The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's application to sit for the water well contractor examination should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the following findings of fact are made: On January 9, 2004, Petitioner, who resides in Baker County, Florida, filed his application with the District requesting that he be allowed to sit for the water well contractor examination. The requirements for qualification to take the examination are set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-531.300. Relevant to this controversy is the requirement that an applicant present "satisfactory proof of two years experience in the water well construction business." This requirement is normally met by the applicant providing a list of at least ten water well jobs he has completed during a consecutive 24-month period (together with their locations, major use, and approximate depth and diameter), the name and address of the owner of the well, and the approximate date the activity took place. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-531.300(6)(a). If the work has been completed in Florida, the applicant is also required to submit copies of completion reports for each of the ten wells. Id. Completion reports are filed by the contractor with the District within thirty days after the work is completed. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40C-3.411. Finally, the applicant must submit letters from three persons attesting to the length of time the applicant has been working in the water well construction business as a major activity. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-531.600(6)(a). Alternatively, an applicant may present "satisfactory proof of equivalent experience," which may be accepted by the District "on a individual basis." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 531.300(6)(b). While this option has rarely, if ever, been used by any applicant, at hearing the District suggested that this provision would allow an applicant to submit other credible documentary evidence, such as affidavits, attesting to the applicant's equivalent experience. Mr. Julian C. Varnes, Jr., a District water resource representative III, is in charge of reviewing water well contractor applications in four northeast Florida counties, including Baker County. Mr. Varnes reviewed Petitioner's application and concluded that he had failed to submit proof of two years' experience in the water well contracting business or satisfactory proof of equivalent experience, as required by the rule. In this case, Petitioner submitted ten completion reports with his application, but none of the reports indicated that he had been involved on those projects, and Petitioner acknowledged at hearing that he could not recall if he was even present on the job site. This is probably because the reports related to jobs performed between November 10, 1982, and July 31, 1985, by his father, a licensed water well contractor, when Petitioner was less than fifteen years old. In addition, the reports submitted by Petitioner covered work performed over a 32-month period, rather than over a 24-month period, as required by the rule, and some of the reports did not have the complete address of the location of the well. By letter dated February 4, 2004, the District advised Petitioner that his application was deficient because he had failed to submit the information required in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-531.300(1)(b) and (6) relative to experience. The letter advised Petitioner that he must submit an "acceptable list of ten wells together with their completion reports, for wells that [he had] constructed, repaired, or abandoned, with completion dates distributed over a consecutive 24-month time period." Further telephonic discussions between Petitioner and District personnel concerning the request for additional information occurred on March 25 and 29, 2004, but they did not resolve the District's concerns. On June 15, 2004, the District staff again notified Petitioner in writing that he must submit the requested information within 30 days or his application would be denied. When no response was received from Petitioner, on July 27, 2004, the staff issued a Technical Staff Report recommending that the application be denied because of Petitioner's failure to comply with the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 531.300(1)(b) and (6). On August 23, 2004, a Notice of Staff Intent to Recommend Denial of Water Well Contractor Application No. 7300 and Notice of Rights was issued by the District. Petitioner's request for a hearing was then filed. After his first request for a hearing was dismissed, on November 18, 2004, Petitioner filed an amended request for a hearing. In that request, he alleged that the District was "not capable of locating completion reports filed by [Petitioner] and/or his father"; that the experience of he and his father was well known to two District staffers; that he had purchased a well drilling company from another individual and operated under the seller's license for over a year; that he is entitled to licensure because he has satisfactory equivalent experience; and that his father has paid all outstanding fines previously imposed by the District. As relief, Petitioner has requested that he be allowed to take the contractor's examination. At hearing, Petitioner explained that his father was in the water well contracting business for twenty years, and that beginning in 1983, when he was thirteen years old, he had helped his father on "hundreds of jobs" until his father's retirement in 1994. However, Petitioner cannot recall the names and addresses of customers who were serviced by his father's business, which is necessary in order for the District to retrieve completion reports presumably filed by his father. Because of the large number of completion reports filed by contractors throughout its multi-county jurisdiction, in order to retrieve one, the District must have the following information: the year the job was completed, the county in which the job was performed, and the address (township and range) of the well's owner. Petitioner is unable to provide this information.1 In addition, Petitioner stated that he had purchased a water well contractor's business (from Tim Johnson) shortly after his father retired in 1994 and that he operated the business under Mr. Johnson's license for a little more than a year. Although Petitioner produced no documentation concerning jobs he may have performed under Mr. Johnson's license, even if he had, that work would still constitute less than 24 consecutive months of experience, as required by the rule. Petitioner further asserted that Mr. Varnes, who oversees the water well contractors in Baker County, personally "knows" that he is an experienced well driller (having gained such experience through working for his father for many years) and that he possesses the skills necessary to take the examination. However, Mr. Varnes did not agree with this assertion. Finally, Petitioner asked that he be allowed to take the examination, which would be the best indicator of whether he possesses the necessary knowledge to be a contractor. He also pointed out that each completed project must be inspected by a District employee, and that such inspections would verify and ensure that his work is satisfactory. However, the rules require that before the examination can be taken, certain requirements must be met. Petitioner has not satisfied those requirements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order denying Petitioner's application to sit for the water well contractor examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 25th day of January, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a well-drilling contractor, holding WWC License #7015. Ridge Properties, Inc., which is the developer of Sundance Ridge, hired Respondent to construct private water wells on lots as they were developed in preparation for the construction of residences. On December 5, 1991, Respondent prepared a completion report for a well that he constructed at lot 64 of Sundance Ridge. The report indicates that Respondent installed well casing to a depth of 63 feet, which was two feet into "hard brown rock," as described on the report. The report discloses that the static water table was encountered 78 feet below the top of the well casing. As indicated in the report, Respondent sent no cuttings to Petitioner for this well-drilling job. On April 24, 1992, Respondent prepared a completion report for a well that he constructed at lot 51 of Sundance Ridge. The report indicates that Respondent installed well casing to a depth of 67 feet, which was 12 feet into "bedrock," as described on the report. The report discloses that the static water level was encountered 76 feet below the top of the well casing. As indicated in the report, Respondent sent no cuttings to Petitioner for this well-drilling job. There is no completion report for the well that Respondent constructed at lot 62 of Sundance Ridge. However, based on information from the well tag, Respondent constructed this well on December 5, 1991, and its casing depth does not reach the static water level. There is no completion report for another well on Marshal Road that Respondent constructed for Shamrock Construction. However, Petitioner admits that Respondent has corrected any problems that may have existed regarding this well. The three wells that Respondent drilled for Ridge Properties, Inc. produced water with a substantial amount of particulate matter. The presence of particulate matter, which was largely sand, was attributable to the fact that Respondent failed to drive the well casings below the static water level in these three wells. Contrary to his claims, Respondent did not encounter chert in drilling these three wells or driving the casings for them. Chert is a dense consolidated mass of rock, often silica. It is more typically found in Alachua and Marion Counties than it is in the Sorrento area of Lake County, which is the location of these three wells. Respondent never repaired the three wells in question. Repair would have required driving the casing deeper until it extends below the static water table. Respondent never obtained a variance for driving the casings to a depth shallower than the depth of the static water level. On April 1, 1993, Petitioner issued warning notices for the three Sundance Ridge wells, plus the Shamrock Construction well. When Respondent failed to make the necessary repairs within the time allowed by the warning notices, Petitioner issued a Notice of Violation on August 13, 1993. The Notice of Violation alleges that the casings do not extend to or below the static water level in the four wells and that Respondent has received four warning notices over the "recommended repetitive total." The Notice of Violation seeks an administrative penalty of $2000, costs and attorneys' fees of $186.40, and correction of the violations within 30 days of entry of a final order and filing of completion reports within 15 additional days. Paragraph 15 of the Notice of Violation explains: This Notice of Violation (NOV) will become a Final Order of [Petitioner] and may be used in further disciplinary actions against your water well contractor's license if you do not comply with it, or do not timely request a hearing pursuant to Section 373.333, F.S., and Rule 17-531.400, F.A.C., as explained in this Notice of Rights. The Notice of Violation warns: [Petitioner] is not barred by the issuance of this NOV from maintaining an independent action in circuit court with respect to the alleged violations. Ten days after issuing the Notice of Violation, Petitioner issued a Technical Staff Report, which states that Respondent's water well contractor's license had been placed on six months' probation in 1991 and again in 1992. After Respondent completed repairs, the probationary status was removed in October 1992. The Technical Staff Report states that, since October 1992, Petitioner has cited Respondent for six additional violations of Chapter 40C-3. Two violations were reportedly "resolved." According to the report, Respondent "has attempted to correct the violations at the other four sites, but has been unable to drive the well casing any deeper.. The Technical Staff Report acknowledges that a Notice of Violation was mailed Respondent on August 13, 1993, due to noncompliance with the four warning notices. The Technical Staff Report mentions that Respondent has been issued 23 citations for violations of Chapter 40C-3, including 13 for not extending the casing to or below the static water level. The Technical Staff Report recommends that Respondent be placed on six months' suspension, during which time Respondent shall correct the deficient wells. If repaired by the end of the six months' suspension, then Respondent's license would be placed on six months' probation. During the term of probation, Respondent would be required to notify Petitioner's staff 48 hours in advance of beginning construction of any well so that staff could be present to ensure that the wells were lawfully constructed. The Technical Staff Report, which was mailed to Respondent on or about August 23, 1993, gives him an opportunity to request a formal hearing. On September 10, 1993, Respondent demanded a hearing by letter, which Petitioner received September 13. The demand references a "request for a formal hearing on notice of violation and order for corrective action," which is a reference to the Notice of Violation. The demand states that Respondent received notice of Petitioner's action by certified letter on "August 13, 1993." The demand adds: [Petitioner's] determination in the above matter can destroy [Respondent's] ability to earn a living in his profession, cause [Respondent] to lose his current employment, cause to continue extensive physical and emotional stress exerted on the above [Respondent] by [Petitioner], and cause the unjust ruination of his reputation in the community that he resides. Treating the demand for hearing as applicable to the Notice of Violation, but not the Technical Staff Report, Petitioner referred only the Notice of Violation to the Division of Administrative Hearings and immediately proceeded to suspend Respondent's license, based on his failure to file a separate demand for a hearing on the Technical Staff Report.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order suspending Respondent's license commencing from the effective date of the suspension imposed pursuant to the Technical Staff Report and ending six months thereafter, without regard to whether Respondent has repaired the three Sundance Ridge wells or ever repairs them. ENTERED on April 20, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on April 20, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry Dean Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 Attorney Clare E. Gray St. Johns River Water Management District P.O. Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 C. L. Hicks 1935 CR 470 W. Okahumpka, FL 34762
The Issue The issues set forth in DOAH Case No. 84-3810 concern the question of whether the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) should issue a permit to Homer Smith d/b/a Homer Smith Seafood (Homer Smith) to construct a wastewater treatment facility which is constituted of a screening mechanism, dissolved air flotation treatment system, sludge drying bed, pumping station and subaqueous pipeline. In the related action, DOAH Case No. 84-3811, the question is raised whether DER should issue a dredge and fill permit to Homer Smith for the installation of the aforementioned pipeline along submerged lands in Trout Creek, Palmo Cove and the St. Johns River.
Findings Of Fact Introduction and Background In 1982, Homer Smith, under the name of Homer Smith Seafood, established a calico scallop processing facility in the vicinity of the intersection of State Road 13 and Trout Creek in St. Johns County, Florida. From that point forward, Smith has owned and operated the processing plant. His plant adjoins Trout Creek, which is a tributary to the St. Johns River. Both Trout Creek and the St. Johns River are tidally influenced waters that are classified as Class III surface waters under Rule 17-3.161, Florida Administrative Code. The processing undertaken by Smith's operation at Trout Creek contemplates the preparation of the scallops for human consumption. In particular, it involves the purchase of calico scallops from Port Canaveral, Florida, after which the scallops are transported by refrigerated trucks to the processing plant. They are then unloaded into metal hoppers and directed into rotating tumblers which separate out the scallops from sand, mud and other extraneous material. The scallops are placed in a steam tumbler that removes the shells and then passed through a flow tank that washes away sand, grit and shell particles. The scallops are next passed through eviscerators. These eviscerators are long tubes of aluminum with roughened surfaces that pull the viscera off of the scallops. The detached scallops are then sent along a conveyor belt, with scallops in need of further cleaning being picked out and sent to a second eviscerator. The eviscerated scallops are then chilled and packed for marketing. It is the viscera and wastewater associated with this material that is the subject of permitting. Homer Smith is one of about six automated scallop processing plants located in Florida. Two other plants are within St. Johns County, on the San Sebastian River in St. Augustine, Florida. Three other plants are located in Port Canaveral, Florida. When Smith commenced his operation of the scallop processing plant in the summer of 1982, he discharged the scallop processing wastewater into an area described as a swamp with an associated canal which connected to Trout Creek. By the fall of 1982, Smith had been told by representatives of the Department of Environmental Regulation that to operate his facility with the discharge would require a permit(s) from DER. At the time of this discussion, automatic scallop processing was an industry for which appropriate wastewater treatment alternatives had not been specifically identified by the Department of Environmental Regulation or the United States Environmental Protection Agency. This was and continues to be the case as it relates to the promulgation of technology-based effluent limitations designed for calico scallop processors. This circumstance is unlike the situation for most other industries for which DER has established technology-based effluent limitations. To rectify this situation, Florida Laws 85-231 at Section 403.0861, Florida Statutes, requires DER to promulgate technology-based effluent limitations for calico scallop processors by December 1986. In the interim, consideration of any permits that might be afforded the calico scallop processors by the exercise of DER's regulatory authority must be done on a case-by-case basis, when examining the question of technology-based effluent limitations. DER sent a warning letter to Smith on April 20, 1983, informing the processor that discarding its wastewater into Trout Creek without a DER permit constituted a violation of state law. After the warning letter, scallop harvesting declined to the point that by mid-June of 1983 the plant had closed down, and it did not reopen until the middle part of September 1983. Upon the recommencement of operations, DER issued a cease and desist notice and ordered Smith to quit the discharge of wastewater from the facility into Trout Creek. On the topic of the cease and desist, through litigation, Smith has been allowed the right to conduct interim operation of his business which involves direct discharge of wastewater into Trout Creek, pending assessment of wastewater treatment alternatives and pursuit of appropriate DER permits. 1/ When Smith filed for permits on April 10, 1984, he asked for permission to dredge and fill and for construction rights pertaining to industrial wastewater discharge into the St. Johns River. The application of April 10, 1984, involved the installation of a wastewater treatment system and an associated outfall pipeline to transport treated wastewater to the St. Johns River from the plant location. This system would utilize a series of settling tanks and a shell-filter lagoon as the principal wastewater treatment. DER, following evaluation, gave notice in October 1984 of its intent to issue permits related to dredge and fill and the construction of the wastewater treatment facility. In the face of that notification, the present Petitioners offered a timely challenge to the issuance of any DER permits. In considering treatment alternatives, Homer Smith had employed various consultants and discovered that treatment beyond coarse screening had not been attempted in processing calico scallop wastewater. Those consultants were of the opinion that conventional treatment methods such as clarification, sand filtration, vortex separation, breakpoint chlorination, polymers and spray irrigation were of limited viability due to the inability to remove key constituents within the waste stream or based upon certain operational difficulties that they thought would be experienced in attempting those methods of treatment. As envisioned by the April 10, 1984, application for permit, interim treatment of the wastewater was provided by the use of a series of settling tanks and a shell-filter lagoon, within which system adjustments were made to the delivery of wastewater treatment. The April 10, 1984, permit application by Smith did not envision any chemical treatment of the wastewater aside from that which might occur in association with the settling and filtration through the shell-filter lagoon. Following DER's statement of intent to issue a permit for construction of the wastewater treatment facility as described in the April 10, 1984, application by Smith, DER became concerned about the potential toxicity of calico scallop wastewater, based upon its own studies. As a consequence, Smith amended the application for wastewater treatment facility to include use of chemical coagulation and flotation. This amendment occurred in March 1985, and the wastewater treatment process in that application envisioned the use of an electroflotation wastewater system. In view of toxicity problems experienced with the testing related to the use of an electroflotation wastewater treatment system, this treatment alternative was discarded in favor of a dissolved air flotation (DAF) system. This system was pursuant to an amendment to the application effective May 31, 1985. This amendment of May 1985 was in furtherance of the order of the hearing officer setting a deadline for amendments to the application. DER issued an amended intent to grant permits for the DAF unit and the associated pipeline and that action dates from June 28, 1985. The Petitioners oppose the grant of these permits for the DAF unit and pipeline, and under the auspices of their initial petition have made a timely challenge to the grant of a permit for the installation of the DAF wastewater treatment unit and associated pipeline. It is the DAF unit and pipeline that will be considered in substance in the course of this recommended order. On July 6, 1984, Smith sought an easement from the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for the installation of the pipeline. This was necessary in view of the fact that the pipeline would traverse sovereignty lands which were located beneath Trout Creek, Palmo Cove and the St. Johns River. On December 17, 1984, DNR issued a notice of intent to submit that application to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund with a recommendation of approval. This action was challenged by the Petitioners on January 7, 1985, in a petition for formal hearing challenging the grant of the easement. DOAH Case No. 85-0277 concerns this challenge to grant of an easement. Originally, by action of January 28, 1985, the easement case was consolidated with the present DER permit actions. At the instigation of DNR, the easement case was severed from consideration with the present action. The order of severance was entered on July 31, 1985. The DNR case will be heard on a future date yet to be established. The DNR case was severed because that agency preferred to see test results of treatment efficiencies following the construction of the DAF unit. By contrast, the present DER cases contemplate a decision being reached on the acceptability of the construction of the DAF unit and attendant features, together with the pipeline on the basis of theoretical viability of this entire system. This arrangement would be in phases in which the construction of the upland treatment system would occur within 90 days of the receipt of any construction permit from DER, followed by a second phase within which Smith would construct the pipeline within 60 days of receipt of any other necessary governmental approval, such as the DNR easement approval. Furthermore, DER would wish to see the results of an integrated treatment system involving the upland treatment by the DAF unit and its attendant features and the use of the pipeline and the availability of a mixing zone, that is to say the end of pipe discharge, before deciding on the ultimate question of the grant of an operating permit for the wastewater treatment system. The quandary presented by these arrangements concerns the fact that discharge from the DAF treatment unit would be temporarily introduced into Trout Creek, pending the decision by DNR to grant an easement for the pipeline and the necessary time to install that pipeline. Given the difficult circumstances of these actions, there is raised the question of the propriety of discharging wastewater into Trout Creek pending resolution of the question of whether DNR wishes to grant an easement to place the pipeline over sovereignty submerged lands. This is a perplexing question in view of the fact that DNR requested severance from the present action, thereby promoting further delay in the time between any installation of the upland treatment system and the pipeline. Finally, Trout Creek is an ecosystem which has undergone considerable stress in the past, and it is more susceptible to the influences of pollution than the St. Johns River would be as a point of ultimate discharge from the pipeline. This dilemma is addressed in greater detail in subsequent sections within the recommended order. Petitioner River Systems Preservation, Inc., is a nonprofit organization comprised of approximately seven hundred persons. The focus of the organization is to protect and enhance the environment of northeast Florida. The individual Petitioners, Pinkham E. Pacetti, Robert D. Maley, Ruth M. Whitman and others, are members of the corporation who own property or live near the scallop processing plant of Respondent Smith. In addition, Pacetti owns a marina and recreational fishing camp that is located across Trout Creek from Smith's plant. Pacetti's fish camp dates from 1929. On the occasion of the opportunity for the public to offer their comments about this project, a significant number of persons made presentations at the public hearing on August 29, 1985. Some members of the public favored the project and others were opposed to the grant of any permits. St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners, in the person of Commissioner Sarah Bailey, indicated opposition to the project, together with Bill Basford, President of the Jacksonville