering Department. With a larger number of electrician's helpers it was easier to assign trench digging, painting and other similar menial jobs to Respondent without detracting from the overall efficiency of the Department than it was when Respondent became the only ET helper in a group with two ET's. Respondent served as an electrician's helper in the Traffic Engineering Department for approximately two years before he was transferred to the position of ET helper. During these two years as an electrician's helper, Respondent failed to get a satisfactory overall evaluation and never received a merit pay increase. He was transferred to the electronics shop as an ET helper in late 1979. In the six months follow-up review of Respondent's unsatisfactory evaluation report dated 2-9-80, the Director of the Traffic Engineering Department recommended Fernandez be terminated for incompetence. This recommendation was rejected by the Personnel Department because of insufficient documentation of the events giving rise to the recommendation. On August 25, 1978, Respondent was given a letter of reprimand following an accident involving a truck, driven by Respondent, and a building in which Respondent's inattention contributed to the accident (Exhibit 6). On April 14, 1980, Respondent was suspended from duty without pay for three days on charges of incompetence and inefficiency in his work product, errors in daily time cards and other reports, and continuous performance evaluations indicating improvement needed. On the instant charges the evidence was unrebutted that during the period August 1, 1980, through March 15, 1981, 19 errors were made by Respondent on the time sheets he submitted. Twenty-seven other employees in the same Department fill out time sheets and, during the same period, the next highest number of errors was eight. Most of the employees made only one or two errors in completing their time sheets. During the period February 2, 1981 to February 5, 1981, Respondent was given a work order to construct and install back boards in two transit controllers (Exhibit 1). Included in the work order was a drawing showing how the panel was to be connected and detailed instructions on how the work was to be performed. Despite close supervision, Respondent failed to follow the instructions, cut the wires longer than the maximum three feet lengths as shown on the work order, installed grounding bar in the wrong location, and did not properly lace the harness. This work order was within the capability of a reasonably qualified ET helper to complete in twenty hours. Respondent took forty-seven hours to accomplish this work and made numerous errors which had to be corrected by others. During a period in mid-February; 1981, Respondent was assigned a detector to repair. Repair of this equipment was also within the capability of a reasonably qualified ET helper in about four hours. After working on this detector for twenty-one hours, Respondent was still unable to repair it. It was given to an electronics technician who repaired the detector in approximately one hour. Respondent, in work order 136, was given an LT 169 load pack to repair. Test equipment is set up in the petitioner's shop for trouble shooting this equipment. After testing this load pack, Respondent replaced the part he thought defective but, when tested by someone else, the equipment was still inoperative. The part replaced by Respondent was the part most frequently found defective in this load pack. In this instance, this part was not the cause of the equipment being in operative. This was a routine work order that a reasonably qualified ET helper should have been able to complete. Respondent has been counselled and evaluated numerous times by different supervisors in the Traffic Engineering Department for the past three years and has yet to be assigned a satisfactory evaluation. No other employee has been retained in a position with the City of Clearwater for such an extended period with unsatisfactory evaluations. Respondent testified that he has completed a two-year course in electronics at Pinellas County Vocational School and has one year of college. Accordingly, he deemed himself better qualified as an ET helper than as an electrician's helper. He felt he should have been disciplined for incompetency as an electrician's helper during the two years he worked in that Division, rather than as an ET helper in which position he has worked for approximately one year. Respondent's testimony, that he was denied earned leave or pay for this leave when he was dismissed, was not rebutted. However, the City of Clearwater's regulations relating to leave were not presented to the Hearing Officer, and without access to these regulations, Respondent's claim cannot be resolved.
The Issue Whether Respondent knowingly submitted an inaccurate timesheet for April 4, 2018, as charged in the agency action letter dated May 11, 2018.