City Council. Warren Moody, the vice-chairman of the Jacksonville Waterways Authority spoke in opposition to the project. The Florida Wildlife Federation and the Jacksonville Audubon Society expressed opposition to the project. The officials related the fact of the expenditure of considerable amounts of public tax dollars to improve water quality in the St. Johns River and their concern that those expenditures not be squandered with the advent of some damage to the St. Johns River by allowing the permits in question to be issued. These officials considered the St. Johns River to be a significant resource which they are committed to protecting. The City of Jacksonville, Clay County, Green Cove Springs, the Jacksonville Waterways Authority, the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council and St. Johns County expressed opposition to the project contemplated by the present permit application, through the adoption of certain resolutions. These broad-based statements of opposition were not spoken to in the course of the hearing by members of any technical staffs to these governmental institutions. Private members of the public, some of whom are affiliated with River Systems Preservation, Inc., expressed concern about water quality violations, harm to fish and other environmental degradations that have been caused by the Homer Smith operation in the past and their belief that these problems will persist if the permits at issue are granted. Those persons who favored the project, in terms of public discussion, primarily centered on the idea that, in the estimation of those witnesses, fairness demanded that Smith be afforded an opportunity to demonstrate that this proposed system of treatment was sound and the quality of the water being discharged from the Homer Smith plant was not as bothersome as had been portrayed by the persons who opposed the grant of environmental permits. Industrial Wastewater Construction Permit Treatment System Description of Homer Smith's Plant and Its Operation. The source of water used for the processing of the scallops at the Homer Smith plant is a well which is located on that property. Homer Smith is allowed to withdraw 300,000 gallons of water per day in accordance with a consumptive use permit that has been issued by the St. Johns River Water Management District. To ensure Smith's compliance with this permit, a metering device is located on the well. Typically, the plant operates an eighteen-hour day, five days a week, using water at a rate of 200 gallons per minute. This would equate to 215,000 gallons per day over an eighteen-hour day. Prior to the imposition of restrictions by the Department of Environmental Regulation through the consent order, this facility had processed as much as 40,000 pounds of scallops each day, for a total of 36,000 gallons each week, at a gross revenue figure of $225,000 per week. Characteristics and Frequency of Effluent Discharge The wastewater generated by the scallop processing that is done at the Homer Smith plant is principally constituted of the well water used to clean the scallops, proteinaceous organic materials, and metals. The metals are introduced into the wastewater stream from the scallop tissue. The wastewater stream also has a certain amount of sand and grit, together with shell fragments. The concentrations of organic materials within the wastewater stream are at high levels. There is also an amount of fecal coliform bacteria and suspended solids. The pollution sources within the wastewater stream include total suspended solids (TSS), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and the coliform bacteria. In the neighborhood of 30 percent of the BOD in the wastewater is soluble. The balance of the BOD is associated with the suspended solids. With time the organic materials in the wastewater stream will decompose and with the decomposition present certain organic decomposition products, which would include ammonia, amines and sulfides. Heavy metals in the wastewater have been in the scallop tissue and are released with the cleaning of the scallops. These metals include cadmium, copper, zinc, iron, manganese, silver and arsenic. The presence of these metals within the tissues of the scallops are there in view of the fact that the scallops are "filter-feeders" which have taken in these elements or metals that naturally occur in the ocean water. The permit application contemplates an average of five days a week of operation for eighteen hours a day. Notwithstanding the fact that in the past the Homer Smith Seafood operation had processed scallops seven day week, twenty- four hours per day, Smith does not desire to operate more than five and a half days a week in the future. That is perceived to mean five eighteen-hour days and a twelve-hour day on the sixth day. The treatment system contemplated here is for a flow volume of around 200 gallons per minute during normal operation. The system can operate as high as 300 gallons per minute. That latter figure approaches the design capabilities of the treatment system proposed. Wastewater is discharged only when scallops are being processed. There is basically 1:1 ratio between the volume of well water used to process the scallops and the amount of wastewater discharged. Proposed Treatment System and Alternatives As already stated, there is no specific industry standard set forth in the DER rules which would describe technology-based standards for the treatment of calico scallop wastewater. In those instances where the agency is confronted with an industry for which technology-based standards have not been established, DER examines the question of whether that effluent is amenable to biological treatment as contemplated in Rule 17-6.300(1)(n)1., Florida Administrative Code, as an alternative. Biological treatment is a treatment form normally associated with domestic waste and the imposition of this treatment technique is in furtherance of achieving a secondary treatment standard found in Chapter 17-6, Florida Administrative Code, which results in 20 mg/L of BOD and TSS, or 90 percent removal of those constituents, whichever is the greater performance in removal efficiency. In the absence of specific standards related to the calico scallop industry, and in the face of the interpretation of its rules in which DER calls for an examination of the possibility of biological treatment as an alternative to treatment specifically described for a given industry, it was incumbent upon this Applicant to examine the viability of biological treatment of the scallop wastewater product. The Applicant has considered biological treatment as an alternative and rejected that treatment form, in that Smith's consultants believe the wastewater is not amenable to biological treatment. By contrast, Petitioners' consultants believe that biological treatment should be the principal focus in treating the scallop wastewater and contend that biological treatment is a more viable choice when contrasted with the option chosen by the Applicant. If this waste is not amenable to biological treatment, Rule 17-6.300(1)(n)1., Florida Administrative Code, envisions an acceptable or minimum level of secondary treatment shall be determined on a case-by-case basis. In the instance where biological treatment is not a reasonable choice, the Applicant is expected to achieve treatment results which are comparable to those arrived at in treating domestic waste by the use of biological treatment techniques. On this occasion, DER had not established what they believe to be a comparable degree of treatment for calico scallop waste, assuming the unavailability of biological treatment. The present case is a matter of first impression. As a result, the idea of a comparable degree of treatment shall be defined in this hearing process, assuming the inefficacy of biological treatment. In that event, DER must be assured that the proposed treatment plan has an efficiency that rivals the success which biological treatment promotes with domestic waste, taking into account the quality of the effluent prior to treatment, available technology, other permitting criteria and the ambient conditions where the waste stream is being discharged. In arguing in favor of biological treatment, Petitioners pose the possibility of an integrated system in which primary settling tanks or clarifiers would be used together with a biological treatment step, which is referred to as a trickling filter, followed by final settling by the use of tanks or clarifiers in an effort to achieve BOD concentrations in the range of 200 mg/L to 400 mg/L. In this connection, the dissolved air flotation system is seen in the role of alternative to the initial stage of settling of the constituents within the wastewater stream. It is not regarded as the principal means of treatment of the waste. The trickling filter system as a biological treatment medium involves the use of a bacterial culture for the purpose of consuming the oxygen-demanding constituents, BOD. The trickling filter technique, if a viable choice, has the ability to remove 70 to 75 percent of BOD and TSS. Petitioners suggest further treatment of the waste beyond primary and final settling and trickling filter can be afforded by involving activated sludge, which according to their experts would end up with a biological oxygen demand in the 20 mg/L range. Although the constituents of the Smith plant's waste are of a highly organic nature, and, at first blush a candidate for biological treatment by use of the trickling filter, the problem with this form of treatment has to do with the intermittent flow in the Smith operation. This intermittent flow is caused by the fact that the plant does not operate throughout the year. The plant operations are seasonal, depending on calico scallop harvesting which does not occur on a routine basis. Therefore, the problem is presented of trying to keep the biological treatment system "alive" and operating at levels of efficiency which can be expected to maintain the percentage of removal of BOD and TSS that a healthy system can deliver. The bacteria colonies which are vital to the success of the biological treatment system must be fed on a continuous basis to maintain balance in the population of the colony. This would be a difficult undertaking with the Smith operation, given the interruptions in operations which could lead to the decline in the bacterial population and a poorer quality of treatment once the operations were resumed. This finding takes into account the fact that the colony can survive for a week or two by simply recirculating water over the filter. Obviously, in order to maintain necessary efficiencies within this biological treatment, the bacteria must do more than survive. The further suggestion that has been offered that the bacteria could be sustained for longer periods of time by feeding them seafood waste or dog food are not found to achieve the level of efficiency in the operation that would be necessary in posing biological treatment as an alternative. Again, it is more of an intervening measure designed to assure the survival of bacteria pending the continuation of the operations of the plant, as contrasted with a system which is continual and taking into account the uniformity of the waste product more efficient. Another problem with feeding the bacteria when the plant is not operating is that of disposing of the waste produced when this auxiliary feeding is occurring. Just as importantly, biological treatment is questionable given the long retention times necessary for that process and the build-up of toxic levels or concentrations of ammonia. The Applicant had employed an aerated lagoon in attempting to treat the waste and experienced problems with ammonia build up. Although this system did not call for the degree of treatment of the waste prior to the introduction into the lagoon that is contemplated by the present proposal of the Applicant, it does point to the fact of the problems with ammonia in the biological treatment system. Dr. Grantham, a witness whose testimony was presented by the Petitioner, conceded the difficulty of removing ammonia from the trickling filter. Moreover, the biological treatment system is not especially efficient in removing metals and phosphorus from the wastewater. Alternative treatment would be necessary to gain better efficiency in removals of those constituents. The trickling filter is expected to gain 50 percent metals removal, which is inadequate given the concentrations of heavy metals found in the scallop wastewater. Phosphorus could be removed after treatment by the trickling filter by the use of lime or alum. Assuming optimum conditions in the use of biological treatment after primary and final settling, thereby arriving at a BOD level of 200 mg/L, it would then be necessary to make further treatment by the use of activated sludge to see 20 mg/L BOD. The problem with activated sludge is related to the fact that this form of treatment is particularly sensitive to interruptions in flow, which are to be expected in this wastewater treatment setting. On balance, biological treatment does not present a viable choice in treating scallop waste. That leaves for consideration the question of whether the Applicant's proposal would afford a comparable degree of treatment to that expected in the use of biological treatment of domestic waste. The manufacturer of the dissolved air flotation unit or DAF system proposed, known as the Krofta "Supracell," offers another piece of equipment known as the "Sandcell" which in addition to the provision for dissolved air flotation provides sand filtration. The Sandcell might arrive at BOD levels of 400 mg/L. However, the testimony of the witness Lawrence K. Wang, who is intimately familiar with the Krofta products, in responding to questions about the use of the Sandcell system and suggestion that the system would arrive at 400 mg/L BOD responded "could be." This answer does not verify improvement through the contribution of sand filtration. For that reason inclusion of a Sandcell for filtration of BOD is not suggested in this fact finding and the system as proposed must be sufficient in its own right. Having realized the need to provide greater treatment than screening or filtering the waste stream, the Applicant attempted to design a treatment system using flotation technology together with chemical precipitation and coagulation. At first the Applicant examined the possibility of the use of electroflotation (EF). This involved the collection of wastewater in a retention tank and the generation of an electric current to create a series of bubbles to float insoluble flocs. Those flocs are caused by the use of ferric chloride, sodium hydroxide and various polymers which are added to the waste stream. The flocs are then pushed to the top of the chamber by the air bubbles, and this particulate matter is skimmed off by the use of a paddle. Pilot testing was done of the electroflotation technology and showed promising results, so promising that a full-scale electroflotation unit was installed and tested. The full-scale electroflotation showed reasonable removal of BOD, TSS, nutrients, coliform and trace metals. This technique was discarded, however, when bioassay testing of the treated effluent was not successful. In examining the explanation for the failure, the experts of the Applicant were of the opinion that certain chemical reactions were occurring as a result of the passage of the electrical current through the wastewater stream. When this problem with acute toxicity could not be overcome through a series of adjustments to the process, the Applicant decided to test another form of flotation, which is referred to as dissolved air flotation (DAF). This system employs the use of chemicals to create insoluble flocs. Unlike the electroflotation unit, though, it does not utilize electrical currents to create the air bubbles employed in the flotation. The dissolved air flotation thereby avoids problems of toxicity which might be attributed to the passage of electrical current through the water column. The present system as proposed by the Applicant has a number of components. The first component of treatment involves the passage of raw wastewater through a mechanical screening device, which is designed to remove a certain number of particulates by catching those materials on the screen. That material is then removed from the plant and disposed of off site. The balance of the wastewater after this first stage of treatment passes into a sump area and from there into a primary mix/ aeration tank. This water is then chemically treated to facilitate the formation of insoluble flocs. The chemically treated wastewater then enters a premanufactured Krofta Supracell 15 DAF unit which is designed to form bubbles by the use of pressurized air, with those bubbles floating the waste materials within the floc to the surface. Again, this method does not use electrolysis. The floated solid materials are then skimmed from the surface and directed to a holding tank and subsequently pumped to sludge drying beds. Some of the treated wastewater is recycled through the DAF unit after pressurization and in furtherance of forming the necessary bubbles for the DAF unit. The balance of the water is directed to a force main lift station. This water would then be transported through the eight-inch PVC pipe some 13,000 feet into the main channel of the St. Johns River where it is distributed through a five port diffuser. The screening mechanism spoken of had been installed in mid-December 1984 and has been used since that time to filter the wastewater. The screening mechanism is in substitution of settling tanks and shell pits. The shell pits which had been used before presented problems with odors as well as the ammonia build up which has been addressed in a prior paragraph. The removal efficiency of the screening mechanism is 30 percent of particulates associated with pollution parameters, as example BOD, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus and TSS. The frequency of the transport of these screened materials to the off site disposal is four to six times a day and the screen is decontaminated at the end of each day when the operations are closed. The application contemplates the same operating procedures of disposal and maintenance with the advent of any construction permit. The primary mix/aeration tank aerates the wastewater and through that process and the retention time contemplated, equalizes the flow regime and promotes a more balanced concentration of waste materials prior to the introduction of that wastewater for chemical coagulation and flotation. This step in the treatment process enhances the treatment efficiency. Some question was raised by the Petitioners on the size of the primary mix-aeration tank as to whether that tank was sufficient to equalize the flow, and conversely, the impacts of having too much retention time built into that tank, which would promote the build-up of toxic concentrations of ammonia in the wastewater. The retention time within the sump and the primary mix-aeration tank approximates one and one-half hours. The retention time and size of the primary mix-aeration tank are found to be acceptable. This design appropriately addresses concerns about the build-up of decomposition products and toxicity, to include ammonia. The sludge which collects in the primary mix-aeration tank will be pumped back to the sump pit by return flow. The sump pit itself will be pumped out in the fashion of cleaning a septic tank on the basis of once a week. The sump pit also receives the return flow of leachate from the sludge drying bed. Once equalization of flow is achieved in the primary mix-aeration tank, that wastewater is then treated by the use of alum, sodium aluminate and polymers. The purpose of this treatment is to convert soluble and insoluble organic matter such as TSS and BOD, trace elements and phosphorus into insoluble flocs that can be removed by flotation. These combinations of chemicals and dosage rates have been tested in electroflotation and dissolved air flotation bench and pilot scales for use associated with this project and a list of appropriate chemicals and ranges of dosage rates has been determined. It will be necessary for these chemicals and general dosages to be adjusted in the full- scale operation under terms of the construction permit. This facet of the treatment process must be closely monitored. Once the wastewater stream has received the chemical treatment, it is introduced into the Krofta Supracell 15 DAF unit. This unit is 15 feet in diameter, and within this cylinder bubbles are generated by pressurizing some of the chemically treated wastewater and potentially clean tap water. The use of clean tap water promotes dilution of the wastewater stream as well as greater efficiency in the production of the bubbles. Chemically treated wastewater is brought into the cylinder through the back of a revolving arm that moves around a center column of the DAF unit at the speed of the effluent flow. The purpose of this mechanical arrangement is to eliminate horizontal water velocity, to protect the integrity of the flocs that are being formed by the use of the chemicals. Those flocs float to the surface in a few minutes' time, given the normal turbulence and shallow depth of the DAF unit. This limited retention time also avoids ammonia build up. The floating material is then scooped and poured into a stationary center section and is discharged by gravity to the sludge holding tank. Wiper blades which are attached to the revolving arm scrape the bottom and sides of the tank and discharge any settled sludge to a built-in sump in the DAF unit. These materials which are settled in the bottom of the DAF cylinder are transported through the sludge holding tank and eventually placed in the sludge drying beds. The treated wastewater is removed by an extraction pipe associated with the center section of the DAF unit. It is then discharged. The use of clean tap water from the well and the ability to recycle the waste stream can promote greater treatment efficiency in terms of removal of undesirable constituents of the waste stream and the reduction of concentrations of those materials. As a measurement, approximately 8 percent of the wastewater flow will be removed as sludge. This sludge is sufficiently aerated to be reduced in volume by about one-half over a period of ten to thirty minutes in the sludge holding tank. It is then sent to the sludge drying beds. The sludge drying beds are designed to accommodate 30,000 gallons of sludge. They are 60 feet long, 25 feet wide and 4 feet deep. Those drying beds are of greater size than is necessary to accommodate the volume of sludge. The sludge drying beds have a sand and gravel bottom. The water drains from the sludge as leachate and returns to the sump pit in the treatment system at a rate of five to ten gallons a minute. Some concern has been expressed that the "gelatinous" nature of the sludge will make it very difficult to dewater or dry. This opinion is held by experts of the Petitioners, notwithstanding the fact that polymers are used in the treatment process. One expert in particular did not believe that the sludge would adequately dry. Having Considered the evidence, the opinion that the sludge will not dry sufficiently is rejected. Nonetheless, it is incumbent upon the Applicant to monitor drying conditions of the sludge very carefully and, if need be, to add some chemical such as calcium hydroxide to enhance the drying capacity of the sludge material. It is anticipated that the sludge will be removed once a day and this arrangement should be adhered to. With adequate drying, the sludge material can be removed with the use of shovels, rakes and a front-end loader as proposed by the Applicant. With frequent removal and adequate drying, problems with odors can be overcome, and problems with ammonia build up and the generation of unreasonable levels of bacteria can be avoided. Should problems with odors, ammonia and bacteria occur, it would be necessary for the Applicant to purge the drying beds, to include the sand and gravel which had been invested with the sludge materials that had caused the problems. Although Smith has not tested the drying bed leachate as to specific nature, the treatment process can be expected to deal with problems of any build-up of ammonia concentrations, fecal coliform bacteria and other organic decomposition products. This pertains to the ability to remove these offending substances from the site in terms of removal of the residual solids and the ability to treat those parameters within the leachate as the wastewater is cycled through the system. The treated wastewater will be transported to a pumping station by gravity flow and then pumped via the pipeline to the proposed point of discharge in the main channel of the St. Johns River. This pipeline is constituted of fabricated sections of pipe 20 feet in length, connected with bell and spigot joints, rubber gaskets and solvent welding. The treated wastewater is released into the river through a five point diffuser which has three-quarter inch openings angled at ten degrees from the horizontal bottom. The pipeline is anchored with prefilled 80-pound concrete bags attached with polypropelene straps which are placed at 8-foot intervals. These are placed to keep the pipe from floating. The diffuser is supported by four piles driven into the river bottom and surrounded by a series of concrete bags. The purpose of this arrangement is to hold the diffuser in place and to protect it against potential damage from anchors or other possible impact. The Applicant acquiesces in the choice to have the pipeline tested for leaks once a month in the period June through September and every other month during other parts of the year. If leaks are found, the Applicant would be responsible for repairing those leaks. As stated before, it is necessary for the Applicant to receive permission from the State of Florida to be granted an easement before the pipe can be installed. Prior to that permission being granted, the treated wastewater would be placed in Trout Creek, which is adjacent to the processing plant. Predicted End of Pipeline Quality of the Effluent In trying to predict the quality of effluent at the end of the pipeline, bench scale and pilot scale testing was done related to the DAF technology. This testing was done related to screened wastewater that was collected from the plant in April 1985. In this connection two series of DAF bench scale tests were performed. They related to samples collected on April 18 and 19, 1985, which were packed in ice and shipped directly to a research laboratory in Lenox, Massachusetts, where they were treated with chemicals and a laboratory size DAF unit. The concentration of the wastewater parameters were measured and recorded before and after treatment, and the results of those tests are set forth in the Applicant's Exhibit A-4(B)(3), at Table 2-1. The pilot scale testing that was done in this case related to a 4-foot diameter DAF unit which had been installed at the Homer Smith plant. This testing occurred in April 1985. The basis of the testing was samples taken on April 15 and 19, 1985. Again, wastewater parameters were measured before and after treatment and the results are set forth in Applicant's Exhibit A-4(B)(3), at Table 2-1. When the initial testing was done with the DAF, results for total coliform bacteria uniformly fell below a range of 35 organisms/100 ml. Subsequent pilot tests yielded higher bacterial counts which would indicate that there was a build-up of bacteria within the DAF unit. This verifies the need to require that the DAF unit contemplated by the application be routinely cleaned or sanitized to avoid the build-up problem. TSS in the pilot unit effluent was reduced to 40 mg/L and lower. The capacity for metals removal in the pilot scale testing was good pertaining to copper and zinc. The ability to remove cadmium showed a result of 0.013 and 0.015 mg/L. The best performance in the pilot scale testing related to BOD removal showed a value of 510 mg/L. It should be noted that the bench scale testing and pilot scale testing were in the face of significant variations in the amount of BOD presented by the screened wastewater. This identifies the need to pay close attention to the removal efficiency of the system related to the BOD parameter in order to achieve consistent levels of BOD following treatment. The system under review is referred to as full-scale treatment. This treatment can be expected to exceed the levels achieved in the DAF bench and pilot scale testing because: (a) As a general proposition, treatment efficiency improves as the scale of machinery increases from bench to pilot to full-scale; (b) The bench and pilot scale tests were run without the benefit of the primary mix-aeration tank and the benefits derived from that part of the treatment apparatus, that is to say, uniformity of the flow and better dispersion of the constituents of the wastewater stream, prior to chemical treatment; (c) The pilot DAF unit used exclusively recycled wastewater to undergo pressurization for the creation of the air bubbles. In the course of the hearing it was established that approximately 50 gallons per minute of clean tap water could be brought in to the treatment process resulting in the formation of more bubbles and the facilitation of up to 10 percent greater treatment efficiency based upon that change. The other contribution made by the use of clean tap water was the possibility of as much as a 20 percent dilution of the wastewater stream, in terms of concentration of constituents within the wastewater stream; (d) In a full-scale operation, the opportunity is presented to routinely adjust the chemical dosages as well as select among a range of chemicals in order to achieve the greatest treatment efficiency; (e) In employing routine sanitization of the DAF unit by use of a mild chlorine compound, the tendency to accumulate coliform bacteria can be overcome. Removal of this adverse influence improves the water quality. In traveling through the pipeline, the transit time is in the range of two to three hours. At a normal rate of 250 gallons per minute of discharge, the transit time in the pipeline is 2.25 hours. Given the constituents of the wastewater, bacterial populations can be expected and could conceivably consume sufficient amounts of oxygen to affect the dissolved oxygen levels within the wastewater as it exits the pipe at the diffuser ports. In addition, there is some possibility of ammonia build up within the pipeline. To avoid the build up of bacteria at harmful levels, sanitation of the DAF unit must be accomplished. In addition, the pipeline itself should be flushed with clean water at the close of operations each day and treated with small amounts of chlorine to address bacteria which may form within the pipeline. This avoids the increasing concentrations of ammonia and protects against lowered dissolved oxygen concentrations and the possibility of increased levels of toxic substances in the effluent which might be attributable to the proliferation of bacteria and the build-up of ammonia during the transport through the pipeline. Taking into the account the nature of this wastewater and the velocity associated with the transport and the sanitization of the pipeline, sedimentation associated with organic solids or other materials will not present a problem. The pollution parameters associated with the treated effluent at the point of discharge from the pipeline can be expected to meet Class III orders, excepting unionized ammonia, specific conductance, copper, cadmium, pH and zinc. In order to achieve satisfactory compliance with regulatory requirements related to those parameters, the Applicant has requested a two-meter mixing zone. The purpose of that mixing zone would be to afford an opportunity for dispersion and mixing in the ambient water before imposition of water quality standards. The implications of that mixing zone are discussed in a subsequent section to the fact finding within the Recommended Order. In effect use of the mixing zone will promote compliance with standards pertaining to the subject parameters. Petitioners point out the fact that the Applicant has based its assumptions on the results of treatment on the availability of four sets of data which were obtained from DAF effluent--two sets of data coming from the bench tests and two sets of data from the pilot plant. Further, there is an indication of the variation in quality of the effluent from one test to the next and the need to employ different dosage rates of chemicals in the face of those variations. The full-scale system utilizes a number of techniques to gain some uniformity in the quality of the effluent prior to chemical treatment and thereby some uniformity in the amount of chemicals necessary to treat the effluent. This overall system can then be expected to produce treated wastewater that is basically uniform in its constituents. Petitioners point out the limited amount of data in the testing related to BOD. There were, in fact, only two data points: one related to the bench system and one related to the pilot system pertaining to BOD, both of these the product of different chemical dosages for treatment. Again, the system that is at issue in this proceeding can be expected to arrive at a more consistent level of BOD than is depicted in the results pertaining to bench scale and pilot scale testing. In fact, those results were not remarkably disparate in that the bench sale test produced 560 mg/L and the pilot scale test produced 510 mg/L. While the data related to BOD is limited, it still gives sufficient insight as to the probability of successful full-scale treatment and the test data is found to be a reliable indication of success in achieving the goal of 510 mg/L BOD. Contrary to the Petitioners' perceptions, the treatment efficiency is improved with the system that is under review. Petitioners believe that the bench and pilot scale testing not only is unrepresentative of the full-size DAF system, they also believe that the full-size system represents a lesser quality of treatment. In this regard reference is made to features which would adversely affect the treatment efficiencies. The first of those pertains to leachate which drains from beneath the sludge drying beds and is recirculated to the existing sump pit and added to the waste stream. Sludge which sits in the drying bed does decompose and causes biochemical reactions to occur, as Petitioners suggest. Moreover, no specific testing has been done of the leachate to ascertain the ammonia concentrations, pH or other chemical characteristics. Nonetheless, given the intention to clean out the residual matter within the sump pit frequently, and the flexibility to make that cleanup more routinely, and the fact that this amount of leachate is comparatively small in its ratio to wastewater which is being sent through the system for treatment, the leachate is not found to be an unmanageable problem. Nor is the sludge a problem. Likewise, the amounts of heavy metals within the leachate can be accommodated. Concerns expressed by the Petitioners related to the organic materials in the primary mix-aeration tank that is being returned to the sump pit can also be dealt with by the evacuation of the materials in the bottom of the sump pit. This can be achieved more frequently than on a weekly basis if that becomes necessary, and in doing so avoid problems with concentrations of ammonia, bacteria, amines, sulfides and general organic decomposition products. These materials which are returned to the treatment process as wastewater reintroduced into the primary mix-aeration tank can be adequately addressed in the subsequent treatment that occurs by reaeration, the use of the chemicals and DAF flotation. The retention inherent in the sump pit, primary mix-aeration tank and sludge drying bed has a potential to cause problems with ammonia build-up; however, the problems can be satisfactorily addressed, as well as potential problems with other toxic substances in the effluent, by routinely taking the residual material in the sump pit and sludge drying bed out of the treatment system. While the specific chemicals and precise dosage rates to be used with a full-size DAF system remain open, the basic concept of chemical treatment has been identified sufficiently. The precaution that is necessary is to make certain that close monitoring is made of the results of changes in the chemicals and dosage rates. Likewise, special attention should be paid to the implications of adjustments in the pH of the effluent to make certain that compliance is achieved with the Class III water criterion related to changes in pH above background. Adjustments can be made without violating Class III water standards related to pH. In testing that was done pertaining to the electroflotation effluent, a number of other chemicals were observed, to include trimethylamine, dimethyl sulfide, chloroform and other hydrocarbons. There is some indication of the presence of dichleoroethane, ethylbenezene and other aromatics. The possibility exists that these substances may also be products within the DAF effluent. In that event, the critical question would be whether they have any adverse effect in the sense of influences on the ability of the effluent to pass bioassays and the ability of the effluent to comply with standards related to other parameters such as dissolved oxygen, BOD, and TSS. The routine testing which is called for by the draft permit, which is deemed to be appropriate, would create a satisfactory impression of the materials set forth in the paragraph in the sense of the implications of their presence and allow any necessary adjustments in treatment. While the effluent produced in the testing on the part of the Applicant is different, it is representative, and the treated effluent which will be produced in the full-scale system will be of a better quality and present less adverse impacts than shown in the past testing. Petitioners question whether the Applicant has given a conservative portrayal in analyzing the effluent. In particular, it is urged that the Applicant claimed to be vying for use of the bench scale testing as a conservative depiction of the results of treatment. In this connection, the impression given in the hearing was that of ascendancy in treatment efficiency beyond the use of bench scale, pilot scale and ending in full-scale treatment. As pointed out by Petitioners, in making his case the Applicant has used results of bench and pilot scale testing. As example, use was made of the results of testing in the pilot scale in describing the removal effioiencies related to cadmium, whereas in the measurements of nitrogen concentrations the bench scale result was better than that of the pilot testing and was utilized. The real question is whether the overall testing has given some reasonable indication of success in full-scale treatment. To that end, use of results from either the bench scale or pilot scale testing is appropriate, and those results point to success in the full-scale operation. The system that is proposed is designed to address fluctuations in flow and concentrations in the effluent, given the primary mix-aeration tank contribution and the ability to recycle flow within the DAF unit, with the use of clean tap water. This will allow the Applicant to deal with the remarkable differences in BOD that were seen in the test period, ranging from 900 to 3000 mg/L. COD data as well as BOD data is limited but is found to be an ample depiction of potential treatment efficiencies related to that former parameter. In addition to the aforementioned references to changes in chemicals in the treatment process, Petitioners characterize the use of clean tap water in the recycle flow as being "unsubstantiated speculation." While the use of tap water was discussed in a theoretical vein, that discussion is found to be an accurate assessment of the value of the contribution of clean tap water to the treatment system. Impacts on St. Johns River Ambient Water Quality and Conditions The St. Johns River and the area of the proposed discharge is a riverine estuary. It has a freshwater source flowing from the south and a tidal ocean boundary to the north. The confluence of freshwater flow and tidal influences causes the water movement within this area to be oscillatory. That is to say that at different times the water will flow downstream, to the north, and upstream, to the south. There are occasions in which the net flow over a given tidal cycle will be zero; however, the water is always moving. Conductivity and chloride data indicate that the freshwater flow is the dominant flow compared to tidal influences. The extrapolation of available flow data indicates that there is a net downstream flow of fresh water averaging approximately 6,000 CFS. The St. Johns River at the point of discharge is over one and a half miles wide and relatively shallow with maximum depth in the range of 3 to 3.5 meters. Given the fact of the width and depth in this segment of the river, and the imposition of wind conditions and tidal influence, the water is well mixed and flushed. There is no stratification in this portion of the river. The Applicant looked into the question of current bearing and velocity in depths between two to fourteen feet in the water column. Eleven sampling stations were utilized in arriving at information about current bearing. This observation was over an eleven-nautical-mile stretch of the main channel of the St. Johns River. These stations are depicted on Applicant's Exhibit 38. In this portion of the river the current at all measured depth was flowing up and down the main channel. Within these sections there is no indication of a pronounced subsurface water movement toward the east and west banks of the river. Current velocities within the three stations closest to the POD averaged in the range of 0.5 feet per second and velocities in the other stations found within the main channel were within that range of movement. By contrast current velocities within the embayment areas along the east bank of the river were substantially weaker. DER conducted two studies using tracing dyes poured into the St. Johns River at the approximate point of discharge and monitored the course of dispersement of that dye. During this observation the dye was constantly replenished while being carried on the currents. While the dye remained within the area of the main channel, it stayed on the east side of the river as it moved down river on the outgoing tide in the direction of Smith's Point and the Shands Bridge. As the tide was slowing before the change of tide, the dye drifted for approximately two hours in the immediate vicinity of the point of discharge. The DER dye study was a fairly gross measurement of the direction of water movement within the river beyond the point of discharge. It tended to confirm that the water flow was basically up and down river, depending on whether the tide is incoming or outgoing. The studies were not sufficiently refined to speak with any certainty on the possibility that some part of the flow regime would move toward the east or west bank of the river. Nonetheless, in examining the nature of the shallow embayment areas along the banks of the St. Johns River, they are not seen to be subject to the basic flow regime that is occurring in the main channel during tide events. The bathymetry in this area is such that if the main flow regime was having some influence on the embayment areas, the depths within those embayments would be more similar to the depths found in the main channel of the river. Petitioners have employed a number of dye and drogue measurements to try to give a more accurate depiction of the influence of flow within the main channel upon the dispersion of effluent upon discharge and the possibility of those pollutants reaching the embayment areas. While there is no dispute over the fact that Trout Creek is a tributary to the St. Johns River with some tidal influences being shown in that Creek and there is no dispute that water from the St. Johns River flows in and out of Palmo Cove and Trout Creek, there does not appear to be a significant flow of water from the St. John River into the cove and creek from the main channel, in particular from the area of the point of discharge. One of the witnesses of the Petitioners, Sandy Young, did a dye procedure in which a plume was allowed to develop over a distance of approximately 1,000 feet. Although some slight lateral variation was shown in the dye plume, it did not identify a basic flow pattern toward the embayment areas on the east side of the river. The DER dye study was over a distance of some eight thousand feet and also showed some minor lateral variation. Both of these dye studies tend to show a basic flow pattern within the main channel. The dye study run by the Petitioners' witness White gave the same basic depiction as seen in the studies by DER and Young and did not identify a flow pattern out of the main channel toward the embayment areas. In the drogue studies run by Young three Chlorox bottles were filled to 95 percent of volume with water and released at the point of discharge. They were followed for a period of five hours. They moved initially with the outgoing tide toward Jack Wright Island and then when the tide slowed, the drogues slowed. When the tide changed with the incoming tide, the drogues moved toward the center of Palmo Cove. The drogue studies by Young do tend to indicate that some water was exchanged from the main channel at the point of discharge and the embayment areas. It is not a very exact measurement as it only deals with the surface area of the water column, given the wind and wave conditions existing on that occasion. It is in no way representative of the flow direction of the rest of the water column. Therefore, although it may tend to identify that some of the pollutants leaving the point of discharge may find their way to Palmo Cove, it does not establish that quantity of that pollution dispersion and the significance of that dispersion. Based upon this evidence it cannot be seen to be so revealing that the assumptions made by the applicant in trying to identify the dispersion characteristics of the effluent at point of discharge are negated based upon the results of the drogue study. The drogue study which Young did and the observation of the movement from Smith's Point to Little Florence Cove are no more compelling than the dye studies done at the point of discharge. When the Petitioners suggest that there is some influence by centrifugal force pushing the water to the outside of the curve toward the eastern bank, they are correct. However, the contention by the Petitioners that the incoming and outgoing tides sweep to the eastern shoreline of the St. Johns River moving toward Pacetti Point, Palmo Cove, Florence Cove and Smith Point is not accepted. Again, the general flow regime is up and down the main channel of the river and not primarily to the eastern bank. Finally, the fact that the Tetratech data produced for the benefit of the Applicant showing the flow pattern within the overall water column, which indicated that the general direction is the same at the top or bottom of the water column, did not tend to identify the fact that pollutants throughout the water column will be dispersed into the embayment areas from the point of discharge. The data collected in the main channel seem to establish that the water was flowing up and down the channel at depths below the surface. The question becomes whether the amount of pollutants that are being brought into the embayment areas is in such concentrations that they tend to cause problems along the shoreline, especially as it pertains to dissolved oxygen levels. From the facts presented, this outcome is not expected. Levels of dissolved oxygen in the St. Johns River can vary in the natural condition as much as 2 to 3 mg daily. These variations are influenced by algal activity and are not uncommon in Florida waters. Dissolved oxygen is essential to aquatic life. Optimum levels of dissolved oxygen for the fish population of the river are in the neighborhood of 6 to 8 mg/L. DER has established a minimum DO standard of 5 mg/L for Class III waters such as Trout Creek, Palmo Cove and the St. Johns River. This standard is designed to achieve uniform compliance throughout water column at whatever time the measurement may be made. DER, by the employment of this rule, is attempting to deal with those instances in which, in view of the dissolved oxygen level, aquatic organisms are placed under greater stress. The lowest DO concentration expected is normally seen in the summer in July, August and September. DO concentrations in the water column are expected to be highest at the surface area and lowest near the bottom. Measurements near the bottom are significant in this instance because the discharge will occur approximately one foot off the bottom of the river. The Applicant took DO measurements of the area in question during the spring of 1984 over a period of three days. These measurements were taken at a time when a better quality of dissolved oxygen might be expected as contrasted with circumstances in the summer. With the amount of wind involved impressive levels of reaeration were also occurring. These measurements showed that in all stations DO levels were at least 5.0 mg/L at all depths. A study by Applicant's consultant Environmental Science Engineering related to a diurnal event for dissolved oxygen was taken approximately one kilometer downstream from the point of discharge in August 1985 and did not reveal any measurements below 5.0 mg/L. The river was choppy on that day and this would improve the quality of dissolved oxygen. Historical data by DER related to water quality at Picolata, which is south of the POD in the St. Johns River, reveals average DO levels of approximately 6 mg/L. Historical water quality data collected by the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission near Green Cove Springs, which is several kilometers north of the point of discharge, indicated average DO levels in compliance with water quality standards. Diurnal data from near Green Cove Springs did not show any history of DO values below the state standards. There is other historical data, however, which indicates that DO concentrations in the general vicinity of the point of discharge do go below 5.0 mg/L. Game and Freshwater Fish Commission data indicate that the readings below 5.0 mg/L could occur as much as 10 percent of the time. This relates to the study done at Green Cove Springs. There does not appear to be any particular pattern to these events of low DO violations other than the expectation of their occurring in the summer months, occurring more frequently in the lower depths of the water column and in areas which are shallow with limited flow. The summer circumstance is one in which there is a possibility of very heavy rainfall followed by hot weather with overcast skies and no wind, and the DO values go down in that set of conditions. The DO values are, in addition to being lower near the bottom of the water column, likely to be lowest in the evening or early morning hours and persist in length of time from eight to ten hours. Some of the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission data from Green Cove Springs depicted some DO concentrations as low as 1.8 mg/L at the bottom and 2.1 mg/L at the surface. The low readings that were taken at Green Cove Springs occurred in September 1979 after Hurricane David had created unusual conditions in the upper St. Johns River as to effects on DO. The same report indicated DO concentrations at eleven stations in the lower St. Johns River in July and September 1982 were in the range to 4.0 to 4.5 mg/L respectively. This particular data is not particularly valuable in view of the location of those stations. There are occasions when the DO concentration at the point of discharge could go below 5 mg/L and could be as low as 2 mg/L on the bottom, but this is not a routine occurrence and would not persist. The Petitioners' consultant Young had taken certain dissolved oxygen readings at the point of discharge in April 1985 and found compliance with the 5 mg/L standard. At other times he and the consultant white measured substandard dissolved oxygen concentrations at the point of discharge. On July 20, 1985, white collected water samples at the surface and at two feet above the bottom and determined that the readings were 4 mg at the surface and 3 mg near the bottom. On August 10, 1985, Young measured DO concentrations of 4 mg/L near the bottom. On August 30, 1985, Young measured DO values of 4 mg/L at the point of discharge. Young had also measured DO concentrations at Green Cove Springs on August 10, 1985, and discovered readings as low as .5 mg/L and ranging up to 3.8 mg/L. A downstream measurement away from the point of discharge in the main channel made on August 10, 1985, by Young showed a dissolved oxygen reading of 4 mg/L. In these August measurements Young had discovered a number of readings that were in compliance with the 5 mg/L requirement. Again on September 5, 1985, Young made a measurement of dissolved oxygen near the bottom of the water column at the point of discharge which was 5.3 mg/L. Young's measurements of dissolved oxygen at the surface and in the intermediate depth, typically were above 5 mg/L. Bottom readings taken by Young in the main channel of the river and to some extent in the embayment areas were extracted from the soft detrital materials, the place of intersection of the river bottom and the water column. DO levels in these anoxic materials would tend to give lower dissolved oxygen readings and, to the extent that this anoxic material remains in the test probe while taking measurements toward the surface, would have an influence on the readings, making them appear lower than would be the case if the anoxic sediments were not present in the test device. These effects were not so dramatic as to cause the rejection of the data collected by this witness. Some explanation for lower DO readings at the point of discharge can be attributable to the fact that the anoxic material associated with high benthic oxygen demand on the bottom reduces the dissolved oxygen in the water column. Although Rangia clams were present at the point of discharge and they are capable of living in an environment of low salinity and low DO, they are likewise able to live in higher ranges of DO and their presence cannot be regarded as meaning that the dissolved oxygen levels are consistently below 5 mg/L. Petitioners' consultant White opined that there would be a very frequent violation of DO standards at the point of discharge, approaching 25 percent of the time. Considering the facts on the subject of dissolved oxygen in that area, this opinion is rejected, as is the opinion that DO concentrations will go below DER standards most of the time in July, August, and