Findings Of Fact ECUA is a public utility that provides water, wastewater, and sanitation services to customers in Escambia and Santa Rosa counties. ECUA’s mission statement specifies that the Board and employees of ECUA “are committed to providing the highest quality service” and that “ECUA will always provide cost- effective services.” The Manual sets forth the terms and conditions of employment with ECUA. The Manual specifies that: Overtime work should be for emergency or unforeseen situations and to solve problems which are not a part of the daily activities. Supervisors are expected to use overtime work sparingly and employees should respond when called upon. Overtime and compensatory time authorization will be established by the supervisor with the approval of the department director. During the relevant time period, ECUA employed Mr. Boyd as an Industrial Plant Mechanic I. On June 26, 2012, Mr. Boyd signed a document acknowledging that a copy of the Manual was available to him in his supervisor’s office, via ECUA’s intranet, in ECUA’s Human Resources Department, and via compact disc upon request. Mr. Boyd also acknowledged on June 26, 2012, that it was his “responsibility to read the entire Manual/Handbook and to comply with the plans, guidelines, directives, and procedures contained in the Manual/Handbook and any revisions to it.” As an Industrial Plant Mechanic I, Mr. Boyd works under the supervision of a senior mechanic. He normally begins his workday by reporting to the Central Wastewater Reclamation Facility (“CWRF”) at 7:00 a.m. and is dispatched to assigned worksites. He uses an ECUA truck to travel to and from those sites. Mr. Boyd has a 30-minute lunch break for which he is not compensated. He is also allowed one 15-minute break in the morning and another in the afternoon. Mr. Boyd’s typical workday ends at 3:30 p.m. With a 30-minute lunch break, that amounts to an eight-hour workday. In April of 2018, ECUA needed to replace all of the diffusers at its Bayou Marcus Water Reclamation Facility (“the BMWRF”). Mack H. Weeks, ECUA’s Plant Maintenance Manager at the time, had supervisory authority over Mr. Boyd. Shortly before April 4, 2018, Mr. Boyd mentioned to Mr. Weeks that he wanted to stop at the BMWRF on April 4, 2018, prior to reporting to the CWRF, in order to see if the water level had decreased to a point where the diffusers in question were visible. According to Mr. Boyd, that information would enable him and the three other members of his four-person work crew to ascertain what parts they needed to complete the repair. However, there was no benefit for Mr. Boyd to stop at the BMWRF prior to reporting to the CWRF.3/ At 6:32 a.m. on April 4, 2018, ECUA’s security system recorded Mr. Boyd passing through a gate at the BMWRF. Mr. Boyd took a picture of a portion of the BMWRF a few minutes later. The security system at the CWRF recorded Mr. Boyd entering the facility at 7:13 a.m. on April 4, 2018. Mr. Boyd traveled back to the BMWRF with Kevin Spinks, an ECUA co-worker, in an ECUA work truck that had been assigned to Mr. Spinks. Carl Ayliffe and another ECUA employee were the remainder of the four-person work crew assigned to that job, and they traveled to the BMWRF in a separate ECUA truck. The tank at the BMWRF was on-line by 3:00 p.m. on April 4, 2018. Every ECUA truck has a global positioning system that enables ECUA to know precisely where each truck is at virtually any given point in time. The GPS on Mr. Spinks’ truck was not functioning because the antenna had been disconnected. However, the GPS on Mr. Ayliffe’s truck was functioning and recorded that he was done working at 4:29 p.m., on April 4, 2018.4/ Rather than returning his truck to the CWRF, Mr. Ayliffe drove the truck to his home because he was on call that night. A camera at the back gate of the CWRF recorded Mr. Spinks returning his truck at 5:07 p.m. on April 4, 2018. ECUA’s security system recorded Mr. Boyd using his employee badge to enter the CWRF through the southeast shop door at 5:09 p.m. on April 4, 2018. In consideration of a need to gather any belongings and/or complete paperwork, Mr. Boyd’s work on April 4, 2018, should have ended at approximately 5:30 p.m. on April 4, 2018. On April 16, 2018, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Spinks, and Mr. Ayliffe submitted timesheets indicating that they each worked eight regular hours and three overtime hours on April 4, 2018. Ultimate Findings The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that there was no benefit to Mr. Boyd stopping at the BMWRF on April 4, 2018, prior to reporting for work at the CWRF. The greater weight of the evidence also demonstrates that his stop at the BMWRF was unauthorized by anyone who supervised Mr. Boyd. As a result, Mr. Boyd’s stop at the BMWRF on April 4, 2018, was an attempt to accumulate unnecessary overtime pay. The undisputed evidence demonstrates that Mr. Boyd began his workday at 7:13 a.m. on April 4, 2018, and his workday should have ended at approximately 5:30 p.m. after he reported back to the CWRF at 5:09 p.m. Given that Mr. Boyd was entitled to a 30-minute, unpaid lunch break, the undisputed evidence indicates that he worked 9.75 hours on April 4, 2018, rather than the 11 hours indicated on his timesheet.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Executive Director of the Emerald Coast Utilities Authority find that Robert D. Boyd, II, violated Section B-3, attendance records; Section B-13 A (4), conduct unbecoming an ECUA employee; Section B-13 A (13), falsification of records; and Section B-13 A (33), violation of ECUA rules or guidelines or state or federal law. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of September, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL 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 17th day of September, 2018.