September. Young believes that a more involved study of worst case conditions would reveal DO violations throughout the column in the center of the river. The data that was presented was ample to demonstrate that violations would not be that widespread. Nor is the opinion of the consultant Parks on the subject of DO violations, to the effect that they will occur on many occasions accepted. In the Palmo Cove area it is not unusual to see some DO readings below the 5 mg/L standards. The E.S.E. group found substandard DO conditions in Palmo Cove at sampling Station 1 in September and October 1984 and some instances in April and May 1985. DO concentrations were found in the range of .4 and .6 mg/L in August 15 and 30, 1984, respectively, with DO concentrations of 1.8 and 2.1 mg/L reported on October 4 and October 29, 1984, respectively. DO violations in four out of eight checking periods between April 25 and May 24, 1985, were shown in the Palmo Cove area. Measurements taken by the consultant white showed 3 mg/L at the surface and 2 mg/L at the bottom on July 28, 1985. The consultant Young also made a measurement of 3.2 mg/L of dissolved oxygen on August 10, 1985, in a mid-depth reading in the Palmo Cove area. On September 5, 1985, he found a DO reading of 4.0 mg/L. At those places along the eastern shoreline of the St. Johns River and the relative vicinity of Florence Cove, Jack Wright Island, Little Florence Cove and Colee Cove, low dissolved oxygen readings were found, that is below 5 mg/L. These coves can be expected to have substandard readings frequently during the summer period, based upon measurements taken by the consultant Young. In the conduct of the drogue study related to the Chlorox bottle, the consultant Young in tracking the path of those bottles, found a couple of locations in the path of the drogue which were in the range 2.8 to 4.2 mg/L and 2.0 to 4.6 mg/L. The influences of the discharge will not reduce DO in the embayments. The ambient conditions for BOD in the area where the discharge is contemplated is relatively low and there is no thermal or saline stratification even in the summer months. Nutrient concentrations in this part of the St. Johns River are as indicated within the Applicants Exhibit A-4(B)(3) and at present are at such levels as to promote a healthy fish community. There is algae production that can be sufficient in some areas within this section to cause algae blooms. Algae blooms are not found to be a routine occurrence. Algae blooms reflect higher levels of nitrogen and phosphorus. The consultants Young and White have seen algae blooms in the St. Johns River away from the general area of concern, both upstream and downstream. Should those algae blooms occur, they would promote significant rises and falls in DO concentrations. In Palmo Cove and the St. Johns River, supersaturated DO concentrations have been detected and they are indications of high rates of primary algal productivity. The circumstance of supersaturated conditions, related to dissolved oxygen, can be the by-product of an algal bloom. The concentrations of nitrogen range from an average of 1.42 to a maximum of 2.54 mg/L. Nitrogen concentrations of 1.4 mg to 1.5 mg/L are optimally advantageous for fish production. Significant increases above those levels would cause the decline of the fish population. Total phosphorus concentrations in the ambient waters are high. Concentrations in excess of 0.1 mg/L of total phosphorus are regarded as a indication of eutrophication and the average concentration here is measured as 0.3 mg/L with a maximum ambient concentration found at 0.52 milligrams per liter. There is significant algal growth in the inshore areas and an indication of some eutrophication in the grass beds. The dominant species of algae found in that vicinity are blue-green, which are seen as being nuisance species. The grass beds along the shoreline are basically healthy. On the other hand, some of the public witnesses identified the fact that grass beds and other vegetation have died with the advent of discharge from the Applicant's plant into Trout Creek. This was under a system in which little or no treatment was afforded the effluent. One other public witness indicated that his dock in the Florence Cove area had been covered with a slimy material and algae during the past two years. Significant grass beds are found along Jack Wright Island and in other areas along the eastern shoreline of the river. These grass beds are important as fish habitat to include nursery areas, areas for various juvenile species of fish and other organisms. Some of these grass beds are showing signs of environmental stress, and nutrient loading can contribute to that stress. Some of the grass beds are covered with higher amounts of algae, duckweed and periphyton than are desirable. The duckweed had floated into these areas from other locations and can be expected to move away. The presence of algae is an indication of nutrient loading. The presence of duckweed is not a product of nutrient loading in the sense of the production of the duckweed at the site where they were found along the shoreline. The area in question between Pacetti Point and Shands Bridge serves as a nursery in a sense of providing habitat for juvenile species of fish and other organisms. The grass beds along the shoreline provide habitat for feeding and breeding related to juvenile organisms, to include such species as bass and shrimp. Juvenile catfish are found within the deeper portions of the river as well as croaker and other marine species. There is a high number of juvenile blue crabs in this area of the river and this is a commercial resource. Shrimp are taken by recreational fisherman in the area of the North Shore Pacetti Point. Clam beds are also present near the point of discharge. Juvenile and adult manatee have been seen in the St. Johns River and in the area near Jack Wright Island. Manatee have also been observed in Trout Creek at a time before the operation of the Applicant's plant and at times following the cessation of operations in June 1985. During the course of the operation of the Applicant's plant, when raw effluent was discharged into Trout Creek, fish kills were observed. Those events had not been seen prior to the operation of the plant. Indications are that fish were killed in the creek due to the use by the Applicant of fly bait, which made its way into the water. Dispersion Modeling of Water Quality Impact In order to gain some impression of the influences caused by the dispersion of the pollutants within the effluent, the Applicant through its expert employed several modeling techniques. DER was made aware of this modeling as it developed. A far-field model was used to calculate what the long-term or steady state impacts of the treated effluent would be on the ambient water quality. In trying to identify the influence of the discharge, measurement of metals were taken based upon an assessment of long term increases. BOD, which breaks down and consumes oxygen over time, was examined in the sense of the long term effects as to DO deficits. In essence these projections were superimposed over the ambient condition to gain an impression of the adjusted ambient values, taking into account the influence of the discharge. The Applicant also ran a plume model which was designed to calculate spreading and dispersion of the treated effluent within the zone of initial dilution or mixing zone at the point of discharge. This model responds to the discharge configuration. Through the use of computer calculations, it was established that a five-point diffuser with port openings of 0.75 inches in diameter angled upward at ten degrees would result in an effluent dilution ratio of 28.5:1 within two meters of the point of discharge. The calculated impacts of the plume model were superimposed upon the adjusted ambient water quality conditions set forth in the far-field model in order to determine net impact upon the receiving waters within the mixing zone. A third model was used, referred to as the lateral diffusivity model. This model is designed to calculate the six-hour or short term water quality impacts of the treated effluent when it moves from the zone of initial dilution during flood and ebb tide conditions. By estimating dispersion rate, this model predicts what dilution would occur in the path of the effluent plume. These impacts were then superimposed upon the adjusted ambient water quality conditions to determine the total impact in the path of the plume. The modeling work by the Applicant's consultant is a reasonable depiction of the predicted impacts of the pollution on the ambient conditions. The calculations used in the far-field model assumed a freshwater flow of 2,000 CFS. This assumption in the far-field model satisfactorily addresses worst case flow conditions related to seven-day, 10-year low flow. The temperature utilized in depicting ambient water was 30 degrees centigrade when employed in the far-field and lateral diffusivity models. This corresponds to warm weather conditions, which are more profound in describing effects on water quality. The far-field and lateral diffusivity models assumed that the treated effluent discharged from the pipeline would have a BOD concentration of 665 mg/L. This is contrasted with the maximum concentration allowed by the draft permit, which is 510 mg/L, which is the expected amount of BOD. This tends to depict the impacts of the discharge more conservatively. The model assumes the BOD loading of 2,720 kg per week, equating to an average discharge concentration of 665 mg/L if the plant operates five days a week on an eighteen-hour day. The reaeration rate and NBOD and CBOD decay rates used in the far field and lateral diffusivity models are acceptable. Likewise, the longitudinal dispersion coefficient that was used in the far-field model is acceptable. The standard modeling methodology in this process calls for an assumption of a 1.33 growth rate of the plume in the lateral diffusivity model. The Applicant's consultant decided to use a lower constant diffusivity growth rate. As a consequence, less lateral spreading is depicted. With less lateral spreading, less dilution is shown, and the impacts predicted by the model are exaggerated. One of the parameters of the plume model has to do with river flow which causes some turbulence and also brings about dilution. In this instance the plume model calculations assume stagnant conditions which is a more conservative assessment. As the Petitioners have suggested, the modeling to explain the impacts of dispersion of the pollutants is not designed to give precise calculations of the DO deficit at each point in the river along the eastern shoreline. It is indeed an estimate. The estimate on this occasion is reasonable. Although DER performs mathematical analysis of dispersion of proposed discharge in some cases, it did not do so on this occasion. Nonetheless DER was satisfied with the present choice for modeling the dispersion characteristics of the discharge. Although the models utilized were not subject to exact calibration by measurement of the dispersion at the site, the information gained by the Applicant prior to the imposition of the modeling techniques was sufficient to develop the models and to give a theoretical verification of the expected impacts from the discharge. The Applicant's belief that the maximum DO deficit caused by the discharge will not exceed 0.1 mg/L is accepted. The dissolved oxygen level in the effluent at the point of discharge will be above 5 mg/L. The Applicant's choice of reaeration rates, CBOD decay rates, NBOD decay rates, discharge rate from the pipeline, hours of operation, average reversing current speed, net non- tidal flow, non-tidal velocity, time lag before NBOD decay, maximum tidal velocity, and other variables and assumptions within the models were acceptable choices. Although the possibility exists of an occasional 5 1/2 day operation in which 10 additional hours of operation are added, this would not be so significant as to set aside the predictions as to the pollutant dispersion. The Applicant's consultant who modeled the dispersion rates did not conduct dye studies to verify or calibrate the actual dispersion in the river. One of the dye studies indicated a lateral spreading rate which was less than that predicted by the model. Notwithstanding this revelation, the overall techniques used by the Applicant in predicting lateral spreading rate are sound and do not present a risk of a greater DO deficit than was predicted based upon incorrect assumptions as to lateral spreading rates. The Applicant's consultant's use of 2,000 CFS as the net non-tidal low flow was a more convincing estimate than the field data collected by the United States Geological Service, given the paucity of information about the flow conditions within the St. Johns River. The Applicant's choices in describing maximum tidal velocities and average velocity are accepted. The critique of the modeling efforts done by the Applicant that was made by Petitioners' consultant, Dr. Parks, in which he concludes that the DO deficit is considerably greater than 0.1 mg/L is not accepted. Comparison of Predicted Impacts of Discharge with Statutory and Regulatory Criteria Inside the Mixing Zone Applicant's assumptions about the increase in nutrient concentrations in the St. Johns caused by the discharge are accepted. This is based on the assumption of a nitrogen value of 52 mg/L which was achieved in bench scale testing of the effluent and which can be achieved in the full scale operation. As the effluent is discharged from the diffuser within the mixing zone, there will be some turbidity problems in that the bottom near the point of discharge. The soft silt there is easily resuspended. When the discharge is concluded, the material will settle back to the bottom. There will be further resuspension when the operation commences again and there is a discharge. The transport of these suspended materials is limited in that the water velocity associated with the discharge is quickly dissipated. This phenomenon will not cause adverse environmental impacts. The mixing zone does not include an area approved by the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources for shellfish harvesting; it does not exceed the presumptive maximum size set forth in Rule 17-4.244, Florida Administrative Code. Nor does it include an existing drinking water supply intake or any other existing supply intake that would be significantly impaired by the proposed mixing zone. The water in this area is of sufficient depth that it will not support grass beds that are associated with a principal nursery area, such as pond weed, midgeon grass, manatee grass, turtle grass or eel grass which are used to support nursery activities. These grasses are normally found inshore. Although juvenile fish are found throughout this reach of the St. Johns River, and for that matter in the entire lower eighty miles of the St. Johns River, the mixing zone is not of such dimensions that it will preempt the health of juvenile fish. Most of the freshwater fish in this system use the littoral areas for reproduction. Marine and estuarine species do not reproduce in the St. Johns River. There is some reproduction that is occurring with some species, such as catfish. Given the size of the mixing zone, no significant adverse effects will occur with the established community of organisms in this portion of the river. The mixing zone will not otherwise impair designated uses of the St. Johns River. The treated effluent will not create a nuisance condition or violate any other DER standards that apply within the mixing zone. With the advent of the full scale facility, maximum, average and chronic toxicity criteria can be reasonably expected to be met at the point of discharge, within the mixing zone and at the boundary of the mixing zone. As described before, the effects of sediment transport upon discharge are localized. The proposal for a mixing zone takes into account Rule 17-4.244, Florida Administrative Code, in the sense of addressing present and future sources of pollutants and the combined effects with other pollutants or substances which may be present in the ambient waters. One of the concerns which DER has about wastewater is the effect which that pollutant has on organisms within the environment. To gain an impression of that influence, testing is required to establish whether the wastewater is acutely toxic. The testing is known as bioassay assessment. While this assessment is normally done after the grant of a construction permit, when confronted with uncertainty about the quality of the effluent, some testing is beneficial prior to the grant of a construction permit. This is especially true given DER's experiences in dealing with raw effluent of several of the scallop processors, to include Homer Smith, which showed that the raw effluent was acutely toxic. This acute toxicity testing is done by placing test organisms into aquaria containing the effluent and measuring survival of those species over time. Results are described in terms of a measurement of the concentration of the effluent at which 50 percent of the organisms are killed during a prescribed test period. In static testing the organisms are simply exposed to the effluent for the requisite period of time. By contrast, a static renewal test calls for the effluent to be replaced with another sample of the effluent at various intervals within the test period. Finally, a flow through bioassay test calls for a continuous stream of fresh effluent to be introduced in prescribed concentrations over the duration of the test. A bioassay assessment in the static condition was performed related to DAF pilot scale effluent that was collected on April 19, 1985. In this instance Daphnia magna were used as test organisms and demonstrated a survival rate of greater than 50 percent in a 100 percent concentration of effluent over a period of 96 hours in the setting of static and static renewal tests. That survival rate was also shown in lesser concentrations of effluent as well. The April 19, 1985, sample was also used in testing the response of Pimephales promelas. These test organisms did not survive either in the static or static renewal tests. While an hypothesis has been made that acute toxicity was experienced in this test organism attributable to build-ups of ammonia, which is greater with this type of organism than with the Daphnia, due to larger biomass which allows for a greater number of ammonia generating bacteria to be presented in the test aquaria and the fact that the Pimethales excrete more ammonia, these differences do not definitely explain why the Daphnia survived and the Pimephales did not. In the series of static renewal bioassays performed on the wastewater that was collected at the plant on April 29, 1985, and shipped to Lenox, Massachusetts, for bench scale treatment, the test organisms of both types failed to survive for 96 hours. It was discovered that during the course of the test period, levels of ammonia rose rapidly. Trace metals in the treated effluent are principally in the form of stable species, as opposed to free ions. These constituents standing alone are not likely to have caused the mortality in the test organisms. The effect of decomposition of the organic constituents in the waste stream is the most likely explanation of why the bioassays of pilot and bench scale treated effluent did not lead to a satisfactory result. Unionized ammonia, a by-product of organic decomposition, is found to be a principle player in the explanation of why the treated effluent was acutely toxic to the test organisms. The exact cause of toxicity has not been precisely identified. Given the complex nature of the effluent, other potentially toxic substances such as sulfides, amines, and other organic compounds could have contributed to the demise of the test organisms. Moreover, toxicity can increase with combinations of chemicals acting in a synergistic fashion, making their combined effects more devastating than the effect of any single substance. Having in mind the fact that ammonia is a major problem in the survival of test organisms subjected to a bioassay, the question becomes one of what may be done to remove ammonia. The production of ammonia in wastewater would depend upon the presence of bacteria. The proposed DAF system removes substantial numbers of bacteria, thereby limiting the possibility of ammonia build-up, if bacteria are not allowed to recolonize in some part of the system prior to discharge. As discussed before, reduction of bacterial activity can be achieved within the proposed treatment system. This is unlike the experience with the bench scale and pilot scale testing that was done on the effluent in which a substantial amount of time transpired before subjecting the test organisms to the effluent and in which a substantial amount of time transpired while the test organisms were being subjected to static and static renewal procedures with the same effluent. The time intervals contributed to the build- up of toxic levels of ammonia in the effluent. The system which is proposed in this instance can avoid the problem of time as it relates to the build-up of levels of ammonia. To further reduce the influence of retention of the waste product, flow through bioassay testing would be the most appropriate measurement of the survivability of the test organism in that it would be responding to real case conditions pertaining to the quality of effluent and its potential toxicity. Under these circumstances, it is reasonable to believe that in a flow through bioassay test of the full scale treatment system, the test organisms could survive. This determination is reached given the reduction in retention time compared to the bench and pilot scale testing, which reduces ammonia, with further ability to reduce ammonia by frequent removal of residual materials from the sludge drying bed and sump pit and taking into account basic improvements in treatment efficiency associated with the full scale system. In addition, the pH of the effluent can be regulated to avoid toxicity in the ammonia which is associated with inappropriate balance within the pH. While a 96-hour LC-50 cannot be calculated with the results of bench scale and pilot scale testing, a reasonable possibility exists for the establishment of that measurement with the advent of a flow through bioassay. There is sufficient similarity between the effluent in the pilot and bench scale testing and the expected effluent in the full-size system for the bioassay testing that was done in those limited systems to give a meaningful indication of the probability that the Applicant can pass a flow through bioassay. Applicant can be reasonably expected to produce an effluent in the mixing zone which will not exceed the 96 hour LC-50 for acute toxicity. As with the circumstance of ammonia, pH can be controlled within the system to address the implications of changes in pH as it pertains to other pollutants in the wastewater. Ammonia production can be influenced by the amount of alkalinity in the effluent and the receiving waters. Alkalinity has not been measured thus far. Alkalinity could be established for the effluent and receiving waters and dealt with if it was suspected as being an explanation of problems with the build up of ammonia which might exceed DER standards. The discharge from the Applicant's plant will not cause long-term problems with low DO, high nutrients, algal imbalances, and chronic toxicity. Outside the Mixing Zone Those constituents within the waste stream, to include those for which a mixing zone was sought, will comply with applicable water quality standards at the boundary of the mixing zone. The dissolved oxygen deficit at its maximum can be expected to be in the neighborhood of 0.1 mg/L and will be exerted somewhere in the range between 1 and 2.5 km downstream of the point of discharge across the width of the plume in worst case conditions. This deficit is not of a dimension which is easily detectable. The implications of that deficit are difficult to perceive in terms of tangible environmental consequences. While a deficit in the range of 0.1 mg/L has some relevance in the DER permitting decision, that deficit as it is dispersed is not expected to cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards in the main channel of the river or in the inshore and embayment areas. While it is true that there are periodic fluctuations of dissolved oxygen below 5 mg/L, DER, as a matter of present policy and professional judgment believes that in this system which evidences characteristics of a clean well-flushed, unstratified water body occasional readings of low DO are not regarded as an indication of violation of water quality standards. This speaks to the main channel area of the river where the only quantifiable influence is expected. The facts presented in this case support the soundness of this policy choice. Petitioners presented the testimony of former officials within DER, namely Parks and Young, who stated that dissolved oxygen standards of 5 mg/L are applied at all times and at all places. They felt that the DER policy was to the effect that permits would not be granted for discharge in any circumstance where the DO concentrations are substandard in the ambient waters, regardless of the amount of decrease or deficit that would be promoted. Parks spoke of the availability of site specific alternative criteria, variances, exceptions or exemptions from the terms of the water quality rule. Having considered these remarks, the present DER policy of allowing the permit to be granted in the instance where occasional violations of ambient water quality standards related to 5 mg/L occur, in the face of the small deficit which is involved in this case, is the better choice. Further, it is a choice that is not so inconsistent with prior practices as to be arbitrary in nature. Finally, DER's position that it would be unadvisable to require a request for site specific alternative criteria, variances, exceptions or exemptions in circumstances such as this case is accepted, when taking into account the problems which would be presented to the agency in administering the permit program, should each Applicant who is confronted with occasional violations below standards for dissolved oxygen have to seek extraordinary relief. While the facts do identify that some pollutants can reach the embayment areas on the eastern shore, the facts do not depict a circumstance in which the amount and quality of that effluent will be such that it will cause or contribute to dissolved oxygen violations in those areas. The water quality in the embayment areas is lower than that in the main area of the river due to inadequate flushing. The areas inshore do not interact with the main channel in a way that would take advantage of the faster moving currents found in the main channel as this interaction might promote a better quality of water. In view of the situation in the embayment areas, the Applicant, on advice of his consultants, moved the proposed location of the discharge into the main channel away from the areas which were under greater stress in terms of dissolved oxygen values and in doing so avoided damage to these areas. The current velocities in the area east of the main channel are weak. There is a substantial distance from the point of discharge to the inshore areas. As the effluent moves toward the inshore or nearshore areas it will become so diluted it will not have an adverse influence on dissolved oxygen. Not only the distances involved, but also the fact that water flowing near the surface is well aerated contributes to the dilution of the effluent as it approaches the shore. Although it has been shown that some stress in the grasses along the eastern shoreline has occurred and the existence of blue-green algae has been shown, together with indications of undesirable algal production, the nutrients which are part of the effluent at the point of discharge are not expected to cause an imbalance in the natural populations of flora and fauna or create nuisance conditions or violations of transparency standards. The nitrogen increase could cause an increase in algal production in the order of one percent, which is inconsequential. The treated effluent will not adversely effect biological integrity of the St. Johns River. The benthic microinvertebrate community in this part of the river is fairly low density due to the fluctuations in salinity levels and predation by fish and blue crabs and given the nature of this substrate which is unstable with low levels of dissolved oxygen. The organisms that are predominant have a tolerance to siltation and fluctuations in dissolved oxygen. The treated effluent will not adversely effect the microinvertebrate community. Petitioners point out the fact that when DO concentrations decrease below optimum levels, fish and other organisms suffer. The fish reduce their movement, feeding and reproduction and they are less disease resistant. They are placed in a position of having to leave the area or risk death if the impacts of the decrease in dissolved oxygen are severe. The influence of the effluent at the point of discharge in this project is not expected to have significant impact on fish and other organisms within these topics of concern expressed in the paragraph. Even though the dissolved oxygen deficit extends in amounts below 0.1 mg/L as far as 2.1 km upstream and 4.5 km downstream and within a wide breadth of the center portion of the river, those deficits will not be significant to the water quality. The BOD associated with the discharge, allowing for mixing will not depress dissolved oxygen levels below DER standards of 5 mg/L. The combination of BOD and nutrient discharge will not cause an imbalance of algal production in the river, nor will it contribute to the dominance of nuisance algal species. The BOD nutrient loading associated with the discharge into the St. Johns will not promote significant ecological impacts on the St. Johns River, to include the possibility of more frequent and severe algae blooms, increase in benthic oxygen demand, risk of increase eutrophication, destruction of grass beds or decline in the fishery. With the advent of discharge in the St. Johns DO fluctuations in the river will not be greater nor will there be an occurrence of a swing from substandard dissolved oxygen levels to supersaturated dissolved oxygen. While the discharge from the Applicant's plant contains pollutants such as cadmium, zinc, arsenic, copper and organic decomposition products, the treatment provided the wastewater is expected to overcome any acute toxicity associated with these materials individually or in combination. Chronic toxicity is not expected related to these materials. The effects of these materials are not expected to cause physiological and behavioral responses which are abnormal in organisms such as reduced locomotion and reproduction or increase susceptibility to diseases to include ulceration and increased mortality. Treatment contemplated and provision of a mixing zone will allow compliance with the standards related to cadmium. Reference has been made to a development known as St. Johns Harbor which is in the vicinity of the proposed discharge and can be expected to promote some pollution in Palmo Cove and the St. Johns River. Although St. Johns Harbor development is proceeding through stages of permit review, it does not appear that it has reached a place in which exact information about its implications as a pollution source can be set out. In discussing the St. Johns Harbor Development, Petitioners emphasized that this eventuality and other matters which deal with cumulative impact have not been satisfactorily addressed. There is no indication than any other substantial development or activity other that St. Johns Harbor is contemplated in this area associated with the permit review at hand. St. Johns Harbor eventually hopes to develop 3000 residential units. It has received the approval of the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council for the initial phase of development. It has been reviewed by the Florida Fresh Water Game and Fish Commission. The developers are proceeding with the project to include the sale of lots. Nonetheless, that development has not reached the phase where its implications would form the basis of a denial of this project based upon the theory of cumulative impact. While Petitioners contend that stormwater runoff from the St. Johns Harbor project will be a problem, assuming an inadequacy in the design which that developer employs to deal with that matter, this eventuality is not expected based on a review on the facts presented. Reference is made to the Ulcer Disease Syndrome which fish in the St. Johns have suffered from. The principal area in which this event has occurred is north of the area expected to be influenced by this discharge. Nonetheless, diseased fish have been found in Palmo Cove. This Ulcer Disease Syndrome is caused by heavy metals and hydrocarbons, and these materials act in league. The advent of additional heavy metals and other pollutants, such as those being discharged from the Applicant's plant could cause further deterioration in the condition of fish suffering from Ulcer Disease Syndrome. Having considered the facts, this outcome is not expected. Ambient levels of 18 other pertinent pollution constituents in the vicinity of the point of discharge were ascertained by the Applicant's consultants on the basis of field observations and historical United States Geological Survey and Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission data. This formed a basis of an assessment of average and worst case values. This information indicates compliance with those parameters for purposes of water quality standards at the point of discharge. Implementation of Construction Permit Permit Conditions Applicant's Exhibit A-10 is a copy of the DER intent to issue the construction permit. It sets forth seventeen specific permit conditions, and these conditions should be imposed in the permit. The following are additional conditions that should be set forth in the construction permit: The operation and maintenance manual required by original Condition 10 shall provide that the DAF treatment system be cleaned regularly with a mild chlorine solution and that the wastewater from this maintenance be placed in a vehicle and carried off the premises for disposal at an appropriate location. This wastewater from the cleanup shall not be discharged from the plant into state waters. The operation and maintenance manual shall provide that a dosage level of chlorine to clean the pipeline that will result in comp- liance with all water quality standards at the end of the pipeline be added to a fraction of fresh water used to flush the system at the cessation of discharges each day. DER must approve this dosage amount before it becomes part of the operation and maintenance manual. The operation and maintenance manual shall set forth a regular schedule for pumping the accumulated sludge or solid materials from the sump pit. The operation and maintenance manual shall provide that as much as 50 gallons per minute of fresh tapwater may be added to recycled wastewater for pressurization. Any discharge created with this addition may not exceed 250 gallons per minute. Any discharge created above 200 gallons per minute shall be consti- tuted only of tap water. Two machine scallop processing operations at the plant will be limited to an average of 18 hours per day and no more than 90 hours in a week. Monitoring in Trout Creek shall continue as specified in paragraph 17(E) of the Consent Order as long as discharges into Trout Creek continue. On each occasion when the DAF treatment system is in operation, the Applicant shall have a fully trained operator on site. The terms of the construction permit shall expire on December 31, 1986. The constructed pipeline shall be leak tested once a month from June to September and every other month during other months of the year. If a leak in the pipeline is detected it shall be repaired within 20 days and retested for leaks within 15 days thereafter. The carrying out of any leak testing and repairs shall hereunder shall be certified by a professional engineer. Pre-pipeline Operations Petitioners have pointed out the fact that when two or more pollutants are present, as in the instance of the effluent discharged by the Applicant's plant, those pollutants tend to act in a synergistio manner. That can exacerbate the circumstance where you find low dissolved oxygen. This is particularly a matter of concern when discussing Trout Creek. This is unlike the impacts of the discharge into the St. Johns River which are not expected to exceed standards or promote adverse effects. The implications of operation within Trout Creek to allow necessary permit review by DER and the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources can be overcome once the discharge is withdrawn from Trout Creek and may be addressed by DER more immediately if the dissolved air flotation unit, after a reasonable period of adjustment, does not perform in the fashion that it appears to be capable of. In the instance of discharge into Trout Creek, the material discharged tends to remain in that area for a relatively long period in that the creek is small and has very little flow and poor flushing characteristics. DO levels will be depressed, the presence of a deficit in dissolved oxygen caused by the discharge from the DAF unit would increase the probability of fish kills when contrasted with a circumstance where there is no further deficit of dissolved oxygen. Given the explanation of why a fish kill occurred based upon the past use of fly bait by the Applicant and the fact that there is no indication of fly bait in the present plans, a fish kill in Trout Creek in the time of interim discharged does not seem probable. With the advent of discharge into Trout Creek, the possibility is enhanced for algae blooms and increased eutrophication. There would also be some accumulation of toxic substances. Additionally, there would be some influence on juvenile fish which are more sensitive to pollutants and the possibility exists that it could reach levels that are lethal to bass larvae and juvenile sports fish. The creek would lose some of its viability as a nursery and some fish would leave the creek. These events are not irreversible and can be reasonably remedied with the cessation of discharge into the creek. Moreover, as in the instance with the problem with fish kills, if some set of circumstances attributable to the discharge were to occur in such dimensions as to cause long term impacts in Trout Creek, DER could take action against the construction permit. Dissolved oxygen in Trout Creek can be below the 5 mg/L standard. Data of the E.S.E. group showed that at Highway 13 bridge, approximately fifty yards from the plant in December 1984 and January 1985, values were as low as 0.1 and 0.2 mg/L, and readings could be frequently below 2 mg/L at Highway 13. In April through June 1985, periodic surface dissolved oxygen concentrations were in the range of 3 mg/L and as low as 2.4 mg/L. DO concentrations generally found at the bottom of Trout Creek could be as little or lower than 1 mg/L at times. In July 24, 1985, at the time when the plant had not been operating for approximately a month, the DO concentrations were 2.9 mg/L at mid-depth and 0.8 mg at the bottom. Within Trout Creek in the area of the Pacetti marina, Consultant White measured DO concentrations in the range 1-3 mg/L. On August 10, 1985, six weeks after operations had stopped at the Smith facility, DO concentrations were found to be 3 mg at the surface, less at mid-depth and 0 near the bottom. Computer modeling was not done to ascertain the impacts of a discharge directly into Trout Creek from the DAF unit. The modeling done by the Petitioner's consultant, Parks, using some of the concepts considered in the Applicant's modeling for the St. Johns River is inapplicable to the circumstances in Trout Creek. Trout Creek has also served as a nursing ground for reproduction and habitat for young fish. During the course of the operations by the Applicant in the discharge of essentially untreated effluent, the beds of bass and sun fish have not been seen within the creek. Water quality improves with the DAF unit and sediment loading by heavy metals decreases. Trout Creek is a stressed system at present. It has low levels of dissolved oxygen, high nutrient concentrations and the presence of heavy metals in undesirable amounts. The low numbers of pytoplankton species give some indication of a highly stressed ecosystem. The present officials of DER, Palmer, Owen and Fox, expressed their concerns about dissolved oxygen in those instances where there would be a decrease in ambient DO concentrations. This has particular importance in discussing the problems associated with the discharge into Trout Creek, as opposed to the point of discharge contemplated in the St. Johns River, which risk is minimized given the characteristics of that area and the higher readings of ambient dissolved oxygen in that water, as contrasted with low readings within Trout Creek. A literal interpretation of the position of the agency officials would lead to the conclusion suggested by the Petitioners that no discharge should be allowed into Trout Creek, even on an interim basis. However, such a position would be inherently unfair considering the fact that some discharge would occur into the creek before the installation of the pipeline, whether based upon simultaneous permit review by DER and the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources in the easement case or sequential review as is contemplated in this instance. Admittedly, the amount of time involved in the discharge into Trout Creek increases in view of the severance of the easement case from the present proceedings. This circumstance occurred in view of the desire on the part of the DNR to see the actual treatment efficiencies involved with the dissolved air flotation unit as opposed to the theoretical possibilities of that equipment. In the present situation, it would be a reasonable policy choice for DER to allow an interim discharge into Trout Creek pending the opportunity for DNR to monitor the quality of the effluent produced by the DAF unit and make a decision about the easement, thus allowing installation of the pipeline if the easement is granted. This arrangement contemplates that DER should closely monitor the quality of the effluent produced by the DAF unit, to make certain, after the Applicant has been given the opportunity to make necessary adjustments to that unit, that the Applicant is not allowed to continue to discharge into Trout Creek following this period of adjustment, when it is shown that the Applicant's equipment is not performing as expected. In any event, the discharge of effluent into Trout Creek will continue over a limited period of time and the system can be expected to quickly return to its healthier state after the removal of the discharge from Trout Creek. This has occurred in the past when the operations of the plant ceased and occurred at a time when the wastewater was of a more damaging quality than contemplated by that associated with the DAF unit. In summary, it would be a reasonable policy choice to allow the interim discharge into Trout Creek on this occasion. Dredge and Fill Permit Characteristics of Pipeline Corridor The pipeline corridor encompasses portions of Trout Creek, Palmo Cove and the St. Johns River. The bottom sediments where the pipeline is to be installed are constituted of soft, and sometimes extremely soft, flocculent silt. Although these sediments are easily resuspended, dispersement of these sediments will only occur while the pipeline is being installed. In placing the pipeline, it is the intention of the Applicant to simply allow the pipe to sink into the sediment. The soft substrate is several feet deep in some places within the proposed corridor. Nonetheless, the pipe is expected to stabilize as it sinks into the material. There are places within the corridor where a crusty material may be found on the surface of or just beneath the substrate. These are locations where jetting or mechanical excavation may be necessary. Jetting may also be necessary along the approximately 155 foot stretch of the corridor that crosses the State of Florida, Department of Transportation right-of-way. This requirement would occur in view of the fact that the Department of Transportation mandates that the pipeline be at a minimum of 30 inches below the creek bottom. In those instances where jetting or other mechanical excavation might be utilized, silt screens would be used to control the short term turbidity. In the areas within the pipeline corridor where tree trunks and branches have been found, these obstructions can be removed without incident. Taking into account the nature of the substrate, at the location where the diffuser will be placed at the end of the pipeline, special attention will be given to that installation to avoid having the diffuser settle into the soft silty material. Given the fact that the silty material is several feet deep and the related fact that the Applicant has not done specific testing of the depth, density and compressibility of this silty material, careful attention should be given to anchoring the diffuser and making certain that the exhaust ports within that device are correctly positioned. The need for this close attention is borne out by the fact that a test pipe which was placed in the silty material settled approximately two and a half feet within several weeks. The matter of the security of the diffuser is also critical, given the fact that the diffuser will be located within one foot of the bottom. Through proper installation, the Applicant can avoid having the diffuser settle into the silty material over time. The installation techniques satisfactorily address the potential problems. Projected Impacts (1) Environmental The icthyological and macroinvertebrate communities within the pipeline corridor have been examined by the Applicant in the person of his consultants. It was found that there are a variety of freshwater fishes within Trout Creek, such as large-mouth bass and sun fish, and a moderate density of macroinvertebrates. The St. Johns River proper is dominated by estuarine and marine aquatic organisms. Infaunal macroinvertebrate densities in the area of the pipeline corridor in the St. Johns River are not high. In placing the pipeline, the effects on aquatic and benthic communities within the corridor or upon water quality do not pose a threat to those communities or to water quality. During the installation of the pipeline, some disturbance of the benthic organisms can be expected; however, those organisms will be able to recolonize quickly. The mere presence of the pipeline is not expected to cause long-term impacts on biological resources or water quality. (b) Navigation In the area of the intended placement of the pipeline related to Trout Creek, boating clubs utilize that vicinity for purposes of anchorage. Those clubs have as many as twenty to thirty boats whose size varies from twenty to fifty-five feet in length. Some of those boats carry anchors which can weigh forty-five pounds or more. Typically, in anchoring one of these craft, the anchor rope is tied down and the engines reversed to set the anchor. Although testimony was given to the effect that the anchors being set might puncture the pipeline, given the explanation about the placement of the pipeline and the nature of the pipe itself, problems with puncturing the pipeline as it might interfere with navigation or environmental concerns such as turbidity plumes due to a puncture of the pipeline are not expected. Nor are the activities associated with retrieval of the anchors via the use of electric winches or hoists seen to be a problem in the sense of snagging the pipeline and rupturing the pipeline when the anchors are brought aboard the vessels. In summary, the pipeline will not be an interference to navigation in the sense of boat anchorage or other aspects of navigation associated with boating. Moreover, the Applicant is willing to indicate the location of the pipeline on navigational charts to assist boaters in avoiding potential problems with anchorage. This is a desirable arrangement and should be done. Comparison of Projected Impacts with Statutory and Regulatory Criteria The dredge and fill activities associated with the pipeline are not expected to cause long-term or short-term adverse impact on biological resources or water quality, or are they expected to interfere with the conservation of natural resources or marine productivity or interfere with navigation to such an extent to be contrary to public interest. The placement of the pipeline will not promote unacceptable interference with fish and other natural resources or destroy clam beds or grass flats, such as would be contrary to the public interest. Permit Conditions Appropriate permit conditions are as follows: Installation of the pipeline shall be conducted within Trout Creek only during weekdays. Pipeline installation activities within Trout Creek shall not block navigation. The pipeline shall be constructed within 60 days following the receipt of all necessary approval, to include the grant of an easement by the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources for the placement of the pipeline over submerged sovereignty lands. All conditions set forth in the DER draft permit. See Applicant's Exhibit A-57.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) should modify Surface Water Management (SWM) Permit No. 50-00548-S, held by the ACME Improvement District (Acme) to authorize alternate SWM facilities within Acme Basin B primarily by: eliminating the water quality function originally provided by a 79-acre retention area known as Peacock Pond pursuant to a 1979 permit; replacing it with adequate alternate methods of water quality treatment; and authorizing an alternative pump operation schedule for the remainder of Acme Basin B. The permit should be modified only if Acme has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed modifications comply with the relevant portions of SFWMD's Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) regulations set forth in: Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes; Chapter 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code; and the Basis of Review for ERP Applications (BOR) (collectively referred to as ERP criteria).
Findings Of Fact General SFWMD is a public corporation existing by virtue of Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida, 1949, and operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Title 40E, Florida Administrative Code, as a multipurpose water management district with its principal office in West Palm Beach, Florida. Acme is a dependent special district of the Village of Wellington, a municipality of the State of Florida. Polo is a Florida corporation and a developer in the Village of Wellington, Palm Beach County, Florida, including a 79-acre parcel of real property known as Peacock Pond, and other undeveloped property that are part of the subject of this permitting proceeding. Wellington Country Place Property Owners Association, Inc. (POA) is the property owners association for WCPPUD. Permit History 1978 Permit In 1978, SFWMD issued to Acme the original backbone SWM permit for approximately 18,000 acres, including primary drainage Basins A (to the north) and B (to the south). Pierson Road, which runs east/west, is the boundary between the two basins. (The backbone C-23 canal parallels Pierson Road to its immediate north.) Acme Basin A discharges to the C-51 canal, which flows east to the Atlantic Ocean. Acme Basin B, which consists of approximately 8,680 acres, discharges to the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) through two Acme pump stations. The Refuge is part of what is now designated the Everglades Protection Area. The 1978 backbone permit, which modified a still earlier permit, established lower water control elevations in Basin A, which was being developed for urban use, than in Basin B, which was planned to remain largely in agricultural use. Under the 1978 permit, the maintained (regulation) stage in Basin A was set at 11' above mean sea level (msl) with discharge beginning at 12' msl during the wet season and 12' msl with discharge beginning at 13' msl during the dry season. The maintained stage in Basin B remained at 13' msl in both the wet and dry season. Under the 1978 permit, it was anticipated that routing surface water runoff in Basin A through canals and retention lakes would provide the water quality treatment required under the criteria in effect at the time (including a requirement to provide half an inch of detention over the entire Basin A for water quality treatment purposes.) At the time, planned residential development in the extreme southwest corner of Basin B was anticipated to generate only limited quantities of runoff due to the nature of typical development in 5-acre parcels; quality of runoff was expected to be better than from previous agricultural use. Presumably because there would be no change under the 1978 permit, water quality treatment in the remainder of Basin B was not addressed. 