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 issue to be determined by this Order is whether the Request for Administrative Hearing filed by Petitioner with the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) on February 15, 2013, was timely1/ and, if not, whether the application of the doctrine of equitable tolling would serve to relieve Petitioner of the consequences of having failed to file a petition for hearing within the time allotted by applicable notice provisions.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, SRQUS, LLC, is an active Florida, limited- liability corporation, and is the owner of submerged lands and adjacent upland property contiguous to Sarasota Bay. Petitioner is a closely held entity, the only members being Achim and Erika Ginsberg-Klemmt. Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, is an agency of the State of Florida having jurisdiction for permitting Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4), including duties as a federally-approved state program for the implementation of the Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program, pursuant to authority conferred under section 403.0885, Florida Statutes. Respondents, Sarasota County, City of Sarasota, City of Venice, Town of Longboat Key, and Department of Transportation (“DOT”) (collectively the “Applicants”) are responsible for certain existing stormwater point-source discharges to waters of the state from those portions of MS4 facilities owned or operated by one or more of the individual Applicants. The DEP issued a notice of proposed agency action to issue a renewal of an existing MS4 Permit to the Applicants. On January 30, 2013, Sarasota County arranged for the notice to be published in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, which is a newspaper of general circulation in Sarasota County. The notice provided as follows: STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE PERMIT AND REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING The Department of Environmental Protection gives notice of its intent to issue a permit to Sarasota County, 1660 Ringling Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida 34236 within its jurisdiction and including the following co- permittees: Florida Department of Transportation District One, Town of Longboat Key, City of North Port, City of Sarasota, and City of Venice, for renewal of a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System [MS4] permit. Any person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed permitting decision of the Department may petition for an administrative hearing in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57 of the Florida Statutes (F.S.). The petition must contain the information set forth below and must be filed (received) in the Department of Environmental Protection, Office of General Counsel, Mail Station 35, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000. Petitions must be filed within fourteen days of publication of this public notice or within fourteen days of receipt of the notice of intent, whichever occurs first. A petitioner must mail a copy of the petition to the applicant at the address indicated above, at the time of filing. The failure of any person to file a petition [or a request for mediation, as discussed below] within the appropriate time period shall constitute a waiver of that person?s right to request an administrative determination (hearing) under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S., or to intervene in this proceeding and participate as a party to it. Any subsequent intervention will be only at the discretion of the presiding officer upon the filing of a motion in compliance with Rule 28-5.207 of the Florida Administrative Code. A petition must contain the following information: The name, address and telephone number of each petitioner, the Department Permit Number and the county in which the MS4 is located; A statement of how and when each petitioner received notice of the Department?s action; A statement of how each petitioner?s substantial interests are affected by the Department?s action; A statement of the material facts disputed by the petitioner, if any; A statement of facts that the petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the Department?s action; A statement of which rules or statutes the petitioner contends require reversal or modification of the Department?s action; and A statement of the relief sought by the petitioner, stating precisely the action that the petitioner wants the Department to take. Because the administrative hearing process is designed to formulate final agency action, the filing of a petition means that the final