1979 Permit By 1979, Acme requested a permit modification for development of the Wellington WCPPUD, which is located entirely within Acme Basin B. The PUD's northern boundary is Pierson Road; the western boundary is the backbone C-2 canal; and the eastern boundary is the backbone C-6 canal. The north/south backbone C-4 canal divides the western third of the PUD from its eastern two-thirds; it also forms the western boundary of the area known as Peacock Pond. The southern boundary of the PUD generally follows the east/west backbone C-24 canal.2 The 1979 permit modification authorized construction and operation of water management facilities in portions of WCPPUD, including a 79-acre pumped retention area (which was to become known as Peacock Pond), pump station, and control structure. Under the 1979 permit, the maintenance stage (water control) elevation within WCPPUD only was set at 12' National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) (essentially, the same as msl) in the wet season and 13' NGVD in the dry season. The minimum road and finish floor elevations were established at elevation 16' and 17' NGVD, respectively. Without regard to seasonality, the retention area pump station was to begin operation when a stage of 13' NGVD was reached in the adjacent C-4 canal and was to discontinue operation when the system was drawn down to elevation 12' NGVD. The 1979 permit used the 79-acre area known as Peacock Pond as its central water quality feature. Runoff from WCPPUD was to be collected in roadside swales within road right-of-ways and routed by storm sewer inlets and pipe to either a proposed 12-acre lake or one of the collector swales or canals connected to the Peacock Pond site. The 1979 permit contemplated use of the Peacock Pond site as a "retention-type" surface water management facility. Generally, such a facility detains the water, allows the pollutants to settle, then slowly lets the water out. In the 1979 permit, Acme was required to construct a berm or dike around the 79-acre area to create an above-ground impoundment to serve as the retention area. A pump was required to be installed at the northwest corner of Peacock Pond to pump water from the adjacent C-4 canal into the retention area. The berm or dike was to detain water on the site until it reached the level of a gravity flashboard riser outfall structure at the southwest corner of the site, which would be set at 15' NGVD and would return the water to Acme's C-4 canal just downstream of a broad-crested weir, which would be set at 14' NGVD. Additional discharge from the system would be provided by two 72-inch gravity-flow flashboard risers with crest elevation 14' NGVD-- one to the C-4 canal and the other to the C-6 canal. Water discharged from the system would flow south and west through Acme's system of Basin B canals, eventually discharging to the Refuge through the two pump stations to the south and southwest. During a rise in stage in the C-4 from 13' to 14' NGVD, the pump station in the northwest corner of Peacock Pond would continue filling the retention area. Considering pumped inflow of 4000 gallons per minute (gpm), the retention area would take 3.3 days to reach a peak stage of 16'. At that stage, 58 acre-feet of water would be stored within the retention area. SFWMD calculated that Peacock Pond would treat approximately 200 million gallons of water a year in this way. SFWMD and Acme have taken the position in this case that the sole purpose of Peacock Pond in the 1979 permit was to serve as a water quality treatment area for the Wellington WCPPUD. It is true that the 1979 permit contemplated that flood protection for Basin B would be provided through use of the two pumps discharging into the Refuge (Pump #1 capable of pumping at the rate of 100,000 gpm, and Pump #2 capable of pumping at 120,000 gpm). But, as subsequent events showed, the Peacock Pond retention area was part of an overall SWM system for WCPPUD that maintained water stage elevations there at a lower level than in the rest of Basin B. In other words, while designed primarily to provide water quality treatment, and not designated a flood control facility, it had some residual flood control benefit within WCPPUD. Actual Operation After 1979 Permit Although Peacock Pond was critical to the functioning of the SWM system for WCPPUD and Basin B, SFWMD never obtained from the owner the legal right to use it for SWM purposes. From 1979 to 1986, SFWMD was advised that the Peacock Pond facility was in substantial conformance with the permitted conditions. But some time after property, including Peacock Pond, was transferred to Landmark Land Company of Florida, Inc., the pumps in the northwest corner of Peacock Pond stopped being used regularly.3 Instead, Acme water control structure 115 (a 48-inch culvert and 72-inch flashboard riser which replaced the broad- crested weir in the C-4 canal through a 1982 permit modification) and structure 117 (discharging to the C-6 canal) were opened so that water levels in Wellington Country Place equalized with the surrounding Acme Basin B, which was controlled by the two pump stations discharging to the Refuge to the south and southwest. The evidence indicates, for at least the last ten years, the Basin B pumps have been operated to maintain water elevations of 12' NGVD in the wet season and 13' NGVD in the dry season--the same as for the County Place PUD under the 1979 permit. Under this water elevation control regime, flooding within WCPPUD was not a problem, but the water quality treatment from the Peacock Pond facility required under the 1979 permit was not being realized. The pump operation schedule under the 1979 permit did not specify a "bleed-down" mechanism. As a result, when internal stages exceeded the specified control elevation threshold, both Basin B pumps would be operated at a combined rate of 220,000 gpm until the seasonal water control elevation was again established. This operation did not take full advantage of the nutrient removal capacity of the existing system. 1989 Equestrian Estates Permit Modification In 1989, construction and operation authorization was issued for the Equestrian Estates development located within WCPPUD west of the C-4 canal. Among other things, this modification to SWM Permit No. 50-00548-S included the construction of lakes for use as wet detention ponds and a control structure allowing discharge from Lake No. 5 (as designated in Exhibit 2 of the Staff Report, SFWMD Exhibit 5) to the C-4 Canal. However, this control structure and its associated culvert were never constructed. Peacock Pond Enforcement Proceedings Around 1997, SFWMD was informed that the Peacock Pond pump was not being operated and initially brought enforcement proceedings against Polo, which had become the owner of the property in 1993, to resume pumping into Peacock Pond. At the time, SFWMD was involved in enforcement proceedings against Polo, as owner, for unauthorized dredging and filling in Peacock Pond, and SFWMD made an incorrect assumption that Polo was the operator of the Peacock Pond facility under the 1979 permit. SFWMD subsequently realized that Acme, not Polo, was the permit holder. When Acme attempted to turn the pumps on again, Polo refused to allow Acme to do so without compensation. SFWMD then brought an enforcement action against Acme for not operating Peacock Pond in accordance with its permit. SFWMD and Acme entered into a Consent Order requiring Acme to operate Peacock Pond and the rest of the SWM system as required by the 1979 permit. Acme subsequently brought eminent domain proceedings against Polo to acquire Peacock Pond and obtained a final judgment, but the compensation required under the final judgment was prohibitive. SFWMD and the Village of Wellington then entered into a Joint Cooperation Agreement, which (among other things) required the Village of Wellington to submit an "application to modify the Peacock Pond Permit and Consent Agreement to either eliminate or substantially reduce the size of Peacock Pond [which] must provide reasonable assurances that demonstrate that the water quality treatment, water quantity and environmental benefits associated with the Peacock Pond Permit are maintained through the modified facility or by other equivalent measures." In the meantime, SFWMD ordered Acme to set control structures 115 in the C-4 canal and 117 in the C-6 canal at 14' NGVD as required by the original 1979 permit. When this was done without operation of the Peacock Pond retention area as also contemplated and required by the 1979 Permit, the water levels caused septic tank problems to some residents in WCPPUD, leading SFWMD to issue emergency authorizations to lower the crest-settings of structures 115 and 117 to 12.5' NGVD. At those settings, water levels in WCPPUD stayed between 12' and 13' NGVD, and there have been no septic tank problems in the last two years. Specifically, measured water levels in the C-4 canal north of control structure 115 generally ranged between elevation 12' NGVD and 13' NGVD from November 2001 through October 2003, with occasional variances above or below due to drought or rain periods. Proposed Modification to Eliminate Use of Peacock Pond On May 12, 2000, Acme filed an application to modify its permit. The primary purpose of this modification was to authorize alternate SWM facilities within Basin B (primarily within WCPPUD) to maintain the water quality treatment function that was assumed would be realized by Peacock Pond in the WCPPUD permit issued in 1979. Additional components of the permit modification are: installation of a 7.8 acre flow through littoral zone within the C-2 Canal for additional cleansing of Acme Basin B water; modification of the pump operation schedule for Basin B; revision of surface water management design requirements for future development within Country Place to include additional lake acreage and littoral zones; elimination of a previously permitted (but not constructed) control structure allowing discharge from Lake No. 5 to the C- 4 Canal so that water from Lake 5 continues to drain through established canals and lakes into the C-4 Canal; modification of existing flashboard riser water control structures 115 and 117 within the C-4 and C-6 Canals to crest elevations of 12’ and 13’ NGVD, respectively, so that water will be detained upstream but water from both the eastern and western ends of the Wellington WCPPUD drain toward and into the C-4 canal during low flow; and an analysis of nutrient (and phosphorus) loading, removal and export from the Country Place system During the application process, Acme submitted detailed water quality calculations analyzing and comparing the 1979 permit, based on the land uses at that time and the anticipated phosphorous loading that would be discharged from the system, and the proposed modification with current land uses and phosphorous loading now anticipated. To support its modification application, Acme recalculated the water quality treatment currently provided by existing lakes--many of which were not planned in 1979--and other water quality treatment features in WCPPUD. Acme's calculations assumed that all land owners of undeveloped tracts in Basin B, including land owners in WCPPUD, wishing to develop their properties in the future will have to provide for adequate water quality treatment or other acceptable alternatives, as required by SFWMD regulations in place at the time the future permit applications are filed. In order to meet those requirements, future developers can either create lakes on their properties, treat their water off-site on properties such as Peacock Pond, or use other equivalent alternatives. In conformance with current SFWMD criteria, Acme’s application only considered and counted as water quality treatment features water bodies with an average width of at least 100' and a size of at least 0.5 acres. SFWMD spent an enormous amount of time reviewing the data and analyses that were submitted. SFWMD then issued numerous lengthy requests for additional administrative and technical information, requiring Acme among other things to provide water level information and perform management calculations. Acme provided necessary calculations to demonstrate that flood levels within WCPPUD would not be affected by the elimination of Peacock Pond as a water quality feature. Acme's calculations demonstrated that the water quality treatment functions currently provided by existing lakes meeting SFWMD's dimensional criteria and by on-site swales, together with the 7.8-acre off-site littoral shelf to be constructed in canal C-2, would be sufficient to replace the water quality treatment functions assumed to be provided by Peacock Pond under the 1979 permit. SFWMD issued a Staff Report on April 29, 2003, recommending approval of the application to modify the SWM permit. SFWMD found that Acme had provided reasonable assurances by Acme that the applicable permit criteria would be met. On May 15, 2003, the SFWMD Governing Board approved the Staff Report to issue a modification to SWM Permit No. 50-00548- S, Application No. 000512-12. Control Elevations and Pump Operation Schedules The proposed permit modification states that there will be a change in the permitted water control elevations and pump operation schedule within Basin B. However, as set out in Finding 17, supra, in actual practice, water elevations throughout Basin B have been maintained at the levels permitted for WCPPUD under the 1979 permit for at least the last ten years, which include the time period after the Peacock Pond pumped retention area stopped being operated as required under the 1979 permit. The proposed modifications essentially would continue the historical operation of the Acme Basin B system during this time period. In essence, the changes in Basin B outside WCPPUD will simply conform the permit conditions to actual conditions for at least the last ten years. For that reason, SFWMD and Acme has referred to modification as being only "on paper." As reflected in Finding 23(e), supra, water control structures 115 and 117 would be modified in association with this permit modification so that structure 115 (located in the C-4 canal adjacent to Peacock Pond) will have a weir crest elevation of 12' NGVD and structure 117 (located adjacent to the C-6 canal) will have a weir crest elevation of 13' NGVD. As a result, when the water level in WCPPUD exceeds 12' NGVD, it would begin to "bleed down" out of structure 115 in the C-4 canal. If the water level in WCPPUD continued to rise and reached 13' NGVD, it would begin to "bleed down" out of the 117 structure in the C-6 canal as well. Under the proposed permit modification, the pump operation schedule would be revised so that no pumping would occur until Basin B stages reached 13' NGVD. Then, the pump rate will average 30,000 gpm, which equates to a "bleed down" discharge of 20 percent of the one-inch detention above 12' NGVD per day. When the stage has been brought down to 12' NGVD, all pumping would cease. During significant storm events, when the internal stages exceed 13' NGVD, the previously permitted peak discharge rate of 220,000 gpm will be maintained. If the pumps are operated as proposed in this modification, the system will be able to take full advantage of its nutrient removal capacity. At the same time, water levels will be maintained within the ranges of historical operation over at least the last ten years. The only difference is that, except for major storm events, water levels will be allowed to "bleed down" at a slower rate. Notwithstanding these facts, Petitioners believe that control elevations in WCPPUD have always been higher than in Basin B, and are concerned that the proposed "on paper" modification is in the nature of a "smoke and mirrors" trick. Petitioners are concerned the proposed modifications will cause additional water to be detained in WCPPUD to the detriment of the equine industry there. But the evidence indicated that the their concerns are not well-taken. Under the proposed modification, there will be one inch of detention over the entire Basin B water management system between the elevations of 12' NGVD and 13' NGVD. This is the same range of elevations established for WCPPUD in the 1979 SWM permit. The calculated detention volume accounts for the volume of water which is physically accommodated in the system between 12' NGVD and 13' NGVD. There is no additional detention created in the WCPPUD system through the proposed changes. The proposed Basin B pump schedule will result in the same range of water table fluctuation as required in the 1979 SWM permit. As Petitioners' witness, Mr. Straub, testified, the system has worked well as operated for the last three years. No significant changes are to be expected as a result of the proposed pump operation schedule changes designed to achieve greater water quality treatment benefits. In combination, the modification of the pump operation schedule for Basin B and the revisions to the WCPPUD system are expected to result in an improvement in flood control with lower flood stages within WCPPUD through a more efficient water management system. Acme has demonstrated that the proposed modifications will not result in a change in actual water control elevations on Petitioners' properties; will not cause water to back up and cause flooding or septic tank problems within WCPPUD; and will comply with Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a), (b), and (c.) The undisputed expert testimony was that Acme gave reasonable assurances that the proposed permit modification will not "lower existing water table elevations." (Emphasis added.) Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-41.363(4). Equivalent Water Quality Treatment Provided Acme provided calculations comparing the treatment which was assumed to take place within the originally permitted surface water management system of WCPPUD (which included Peacock Pond), the treatment which is currently being provided by the existing system, and the treatment that will be provided under various assumed future scenarios. Acme demonstrated that there will be an equivalent amount of water quality treatment even though the use of Peacock Pond as a water quality retention area is being eliminated. Petitioner did not provide any contrary evidence to show that the removal of Peacock Pond reduced water quality treatment in the system. As a result, reasonable assurances were given that there will be no adverse effect on the quality of receiving waters as a result of this proposed modification. Additional Wet Detention Areas Now Exist Although the 1979 permit required only 12 acres of wet retention ponds, analysis of aerial photographs and existing permits issued after 1979 indicates that 54.4 acres of wet detention lakes meeting current regulatory criteria now exist in WCPPUD. Another 33 acres of existing wet retention areas (including canals) are present but do not meet the minimum width criteria required for wet detention ponds. Approximately another 4 acres meet the dimensional requirements but are not legally encumbered for use by Acme for water quality purposes. For example, Lakes 6 and 8 meet the dimensional criteria but are not platted as water management areas or encumbered by suitable drainage easement. A similar situation exists with Lake 9, which has been assumed to provide wet detention treatment over only 15.41 acres since the northern 2.25 acres of the 17.66-acre lake are outside the platted water management area's footprint. If all lakes, ponds, and canals within WCPPUD were counted for water quality purposes, Acme calculated that there would be enough capacity to treat approximately one inch of runoff from WCPPUD. Not counting the water bodies not meeting dimensional requirements or not legally encumbered, but assuming that future development within WCPPUD will have 13% water bodies qualifying for use as wet detention areas under current criteria, Acme calculated that there would be capacity to treat one inch runoff from current and future development within WCPPUD. (Instead of 13 percent qualifying wet detention areas, alternative equivalent water quality treatment also could be used to meet applicable water quality treatment criteria.) Planted Filter Marsh Located in C-2 Canal Provides Additional Water Quality Treatment Phosphorus loading can be described as the pounds of phosphorus which are being discharged to a water body through storm water runoff. In WCPPUD today, phosphorous loading is higher than originally anticipated and calculated when the 1979 Permit was issued due to differences in the way the land has been developed over the last 20 years. The main difference is more equestrian activity and its higher phosphorus loading than anticipated in 1979. Acme submitted detailed phosphorus loading information which is included in Exhibits 7A through 7E to the Staff Report (SFWMD Exhibit 5), comparing what the original permit anticipated to what is happening today, and what would happen with the modified system. The detailed information is summarized on Exhibit 8 to the Staff Report. To address phosphorus loading, the proposed project includes construction of a 7.8-acre filter marsh within a portion of the Acme C-2 Canal right-of-way located within Basin B about a half mile west of WCPPUD. The project will extend from the intersection of the C-2 and C-23A canals southwards approximately 6,800'. The filter marsh will treat water flowing south through the C-2 canal prior to reaching the Acme pump stations discharging into the Refuge. The existing Acme C-2 canal will be expanded to a width of approximately 80' to 130' and will incorporate a meandering 40' to 60' wide constructed and planted littoral shelf at elevation 10.0' NGVD. Adjacent to the proposed littoral zone, a 25' wide section of the canal will be excavated to an elevation of approximately 6.0' NGVD. This deeper section is proposed to prevent any reduction in hydraulic capacity of the existing C-2 Canal. The 7.8-acre area will be planted with native wetland vegetation on three centers. It is anticipated that the planted vegetation will meet or exceed the eighty percent coverage requirement within two years; however, additional plants will be installed if the area fails to meet such expectations. Monitoring will occur on a monthly basis until the filter marsh achieves a 50 percent areal coverage of desirable planted and recruited wetland vegetation. Upon attainment of the 50 percent coverage criterion, the monitoring frequency will be reduced to four times per year for a period of three years. Subsequent maintenance and monitoring events will occur semi- annually. Should exotic infestation occur, herbicide and/or hand clearing will be utilized to bring the filter marsh into compliance with desired plant specie densities. Special Condition No. 12 of the Staff Report (SFWMD Exhibit 5) requires that the Acme adhere to the filter marsh maintenance plan. The proposed littoral zone construction is expected to be initiated within six months of permit issuance and completed within six months of commencement. The pollutant loading/removal spreadsheets provide an estimate that the marsh will result in the annual removal of 33 pounds of total phosphorus. At the same time, the proposed filter marsh will add the equivalent of one-half inch of water quality treatment benefits within the entirety of Basin B. As a result, with the proposed filter marsh, Acme gave reasonable assurances that the proposed permit modification would provide "an additional fifty (50) percent retention/detention water quality treatment addition to the water quality treatment volumes required in section 5.2.1. of the Basis of Review [for projects within a Water Protection Area or Area Basin]." Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-41.363(5). Approximately half of the proposed filter marsh will extend north of the east/west C-24 Canal, and half will extend south of it. The northern half will treat water from an area of relatively intense equestrian use just west of WCPPUD; the southern half will continue to treat water flowing through the northern half of the filter marsh. However, the southern half also will treat some water from the C-4 and C-6 canals in WCPPUD, which flows south to the C-24 and then west to the C-2. Exhibit 9B of the Staff Report (SFWMD Exhibit 5) delineates the assumed contributing area of 960 acres. BMPs Provide Improvements in Water Quality Best Management practices (BMPs) are water quality treatment operational practices to prevent pollutants from ultimately entering the receiving water body. BMPs are also often referred to as source controls. Examples of BMPs include street-sweeping and cleaning out storm gutters to control pollutants at their source. BMPs are commonly considered in ERP permitting. The Village of Wellington has mandated a BMP program in Basin B, including: an ordinance dealing with phosphorus and water quality improvement; an ordinance regulating the application of fertilizer, requiring no more than two percent phosphorus content; and an equestrian BMP requiring equestrian residuals, commonly known as manure, be collected and contained in concrete covered bins. Historically, horse manure was stockpiled in the open and exposed to rainfall. Stormwater runoff from the stockpiled manure often flowed directly into the Acme canals. Stormwater runoff from equestrian residuals has been a major contributing factor to the amount of phosphorus being discharged to the Everglades from Basin B. The Village of Wellington also is implementing BMPs for its own canal maintenance and for cleaning phosphorous-laden sediments from its canals. The calculations provided to SFWMD by Acme concerning BMPs do not assume an initial 100-percent compliance. Initially, a 20-percent compliance was assumed because the ordinances are fairly new. These BMPs were not in place when the 1979 permit was issued. Under the current application, it is expected that the BMPs throughout Basin B will significantly reduce the amount of phosphorus ultimately discharged through the two Acme pump stations to the Refuge. Although there is an increase in phosphorus loading from that anticipated in 1979, the BMPs, filter marsh, amendment to the pump operation schedule, comprehensive water quality monitoring plan, and other items in the modification offset the increase. (The modifications in the proposed permit are not designed to address the overall Basin B phosphorus problems.) Comprehensive Water Quality Monitoring Program SFWMD and the Village of Wellington have implemented a comprehensive water quality monitoring program with Basin B. This program includes existing and proposed sampling points within WCPPUD shown on Exhibits 2 and 9B of the Staff Report (SFWMD Exhibit 5). This permit modification requires that Acme continue this monitoring program as specified in Special Condition No. 11 to the Staff Report. Elimination of Existing Control Structure As stated in Finding 19, supra, a 1989 modification to the 1979 authorized construction and operation of a control structure allowing discharge from Lake No. 5 (as designated in Exhibit 2 of the Staff Report, SFWMD Exhibit 5) to the C-4 Canal, which was never built. Instead, as shown on Exhibit 2 of the Staff Report, the existing SWM system for Equestrian Estates discharges to the C-4 Canal well to the north of the authorized control structure via a 100' wide canal. The proposed permit modification will eliminate the authorization for the Equestrian Estates control structure which was never constructed. This revision is necessary to ensure that discharge from the development will continue to occur upstream of Structure 115, as it does today, and that the on- site detention facilities within Equestrian Estates will function as modeled in the water quality analysis. Polo's Pending Application for Peacock Pond Polo has pending a separate application to SFWMD (Application No. 020215-10) requesting authorization for development of Peacock Pond as a polo field. Polo’s proposed water quality feature for its Peacock Pond polo fields development includes a lake on the north end of Peacock Pond. It appears that the lake would utilize lakes/canals 12 and 13, which are currently located at the north end and northeast corner of Peacock Pond, essentially enlarging those lakes/canals to the south and west into Peacock Pond. Polo's application is currently incomplete and fails to address a number of significant water resource issues. SFWMD mailed an initial Request for Additional Information (RAI) to Polo on March 15, 2002. Responses were due within thirty days. As of the date of the final hearing in this case, no response to the initial RAI had been submitted. Notwithstanding its pending application, Polo professes to believe that its undeveloped properties in WCPPUD are "vested," so that Polo should not be required to provide water quality treatment when developing its properties in the future. But the 1979 permit stated that it only permitted construction in certain parts of WCPPUD and that individual permit modifications would be required for the future development of additional phases. (SFWMD Exhibit 2 at p. 1; special conditions.) All "grand fathered" development already has taken place. No evidence or convincing legal argument was presented by Petitioners for the proposition that land owners seeking to develop their properties in Wellington WCPPUD now or in the future should be "vested" and thus subject to different water management regulations than other land owners seeking to develop their properties in Acme Basin B. SFWMD's Proposed Corrections to Staff Report At the Final Hearing, SFWMD suggested that two corrections be made to the Staff Report. The first would add "Section No. 20" on page 1 of the Staff Report (SFWMD Exhibit 5) to clarify the property is actually located in sections 20 and This type of change would be made administratively even without this proceeding. The other correction is proposed on page 4 of the Staff Report (SFWMD Exhibit 5), pertaining to the description of the water elevation within Basin B and Country Place, as follows: The water elevation within Basin B and Country Place was originally permitted with a wet season control elevation of 12.0' and a dry season control of 13.0' NGVD. The minimum road and finish floor elevations were established at elevation 16.0' and 17.0 NGVD, respectively. The water elevation within Basin B was permitted in 1978 with a schedule stage of 13' NGVD in the wet season and 13' NGVD in the dry season; however, the system has historically been operated with a control elevation of 12' NGVD in the wet season and 13' in the dry season. WCPPUD was originally permitted with a wet season control elevation of 12' NGVD and a dry season control elevation of 13' NGVD. The Country Place pump station discharging into Peacock Pond was to begin operation when water elevations reached 13' NGVD and discontinue when the system was drawn down to elevation 12' NGVD. The operational elevations authorized in this staff report are consistent with those authorized in 1979 for Country Place. The 1978 permit also established a minimum road grade elevation of 16' NGVD and a finished floor elevation of 17' NGVD for Basin B. The 1979 permit for Country Place established the same minimum road grade and finished floor elevations. This correction accurately describes the 1978 permit for Basin B; it is not a substantive change. These and other possible changes to the Staff Report were drafted shortly before the final hearing in the form of an "Addendum to Staff Report." Petitioners contended that this denied them due process. However, this Addendum (which was not introduced into evidence) was presented to propose corrections to minor errors in the original Staff Report and to suggest appropriate ways to address issues raised by Petitioners during prehearing procedures in this case in order to help clarify the intention of the Staff Report for Petitioners' benefit. SFWMD offered to withdraw the latter Addendum proposals if Petitioners so wished; Petitioners declined to request that these proposals be withdrawn, but none are considered to be necessary. Other Contentions Raised By Petitioners Alleged Elimination of Petitioners' Water Treatment Facilities Petitioners contended in their Second Amended Petition that the modification will cause "33 acres of previously permitted and constructed water management facilities to no longer be considered toward meeting water quality treatment." But the 33 acres referenced by the Petitioners were never counted for water quality treatment in the previous permits. Additionally, as discussed above, they do not meet the minimal dimensional criteria or have not been encumbered for water quality purposes. See Finding 41, supra. The only surface water management facility which has a change in its permitted status for water quality treatment is Peacock Pond. Future Development is Not Precluded from Proposing Alternative Water Quality Treatment Petitioners expressed a concern that the proposed permit modification would bind future development to the Acme's design assumptions--specifically, the assumption that, in order to meet SFWMD's criteria for new development, future development projects would include 13 percent lakes. This concern seems to spring primarily from the following statement on page 3 of 21 of the Staff Report (SFWMD Exhibit 5): "This permit modification requires that applicants adhere to the stated surface water management system assumptions for all future development." Reading the Staff Report as a whole, it was reasonably clear that Acme's assumption was made only for purposes of its permit modification application and would not bind future developers in WCPPUD. Rather, future applicants may propose any alternative methods that comply with Chapter 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code, and the BOR to demonstrate compliance with water quality requirements. For example, the Staff Report states on page 13: Future Country Place applicants are not precluded from proposing alternative means of treatment which can be demonstrated to provide an equivalent level of treatment. Further, the assumptions do not preclude the SFWMD from requiring additional treatment measures as necessary from an applicant to provide reasonable assurance that future projects will not cause or contribute to existing water quality problems in Basin B. The testimony of SFWMD witnesses confirmed this reading of the Staff Report. There is no need to further modify the Staff Report to allay Petitioners' expressed concern. Canals/Lakes 12 and/or 13 Not Affected Petitioners' Second Amended Petition questioned whether Acme's canals/lakes 12 and 13, which border Peacock Pond on the north and in the northeast corner, are properly located within Acme's easements. But Acme's application proposes no modifications to those canals/lakes. Not only are canals/lakes 12 and 13 not the subject of this permit modification, Petitioners introduced no competent, substantial evidence demonstrating improper placement of those conveyance features. In an abundance of caution, SFWMD suggested adding the following Special Condition Number 14 to address this issue: If a final determination is made by a court of competent jurisdiction that Acme does not own, have an easement or otherwise have the right to utilize the area where canal/lake Number 12 and/or canal/lake Number 13 is located, then within 30 days of such determination, Acme shall file an application with the SFWMD to move the canal/lake Number 12 and or canal/lake Number 13 to an area which is determined to be owned by Acme or over which Acme has an easement, or modify the surface water management system to discontinue use of canal/lake Number 12 and or canal/lake Number 13. Inclusion of this language would confirm that, if a court makes a final determination that Acme does not have the right or access to utilize Canals/Lakes Number 12 and/or 13, Acme would be required to modify the permit. While adding the suggested language to the Staff Report is appropriate, it is not necessary; reasonable assurances have been provided without any additional language that the permit criteria have been satisfied. If canal/lakes 12 and 13 should ever become unusable, thus preventing a discharge of the eastern half of WCPPUD into the C-4 canal, the drainage system could be split so that the western half discharges into the C-4 canal and the eastern half into the C-6 canal. In that case, a minor modification would be required to lower the weir at structure 117 to 12’ NGVD and the permit is modified. Mr. Higgins performed calculations to demonstrate that such a minor modification would be permittable under applicable criteria.4 Wetlands in Pod F Not Adversely Affected The Staff Report includes reference to wetlands located in the southeast corner of Pod F of WCPPUD. (Pod F itself is in the southeast corner of Section 20.) Petitioners seemed to take issue with the Staff Report's description of these wetlands. They also disputed whether Acme provided reasonable assurance that these wetlands would not be adversely affected by the proposed modifications. Specifically, Polo expressed concern that the proposed modifications would undermine a plan it has to restore wetlands in Pod F for use as mitigation for an after-the-fact permit to be issued to resolve a SFWMD cease and desist order imposed on Polo for activities in an adjacent polo field, and perhaps also as mitigation for wetland impacts by Polo and other future developers in the area. In taking these positions, Petitioners criticized SFWMD for not presenting expert testimony from a biologist. The Staff Report states that "the 3.74-acres of cypress wetland contained within Pod F" are the only other wetlands in WCPPUD besides Peacock Pond. These wetlands were described as being "in poor biological condition." Petitioners argued that the testimony of their expert supported a finding that the wetlands in Pod F actually are approximately 25 acres in size. However, her actual testimony was that her proposed wetlands restoration project was 25 acres in size. Part of her proposed restoration project includes the "vertical relocation" of higher ground now infested with melaleuca and other nuisance and exotic species. In addition, she admitted that she had not delineated wetlands in Pod F using the methodology adopted for that purpose by the State of Florida; instead, she used methodology adopted by the United States Army Corps of Engineers was used. Not only are the two methodologies different, the Army Corps methodology includes wetlands not included under the State of Florida methodology. Finally, Petitioners' expert admitted that less than 4 acres of the 25 acres included in her project area consisted of "cypress heads." Taken as a whole, the evidence did not demonstrate a need to revise the Staff Report's description of the size of the wetlands in Pod F. As for the Staff Report's description of the Pod F wetlands' "poor biological condition," this is consistent with the testimony of Petitioners' expert. She testified that the wetlands' hydrology was deficient, especially on the northern half of the restoration project area, and that the tract is "highly infested with exotic vegetation," leading to the need for restoration. The hydrology is better on the southern half of the restoration project area, where the cypress trees are healthy; but the cypress trees on the northern half of the tract are under stress, with lots of old world climbing vines on them and other infestation of exotic vegetation, including melaleuca. On site visits, the expert saw "wading birds, snakes, signs of raccoon [and n]umerous bird species." No endangered or threatened species were said to be using the tract at this time. One purpose of the restoration project would be to create better wildlife habitat. Petitioners' expert testified that if water levels were lowered in the proposed restoration project area, there could be an adverse impact on existing and planned wetlands. However, Petitioners' expert did not have evidence or information indicating historic or current water levels. Petitioners' expert also did not know whether the permit modification will lower or have any affect on the water levels in that area. Petitioners introduced neither competent evidence of current groundwater levels under the proposed wetlands mitigation project, nor competent evidence as to how the permit modification might change those groundwater levels. Acme and SFWMD presented evidence that the water levels in the C-4 and C-23 canals, directly adjacent to Pod F, will not be changed significantly as a result of the permit modification; that the proposed permit modification will have no effect on the groundwater levels in this wetland area; and that, as a result, no wetland impacts will occur from the permit modifications. Petitioners did not rebut the Respondents' evidence. As a result, Acme has demonstrated that not only groundwater and surface water flows and levels but also the value of wetland functions in Pod F will not be adversely impacted, as required by Rule 40E-4.301(d) and (g), Florida Administrative Code. The evidence was that SFWMD biologists visited the Pod F wetlands and prepared a report which formed the basis of statements in the Staff Report about the absence of wetland impacts. Given the finding that groundwater levels in the Pod F will not change, the testimony of expert biologists was not necessary. Assumed Commercial Acreage Through the testimony of Michael Nelson, Petitioners questioned a purported statement in the Staff Report that there are 24.4 acres of commercial acreage in WCPPUD. According to Mr. Nelson, there actually are only five acres of commercially zoned property in the PUD. Mr. Nelson stated that this, along with other alleged errors, undermine his confidence in SFWMD's entire evaluation of the proposed permit modification. In fact, the Staff Report, at page 8, states that "the original permit application (in 1979) included only two land uses: 935.6 acres of single family use . . . and 24.4 acres of commercial area." There was no statement that 24.4 acres is zoned commercial today. Past Violations Petitioners also assert that the proposed permit modification should be denied because Acme has not strictly abided by applicable permits. But Acme's most significant past violation was the failure to operate Peacock Pond as required by the 1979 Permit. As reflected in Findings 21 and 23, supra, the primary purpose of this proposed modification is to resolve the enforcement proceedings that arose out of the Peacock Pond violation. Acme also has been one of thousands of SFWMD permit holders who have not certified construction of their systems in conformance with the applicable permits, which is required to transfer the permit into operational status. For many years, SFWMD did not monitor permits for certification and did not enforce failure to certify permits. When monitoring and enforcement was initiated in 1995, it was found that over 12,000 permits were in violation for failure to submit the required certifications. SFWMD prioritized the missing certifications and began methodical follow-up. When SFWMD raised the issue with Acme, Acme responded, and the outstanding violations are being resolved. SFWMD saw no need to initiate formal enforcement proceedings and has been treating the outstanding violations as a "non-compliance" issue since it is a paperwork problem, not an environmental resource problem. At this time, the modifications to structures 115 and 117 in accordance with the several emergency authorizations to address septic tank problems have been certified. However, as indicated, the 1979 Permit itself cannot be certified so long as the Peacock Pond pumped retention area is not in place and operational. It is found that Acme has sufficient financial, legal, and administrative capabilities to ensure that water management modifications will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the modified permit. (Since Acme is now a dependent special district of the Village of Wellington, the Village of Wellington actually will be responsible for installation, operation, and maintenance of these structures.) Notwithstanding the past violations, reasonable assurances have been given that Acme will comply with the terms of its proposed permit modification. Propriety of Petitioners’ Purpose Acme has raised the issue whether Petitioners participated in this proceeding for an "improper purpose," i.e., "primarily to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or for frivolous purpose or to needlessly increase the cost of licensing or securing the approval of an activity." § 120.595(1)(e)1, Fla. Stat. (2003). But it is found that, under the totality of circumstances, Petitioners' participation in this proceeding was not for an improper purpose, as defined by statute. Petitioners' participation in this proceeding has indeed needlessly increased Acme's cost of obtaining SFWMD's permit approval; but the evidence did not prove that this was Petitioners' primary purpose. It also is clear that Petitioners attempted to delay this proceeding through repeated requests for continuances (and other procedural and evidentiary objections) and that, while they usually based their requests for continuances in part on the alleged need for more time for more discovery, they failed to pick up voluminous copies of requested discovery documents and complained about how much money they had already spent on discovery. Nonetheless, it is found that Acme did not prove that Petitioners' primary purpose for participating in this proceeding was to delay the proceeding. It seems reasonably clear that, had Petitioners retained a competent expert engineer to evaluate its case, the expert probably would have advised Petitioners that they would not be able to successfully challenge SFWMD's proposed agency action. For that and other reasons, a reasonable person would not have raised and pursued some of the issues raised by Petitioners in this proceeding. But it cannot be found that all of the issues they raised were frivolous or that their participation in this proceeding was for an improper purpose.
The Issue Whether the rules promulgated by the Department of Environmental Regulation require the Respondent to employ the services of a state certified water system operator to operate the water systems at the two business locations involved in these proceedings.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent was responsible for the operation of two water systems. One water system is located on Highway 92 West, Winter Haven, Polk County. The other water system is located on State Road 37 South, Mulberry, Polk County. The restaurant and bar business operated at the Winter Haven location is known as the Rainbow Club. Customers eat food and drink beverages prepared with water from the on site water system. The system serves at least twenty- five individuals daily, at least sixty days out of the year. The convenience store business operated in Mulberry serves ice tea, juices, and coffee to customers which is prepared with water from the on site water system. The system serves at least twenty-five individuals daily, at least sixty days out of the year. During the recent past, the Respondent retained a certified operator to meet the state requirements. He was not satisfied with the operator for the following reasons: (1) He had to show the man how to chlorinate the water. (2) The operator took the required chlorine samples from water that had not been chlorinated. (3) Visits were not made to the site as scheduled. (4) The pump at one of the establishments was harmed by the certified operator. (5) The expense of four hundred dollars a month for the testing of three sites operated by the Respondent was too much money. The Respondent wants to be able to chlorinate the water and maintain the systems himself. He has professional experience regulating the chemical balance of water in swimming pools. The samples he turned into the lab himself were good. The Respondent also wants to keep the old well next to the convenience store in Mulberry. He disagrees with the Department's request that he abandon the well because he needs it for an adjoining piece of property. This well is used for lawns, not for the convenience store business. The Department is amenable to the Respondent maintaining his own systems if he is certified to do so. The next examination is scheduled for November 1990.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent KW Resort Utilities Corp. ("KWRU") is entitled to issuance, by Respondent Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP"), of Domestic Wastewater Facility Permit FLA014951-012-DWIP and UIC Permits 18490-020 and 18490-021 (collectively, the "Permit at Issue"), authorizing the major modification of KWRU's existing permit to operate a domestic wastewater facility located at 6630 Front Street, Stock Island, Florida 33040. The Permit at Issue would authorize the expansion of KWRU's existing domestic wastewater facility and the installation of two additional underground injection wells.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Last Stand is a not-for-profit corporation incorporated under Florida law. Last Stand has challenged the Permit at Issue in this proceeding. Petitioner George Halloran is a natural person residing in Key West, Florida, and is a member of Last Stand. Halloran has challenged the Permit at Issue in this proceeding. Respondent KWRU is a Florida corporation. KWRU is the wastewater utility service provider that owns and operates the Existing Wastewater Facility2/ and is responsible for its design, construction, operation, and maintenance. It is the applicant for the Permit at Issue in this proceeding. Respondent DEP is the state agency charged with administering the domestic wastewater program in Florida pursuant to chapter 403, Florida Statutes, implementing, as applicable, rules codified at Florida Administrative Code Chapters 62-4, 62-302, 62-303, 62-520, 62-528, 62-600, and 62-620, and various industry standards and manuals incorporated by reference into DEP rules. DEP's proposed agency action to grant the Permit at Issue is the subject of this proceeding. Background and Overview Domestic Wastewater Regulation in the Florida Keys The State of Florida has recognized the need to protect the Florida Keys' unique, sensitive environmental resources. To that end, portions of the Florida Keys are designated, pursuant to statute and by DEP rule, as an Outstanding Florida Water ("OFW"). § 403.061(27), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.700(9). The Florida Legislature also designated the Florida Keys an Area of Critical State Concern. § 380.0552, Fla. Stat. A stated purpose of this designation is to protect and improve the Florida Keys nearshore water quality through construction and operation of wastewater facilities that meet the requirements of section 403.086(10). Additionally, the Florida Legislature has enacted section 403.086(10), which addresses the discharge of domestic wastewater in the Florida Keys. That statute finds that the discharge of inadequately treated and managed domestic wastewater from small wastewater facilities and septic tanks and other onsite systems in the Florida Keys compromises the coastal environment, including the nearshore and offshore waters, and threatens the quality of life and local economies that depend on these resources. Section 403.086(10) directs that after December 31, 2015, all new or expanded domestic wastewater discharges must comply with the treatment and disposal requirements of the statute and DEP rules. Specifically, domestic wastewater treatment facilities having design capacities greater than or equal to 100,000 gallons per day must provide basic disinfection of the wastewater pursuant to DEP rule and must treat the wastewater to a level of treatment, which, on a permitted annual average basis, produces an effluent that contains no more than the following concentrations of the specified constituents: Biochemical Oxygen Demand ("CBOD5") of 5 milligrams per liter ("mg/L"); Suspended Solids of 5 mg/L; Total Nitrogen, expressed as N of 3 mg/L; and Total Phosphorus, expressed as P of 1 mg/L. Collectively, these effluent standards constitute the "advanced wastewater treatment" ("AWT") standards. Section 403.086(10)(e) also imposes requirements regarding disposal of treated domestic wastewater effluent through underground injection. Section 403.086(10)(e)1. requires Class V injection wells serving domestic wastewater treatment facilities having design capacities of less than one million gallons per day (hereafter "MGD") to be at least 90 feet deep and cased to a minimum depth of 60 feet, or to such greater cased depth and total well depth as may be required by DEP rule. Section 403.086(10)(e)2. requires Class V injection wells serving wastewater treatment facilities with design capacities greater than or equal to 1 MGD, excluding backup wells, to be cased to a minimum depth of 2,000 feet or to such greater depth as may be required by DEP rule. The Existing Wastewater Facility KWRU currently is permitted, pursuant to Permit FLA014591 (the "Existing Permit"), to operate a domestic wastewater facility (the "Existing Wastewater Facility" or "Facility")3/ located at 6630 Front Street, Stock Island, Florida. Stock Island is located immediately east and slightly north of Key West. By way of background, KWRU's domestic wastewater system currently consists of three elements: a collection system, which collects wastewater from serviced properties; a transmission system, which transmits wastewater from the collection system to the treatment plant; and the Existing Wastewater Facility, which treats the wastewater and then sends it either as reclaimed water for reuse as irrigation water at the Key West Golf Club, or for toilet flushing or air conditioning makeup water at other facilities specified in the Existing Permit,4/ or disposes of it as treated effluent through two underground injection wells. No modifications to the collection or transmission systems have been proposed or challenged. Thus, only the proposed modifications to the Existing Wastewater Facility are at issue in this proceeding. The Existing Wastewater Facility serves residential and commercial properties located on Stock Island, Florida, immediately adjacent to Key West in the lower Florida Keys. Specifically, the Facility treats domestic wastewater originating from approximately 1,416 existing residential connections and 216 commercial connections. The commercial connections consist of a convalescent center, a college, restaurants, recreational vehicle parks, an animal clinic, and a hospital. There are no industrial wastewater contributors to the Facility. The Facility includes a Category III, Class C wastewater treatment facility operating under the Existing Permit. It is staffed by a Class C or higher operator for six hours a day, seven days per week, in accordance with the Existing Permit and applicable DEP rules. The Facility has a design capacity and a permitted capacity5/ of .499 MGD annual average daily flow ("AADF") and consists of two treatment trains having capacities of .249 MGD and .250 MGD AADF. These treatment trains are piped together to allow operation of the Facility as a single plant. The Facility was upgraded in the mid-2000s and is capable of treating influent wastewater to AWT. However, as authorized under the Existing Permit, the Facility currently treats domestic wastewater to secondary standards, which do not impose nitrogen or phosphorous limits. Under the Existing Permit and in accordance with section 403.086(10), the Facility is not required to meet AWT standards until January 1, 2016. Vacuum and gravity collection systems collect the domestic wastewater from the properties that KWRU services. Wastewater influent from the collection systems flows through the transmission system to a splitter box at the KWRU property, where it is sent to the Facility for treatment. The Facility contains two treatment trains, each consisting of a bar screen, an equalization tank, an aeration tank, an anoxic zone, a post-aeration basin, a clarifier, a silica sand/river rock filter, and a chlorine contact chamber. The bar screens, which constitute the first step in the treatment trains, remove floatables from the wastewater stream. After passing through the bar screens, the wastewater drops into two equalization tanks. As their name indicates, the equalization tanks smooth out the peaks in wastewater flow to the Existing Wastewater Facility. Specifically, wastewater flows to the Facility in large volumes during two periods each day, morning and evening, corresponding with peak water use by the