action of the Department may be different from the position taken by it in the notice of intent. Persons whose substantial interests will be affected by any such final decision of the Department on the permit revision have the right to petition to become a party to the proceeding, in accordance with the requirements set forth above. Mediation under Section 120.573, F.S. is not available for this proceeding. The permit application file and supporting data are available for public inspection during normal business hours, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal holidays, at Department of Environmental Protection, NPDES Stormwater Section, 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Room 560, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400, phone number (850) 245-8430. Date of pub. January 30, 2013. Because a portion of the Town of Longboat Key extends into Manatee County, the Town of Longboat Key arranged for the notice to be published in the Bradenton Herald, which is a newspaper of general circulation in Manatee County. The notice was published on February 4, 2013. The substance of the notice, except for the date of publication, was identical to that published in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Neither Petitioner, nor its representatives, saw either of the published notices prior to the filing of the Petition. On or about February 8, 2012, as a result of the filing of a pre-hearing stipulation in related litigation involving an Environmental Resource Permit (“ERP”) issued by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (“SWFWMD”), Petitioner became aware of the existence of the MS4 Permit. Erika Ginsberg-Klemmt obtained a copy of the permit online, and on February 12, 2013, sent an e-mail to employees of the DEP Ft. Myers? office expressing her general concern with water quality from the disputed stormwater outfall. She expressed her belief that Sarasota County was in violation of the existing MS4 permit, and requested that the recipients of her e-mail “[p]lease be so kind as to look into this matter and let us know what could be done to prevent this unacceptable condition to continue unchecked like it did in the past.” The e-mail did not request any information regarding the MS4 Permit renewal application, nor did it request any information regarding notices or deadlines related to the application. On February 13, 2013, Christopher Wright, a consultant for Petitioner, called the DEP to gather information and do some “legwork” related to Petitioner?s challenge to the SWFWMD?s ERP. The purpose of the call was to determine if information submitted to the DEP in conjunction with the MS4 application, particularly drainage basin maps, could have been of use in the SWFWMD litigation. Mr. Wright spoke with DEP employee, Heather Ritchie, regarding the drainage basin maps that had been submitted to the DEP. During the course of their discussion, Ms. Ritchie advised Mr. Wright that a Notice of Intent to issue the MS4 Permit had been issued by the DEP. However, Ms. Ritchie did not know when Sarasota County had published the notice or when the deadline for challenging the proposed agency action was to run. In short, Ms. Ritchie expressed to Mr. Wright that “she didn?t know what the status of things were.” The discussion then went back to the primary substance of the call, which was watersheds and discharge points. Ms. Ritchie agreed to provide Mr. Wright with an electronic copy of a drainage map from the MS4 Permit file. At 12:43 p.m., on February 13, 2013, Ms. Ritchie sent a map to Mr. Wright via e-mail, and indicated that “[i]f you have additional questions or comments, you may call or e-mail me.” Later on the afternoon of February 13, 2013, Mr. Wright decided that he should ask Ms. Ritchie for a copy of the Notice of Intent. At 5:59 p.m., on February 13, 2013, after the close of business for the day, Mr. Wright wrote to Ms. Ritchie thanking her for her “rapid response to my inquiry today,” and providing her with comments on various basin areas and discharge structures. Mr. Wright concluded his e-mail by stating that “at this time I would also like to request a copy of the Notice of Intent to Issue the MS4 Permit.” The next morning, February 14, 2013, Ms. Ritchie provided Mr. Wright with the Notice of Intent to Issue the MS4 Permit as requested. Later that morning, Mr. Wright inquired as to the time for filing a challenge to the permit. Ms. Ritchie replied at 2:34 p.m. that afternoon that the MS4 Permit “was publicly noticed by the county on January 30th with a 14 day window. The window closed yesterday.” There is no evidence that Ms. Ritchie had any specific information as to the date of publication or the deadline for filing a challenge prior to that communication with Mr. Wright. Petitioner filed the Petition on February 15, 2013. The disputes identified in the Petition were directed exclusively at a 46-acre drainage basin in downtown Sarasota, and a related discharge structure that discharges stormwater from the basin to Sarasota Bay just south of the intersection of U.S. Highway 41 and Fruitville Road. The disputed basin and discharge point are located in Sarasota County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, issue a final order dismissing Petitioner?s Request for Hearing and Amended Petition for FLS000004-004 on the ground that the Petition was not timely filed. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 18th day of October, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing; the following facts relevant to the issue presented for determination are found: The prime complaint heard from petitioner's customers who testified at the hearing was the objectionable odor of the water received in their homes. The water was described as smelling like chlorine or like sewer, swamp or sulphur water. Such an objectionable odor affects the water's taste, and several customers testified that they were compelled to use filters to make the water bearable to drink. Another witness testified that the water tasted like quinine. Other complaints regarding the quality of water provided by petitioner to its customers included the presence of debris, such as sand, silt or dirt, in the water, the staining of white sinks by the water and inadequate water pressure. Complaints with regard to the service provided by petitioner to its customers were also voiced. These complaints included interruptions in water service without prior notice, the presence of air in the water lines and the necessity of making long-distance telephone calls to Orlando when inquiring about their bills. One customer testified that even though he had paid for a temporary disconnection of his water when he was away from his residence, he was still billed a minimum charge for service. Several customers testified that petitioner's office personnel failed to timely or adequately respond to their complaints or inquiries regarding their bills. Charles Sweat, the vice president of operations for petitioner's fifty- one systems in eight counties, visits each of the systems at least once a month. At the time that petitioner took over the operation of the Intercession City water system in 1977, the system was under citation by the Department of Environmental Regulation for inadequate chlorination of the water. The Department of Environmental Regulation does have a minimum requirement as to the amount of chlorine which must be added to the water. Petitioner corrected this deficiency and the citation was removed. Neither of the two water systems involved in this proceeding - Intercession City and Tropical Park - are presently under citation by any state or local regulatory agency. Analyses of monthly laboratory samples of water from the Intercession City and the Tropical Park systems indicate that the water quality will meet the Department of Environmental Regulation's secondary drinking water standards which went into effect on January 13, 1981. Petitioner now provides a toll-free telephone number which Osceola County customers may use to call Orlando. Notice of this toll-free number was included in the water bills sent to customers in September or October of 1980. A log is maintained by petitioner of all interruptions of water service. On one occasion occurring on March 3, 1980, there was a water outage. The outage was caused by low temperatures freezing the pressure switch at a time when it was at a high pressure level. When there was no pressure, the switch, being frozen, was incapable of sending an on-signal to the pump. It was necessary for petitioner to use torches to thaw out the pipes to make the system work properly. Cold weather sufficient to cause such an effect rarely occurs in Florida. On January 16, 1981, there was an interruption in service caused by the county cutting a water line. Another interruption of service occurred on January 18, 1981. This was caused by the malfunction of an air release valve which releases excess air from the pressure tank. Air was eventually caused to go into the distribution system and consequently into the homes of the customers. Petitioner's personnel have been instructed to watch this type of situation more carefully and more often. Petitioner's vice president of operations was not aware of recent complaints from customers concerning air problems, but testified that he would immediately and personally follow up on the problem.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the quality of water service provided by petitioner to its customers in Osceola County be found to be satisfactory and that no adverse consequences be imposed upon the petitioner in its application for a rate increase as a result of the quality of its service. Respectfully submitted and entered this 22nd day of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, 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 22nd day of April, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: R.M.C. Rose Myers, Kaplan, Levinson, Kenin and Richards Suite 103, 1020 Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jack Shreve Public Counsel Room 4 - Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 M. Robert Christ Legal Department Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steve Tribble, Clerk Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