serviced properties. During these large flow volume periods, the equalization tanks fill up with sewage influent, which is meted out during lower-flow periods for treatment by the Facility. In this manner, the Facility treats roughly the same amount of wastewater per hour, which is key to the steady state operation of, and the reliable treatment of the wastewater by, the Facility. From the equalization tanks, the wastewater is directed to the three-stage bioreactor portion of the treatment process. Microorganisms are utilized at each stage to break down the waste. The first stage of the bioreactor process occurs in the aeration basins. Here, wastewater enters the fine-air zone, where it and the microbes used in this stage of the treatment process come into contact with tiny oxygen bubbles. The microorganisms use the oxygen to oxidize the waste and complete the ammonification of the wastewater. The wastewater then passes through bulkheads to the anoxic zones, where the oxygen level is extremely low. In the anoxic zones, bacteria denitrify, or remove nitrogen from, the wastewater. The wastewater is then sent to the post-aeration basins, where excess carbon is removed through oxidation. Thereafter, the wastewater is sent to the clarifiers, where the microorganisms settle out of the wastewater to form a solid precipitate on the bottom of the tank. The precipitate is plowed into a sump and returned by pump to the bioreactors, where the microorganisms are reused in the activated treatment process. When the microorganisms cease to optimally function in treating the waste, they are culled from the treatment process and sent to a digester, where they oxidize, through the endogenous decay process, to the point that they die and only their endoskeletons remain. Sludge, consisting of the endoskeletons and water, is pumped to a sand filter drying bed. The filtrate water is pumped back through the Wastewater Facility to be reused in the wastewater treatment process, while the dried endoskeletons, which are termed "biosolids," are transported offsite for disposal in a Class I landfill. The treated, clarified wastewater is pumped through sand/rock filters, then to the chlorine contact chambers where it is exposed to a minimum of 15 minutes of chlorine disinfection. As noted above, the Existing Permit authorizes the reuse of reclaimed water for, among other uses, irrigation by land application at the 100.27-acre Key West Golf Club golf course. The golf course irrigation system consists, in part, of two unlined interconnected ponds that do not directly discharge to surface waters6/ and that have a storage capacity exceeding one million gallons. KWRU sends reclaimed water to the golf course through its reclaimed water reuse system only in the quantity required to meet the course's irrigation needs. The Existing Permit imposes a minimum residual chlorine level of 1 mg/L and a maximum of 5 mg/L turbidity for the treated wastewater to be considered reclaimed water that can be reused as irrigation at the golf course or as otherwise authorized in the Existing Permit. If the treated wastewater does not meet these standards, switchover/interlock equipment at the Facility disables the power to the pumps that send the reclaimed water offsite for reuse.7/ At that point, the treated wastewater is considered treated effluent.8/ The effluent fills the effluent wet well and is piped directly to the existing underground injection wells for disposal. Pursuant to the Existing Permit, the effluent is disposed of by gravity flow through two Class V, Group 3, ten- inch underground injection wells bored to a depth of 110 feet and cased to a minimum depth of 60 feet. Collectively, the two injection wells have a maximum permitted capacity of .499 MGD AADF. As authorized by the Existing Permit, the underground injection wells discharge the effluent to Class G-III ground water within the Key Largo Limestone.9/ The underground injection wells are not the primary means of disposal for the treated wastewater, in the sense that they are used to remove effluent from the Facility only if and when reclaimed water is not needed by the golf course or the other receiving facilities, or when the treated wastewater does not meet the required residual chlorine and turbidity limits discussed above. The Existing Permit and the activities authorized thereunder are not at issue in this proceeding. Activities Authorized by the Permit at Issue The Permit at Issue proposes to authorize the construction of a new .350 MGD treatment train, which will increase the design capacity and permitted capacity of the plant from .499 MGD to .849 MGD AADF. The proposed modification of the Existing Wastewater Facility entails the addition of a 90-foot diameter tank containing an influent screen, a 105,554-gallon influent equalization tank, a 163,000-gallon aeration chamber, a 154,725-gallon post-anoxic chamber, a 35,525-gallon re-aeration zone, a 112,062-gallon clarifier, and a 317,950-gallon digester. The sand filters and chlorine contact chambers currently in use will be expanded to accommodate flows from the new treatment train, and the chlorine contact chambers will be changed to liquid bleach feed. The Permit at Issue also proposes to authorize the construction and operation of a new .499 MGD AADF underground injection well system consisting of two new Class V, Group 3 ten- inch wells, drilled to a depth of at least 110 feet and cased to a depth of at least 60 feet, which would discharge effluent to Class G-III ground water within Key Largo Limestone. When placed into service along with the two existing injection wells, the total design capacity and permitted capacity of all four underground injection wells would be .998 MGD AADF.10/ The existing reclaimed water reuse system for the Key West Golf Club or the other receiving facilities currently is authorized for a permitted flow capacity of .499 MGD AADF and a design capacity of 1 MGD AADF. The Permit at Issue would authorize the construction of a new reclaimed water reuse system having a permitted capacity of .849 MGD AADF; however, the design capacity of the system remains 1 MGD AADF, and the amount of reclaimed water sent to the golf course for reuse as irrigation is not being changed by the Permit at Issue from that currently authorized by the Existing Permit. Hereafter, the proposed modifications to the Existing Wastewater Facility that are the subject of the Permit at Issue are referred to as the "Project." The expanded facility resulting from completion of the Project is referred to as the "Expanded Wastewater Facility." The Existing Wastewater Facility treatment trains will be modified to meet the AWT standards as of January 1, 2016. Specifically, an alkalinity control system, a carbon injection system, and an alum injection will be added and certain aspects of the wastewater treatment process will be modified as necessary to meet the AWT standard. The new treatment train proposed as part of the Project will be designed to meet the AWT standards upon operation, which will not occur sooner than 2016. Accordingly, as required by section 403.086(10(d)1., all effluent from the Expanded Wastewater Treatment Facility will meet the AWT standards as of January 1, 2016. As a result of conversion of the wastewater treatment process to AWT, and even assuming all treated effluent is injected down the wells, total nitrogen loading will be decreased from 58 pounds per day to 15.9 pounds per day and total phosphorous loading will be decreased from 14.4 pounds per day to 5.3 pounds per day. This is the case even though the volume of effluent disposed of through the wells may as much as double. Only the activities comprising the Project, which are the proposed to be authorized by the Permit at Issue, are the subject of this proceeding. The Permitting Process The overarching purpose of the wastewater facility permitting process, including permitting of modifications to an existing wastewater facility, is to ensure that the wastewater facility does not discharge wastes to any waters of the state without first being given the degree of treatment necessary to protect the beneficial uses of such waters. This is accomplished by requiring the facility to be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with applicable DEP rule standards, which incorporate industry standards. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 600.100(1). Similarly, the overarching purpose of the Underground Injection Well System permitting process is to protect the quality of underground sources of drinking water and prevent degradation of the quality of other aquifers adjacent to the injection zone that may be used for other purposes. This is accomplished by requiring underground injection wells to be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with applicable DEP rule requirements and standards. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 528.100(1). The Wastewater Facility or Activity Permit Application Form 1, General Information, and Application Form 2A, Permit for Domestic Wastewater Treatment and Reuse or Disposal Facility, which are adopted by rule, are the forms that must be completed and submitted to DEP to receive authorization to modify existing wastewater facilities or construct new wastewater facilities. This form includes a list of requirements, some (but not necessarily all) of which apply to proposed modification of an existing wastewater facility. The form requires that a Florida- licensed P.E. certify that the engineering features of the project have been designed by the engineer in conformance with the sound engineering principles applicable to such projects, and that, in his or her professional judgment, the facility, when properly constructed, operated, and maintained, will comply with all applicable statutes and the rules. The Application to Construct/Operate/Abandon Class I, III, or V Injection Well System, which is adopted by rule, is the application form that must be completed and submitted to DEP to receive authorization to construct and operate a Class V Injection Well System. This application form includes a list of requirements, some (but not necessarily all) of which apply to a specific underground injection well construction project. The form requires that a Florida-licensed P.E. certify that the engineering features of the injection well have been designed and examined by the engineer and found to conform to modern engineering principles applicable to the disposal of pollutants as proposed in the permit application. By signing and sealing the application, the P.E. certifies that, in his or her professional judgment, there is reasonable assurance that the injection well, when properly maintained and operated, will discharge effluent in compliance with all applicable statutes and rules. Once the application forms are submitted, DEP permitting staff reviews the applications and determines whether items on the forms and any materials submitted to support those items are incomplete or need clarification. In that event, staff sends the applicant a Request for Additional Information ("RAI"), requesting the applicant to provide additional information to address incomplete or unclear aspects of the application. Once the applicant has provided information sufficient to enable DEP to review the application for issuance or denial of the permit, DEP determines the applications complete and reviews the project for substantive compliance with all applicable statutory and rule permitting requirements. DEP is authorized to issue the permit, with such conditions as it may direct, if the applicant affirmatively provides reasonable assurance, based on the information provided in the application, that the construction, expansion, modification, operation, or activity of the installation will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution in contravention of DEP standards or rules proposed in the application. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-4.070(1). If the applicant fails to provide such reasonable assurance, the permit must be denied. Conversely, if the applicant provides such reasonable assurance, the applicant is legally entitled to issuance of the permit. Engineering Design of the Project KWRU retained Weiler Engineering Corporation to design the proposed modifications to the Existing Wastewater Facility and the new underground injection well (again, collectively referred to as the "Project") and to prepare and submit the applications for the Permit at Issue to DEP. Edward Castle and Christopher Johnson prepared the applications for the Permit at Issue. As the applicant, Johnson signed the application documents as required pursuant to the application form. As the engineer of record, Castle signed and sealed the certifications in the application forms, representing that he was the engineer in responsible charge of preparing the Project's engineering documents. Castle's signature and seal on the application forms for the wastewater treatment facility expansion portion of the Project constitute his representation that he designed and examined the engineering features of the wastewater treatment facility expansion; that these features conform to sound engineering principles applicable to the Project; and that, in his professional judgment, the wastewater treatment facility expansion portion of the Project, when properly constructed, operated, and maintained, will comply with all applicable statutes and rules, including the requirement that the effluent meet the AWT standards as of January 1, 2016. Similarly, Castle's signature and seal on the application to construct the new underground injection wells constitute his representation that he designed the engineering features of these injection wells; that the injection wells conform to modern engineering principles applicable to the disposal of pollutants as proposed in the permit application; and that in his professional judgment, there is reasonable assurance that the wells, when properly maintained and operated, will discharge effluent in compliance with all applicable statutes and rules, including the requirement that the effluent discharged through the injection wells meet AWT standards as of January 1, 2016. As previously noted, the design capacity of wastewater treatment portion of the Expanded Wastewater Facility is proposed to be .849 MGD AADF. Castle selected this design capacity based on historic wastewater flows at the Existing Wastewater Facility and foreseeable projected wastewater treatment capacity demand in the future.11/ Specifically, to estimate future capacity demand, Castle considered development agreements, requests for utility service, the existence of scarified property and applicable development density, wetslips, recent property sales, and estimated and proposed in-fill development on Stock Island. He projected residential development wastewater treatment demand based on historic actual flow data from the Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan ("Master Plan"), in conformance with the Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities, the so- called "Ten States Standards," a wastewater systems design and planning guidance document incorporated by reference in rule 62- 600.300(4). Additionally, Castle applied the estimated sewage flows codified in Florida Department of Health rule 64E-6.008, Table I, System Design Estimated Sewage Flows ("DOH Table I"), to estimate wastewater treatment demand for projected commercial and hotel development uses. Once Castle had projected wastewater capacity demand for residential and hotel/commercial uses at buildout on Stock Island, he factored in an additional 15 percent capacity safety factor to derive the .849 MGD AADF design capacity for the Expanded Wastewater Facility. Castle chose AADF, rather than the maximum monthly average daily flow or three-month average daily flow, as the timeframe for the design capacity based on historical flow amounts to the Existing Wastewater Facility and because of insignificant seasonal variations in historical flows to the Facility.12/ This is because the population on Stock Island contributing flow to the Existing Wastewater Facility is largely comprised of non-seasonal residents and commercial operations.13/ Nonetheless, to ensure the Expanded Wastewater Facility will have adequate capacity to effectively treat wastewater to the required standards during higher flow periods that may result from non- residential seasonal occupancy in the future, Castle assumed year-round, 100 percent occupancy for the projected hotel and commercial development on Stock Island in determining the design capacity for the Expanded Wastewater Facility. Castle estimated a peak hourly flow of 1.273 MGD for the Expanded Wastewater Facility. This figure estimates the maximum flow through the facility on an hourly basis specifically to take into account the diurnal variability of wastewater flow entering the facility. By definition, the peak hourly flow is a maximum hourly flow rather than the sustained flow or volume into or through the facility. The projected maximum hourly flow of 1.273 MGD, which was determined by multiplying the annual average daily flow by a peaking factor of 1.5, is an estimate of the maximum hourly flow wastewater coming into the Expanded Wastewater Facility's equalization tanks. Importantly, it is not the volume of wastewater flow, on an annual average daily basis, that will leave the facility's equalization tanks and flow through the facility's treatment process. Put another way, the 1.273 MGD peak hourly flow is not the Expanded Wastewater Facility's design capacity. As previously noted, the permitted capacity of the wastewater treatment portion of the Expanded Facility also would be .849 MGD AADF. The permitted capacity is the amount, on an annual average daily flow basis, that the wastewater treatment portion of the Expanded Wastewater Facility is authorized to treat and discharge. This metric establishes an absolute limit, on an annual average daily basis, on the quantity of wastewater that can be treated by, and discharged from, the Expanded Wastewater Facility. Also as discussed above, once the two new underground injection wells are installed, the total design capacity of the four wells at the Expanded Wastewater Facility will be .998 MGD AADF. The two new injection wells are being added to ensure adequate disposal capacity for the .849 MGD permitted capacity and, importantly, to accommodate the peak hourly flow. The reclaimed water reuse system currently has an authorized design capacity of 1 MGD AADF, and this is not being changed by the Project, although the permitted capacity is being increased to .849 MGD AADF. As discussed in greater detail below, neither the design capacity nor the permitted capacity of the reuse system is a function of the irrigation application rate per acre of the golf course, and neither represent the amount of irrigation applied to the golf course per day. In determining the design capacity for the Expanded Wastewater Facility, Castle considered wastewater capacity demand for the facility through the year 2020, rather than over a 20- year period. This is because buildout of the properties on Stock Island that will contribute flow to the facility is reasonably projected to occur between 2018 and 2020. After buildout, there will be no additional properties being developed to contribute additional wastewater flows to the Expanded Wastewater Facility. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that the proposed design capacity of .849 MGD AADF for the Expanded Wastewater Facility is appropriate under rule 62-600.200(19) and other pertinent provisions in chapter 62-600 and conforms to sound engineering principles applicable to the Expanded Wastewater Facility. The credible, persuasive evidence also establishes that the proposed permitted capacity of .849 MGD AADF for the Expanded Wastewater Facility is appropriate under rule 62- 600.200(62) and other pertinent provisions of chapter 62-600 and conforms to sound engineering principles applicable to the Expanded Wastewater Facility. The credible, persuasive evidence further establishes that the Project, when properly constructed, operated, and maintained, will comply with all applicable statutes and rules, including the requirement that the effluent meet the AWT standards as of January 1, 2016. The credible, persuasive evidence also establishes that the underground injection wells, as designed, conform to modern engineering principles applicable to the disposal of pollutants as proposed in the permit application; and that there is reasonable assurance that the wells, when properly constructed, maintained, and operated, will discharge effluent in compliance with all pertinent statutes and rules, including the requirement that the effluent discharged down the injection wells meet AWT standards as of January 1, 2016. DEP Review and Proposed Issuance of the Permit at Issue The wastewater treatment facility and underground injection well applications for the Project were submitted to DEP on April 15, 2014. During DEP's review of the applications for the Project, the question arose whether the 1.273 MGD peak hourly flow stated in the permit application would trigger the so-called "deep well" requirement in section 403.086(10)(e)2. that the underground injection wells be cased to a minimum depth of 2,000 feet. DEP ultimately concluded that the term "design capacity," as used in the statute, referred to an average daily flow rate14/ over a specified period of time——here, a year——for the Expanded Wastewater Facility, rather than the transient peak hourly flow for the facility. Thus, the Expanded Wastewater Facility does not have a design capacity exceeding 1 MGD, so the deep well requirement in section 403.086(10)(e)2. does not apply to the Expanded Wastewater Facility. DEP permit review staff issued one RAI, and KWRU timely provided the requested information. Upon receipt and review of KWRU's response to the RAI, DEP deemed the application for the Permit at Issue complete. DEP staff reviewed the permit applications for compliance with applicable statutory and rule requirements and standards. DEP's review does not entail re-designing or re- engineering the project or questioning the design engineer's reasonable exercise of judgment on design matters, as long as the project is accurately designed based on sound engineering principles and will operate in accordance with the applicable permitting requirements and standards. Thus, as a matter of practice, DEP relies, to a large extent, on the design engineer's certification that the system is accurately designed according to sound engineering principles——as is appropriate and authorized pursuant to the certification provisions on the application forms, rule 62-4.050(3), and chapter 471 and Florida Board of Engineering rules.15/ Gary Maier, P.E., professional engineer supervisor III and supervisor of DEP's domestic wastewater facility permit review staff, also reviewed the applications, the Intent to Issue, and the draft Permit at Issue to ensure that the Project complied with all applicable rules and standards and that KWRU had provided reasonable assurances such that the Project should be approved. Ultimately, DEP determined that KWRU provided reasonable assurances that the relevant permit applications met the applicable statutory and rule requirements and standards. Accordingly, DEP issued a Notice of Intent to issue the Permit at Issue. Establishment of Prima Facie Entitlement to Permit at Issue The relevant portions of the permit file, including the permit applications, supporting information, and Notice of Intent to Issue for the Permit at Issue, were admitted into evidence at the final hearing. With the admission of these documents into evidence, KWRU established its prima facie case demonstrating entitlement to the Permit at Issue. See § 120.569(2)(p), Fla. Stat. Challenge to the Permit at Issue Once KWRU demonstrated prima facie entitlement to the Permit at Issue, the burden shifted to Petitioners to present evidence proving their case in opposition to the Permit at Issue. See id. To prevail in this proceeding, Petitioners bear the ultimate burden of persuasion to prove their case by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence. Petitioners have raised numerous grounds in the Second Amended Verified Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing16/ that they contend mandate denial of the Permit at Issue. Each of these grounds is addressed below. Alleged Permit Application Deficiencies Petitioners contend that the Permit at Issue should be denied due to alleged deficiencies in the applications submitted for the Project. Capacity Analysis Report Petitioners allege that, under rule 62-600.405, KWRU was required to submit a Capacity Analysis Report ("CAR") as part of its application for the Permit at Issue and that its failure to do so renders the applications incomplete, thus requiring denial of the Permit at Issue. The purpose of a CAR is to analyze capacity at an existing wastewater facility and to apprise DEP when it becomes evident that expansion of the wastewater facility may be needed. Specifically, the CAR is performed and submitted on a periodic basis, or when certain contingencies occur, to apprise DEP of the actual flows through the facility. If the actual flows are approaching the facility's permitted capacity, the CAR serves to notify DEP that expansion of the facility may be warranted. Thus, the CAR helps ensure that the permittee recognizes the need for, and properly plans for, future expansion of the facility. In support of their contention, Petitioners presented the testimony of William Lynch, a Florida-licensed P.E., who has experience in the planning and design of wastewater treatment facilities in Florida, including the Florida Keys. Lynch testified that the most recent three-month average daily flows reported to the DEP by KWRU repeatedly exceeded 50 percent of the permitted capacity of the Existing Wastewater Facility, thereby triggering the requirement in rule 62-600.40517/ that a CAR be submitted. KWRU previously submitted an initial CAR when the Existing Wastewater Facility historically exceeded 50 percent of its permitted capacity. Thereafter, KWRU submitted an updated CAR in April 2012, as part of the renewal application for the Existing Permit that KWRU filed in October 2011. The April 2012 CAR indicated that permitted flows would not be exceeded for ten years. Thus, under rule 62-600.405(5), a subsequent updated CAR would be due at five year intervals or when the applicant applied for an operation permit or renewal of an operation permit, whichever occurred first.18/ The persuasive evidence establishes that during the period between issuance of the Existing Permit in February 2012 and submittal of the applications for the Permit at Issue in 2014, the three-month average daily flows for the Existing Facility had not exceeded 50 percent of the treatment plant's capacity and the five-year interval CAR submittal interval (which would have expired in 2017) had not yet expired, so an updated CAR was neither required nor submitted. When development on Stock Island resumed in the 2012 through 2014 timeframe following an economic recession, it became apparent from actual flow data that the Existing Wastewater Facility would need to be expanded to accommodate the wastewater flow from new development, as well as to accommodate wastewater flow from existing development being required by law to connect to a central wastewater system. Accordingly, in April 2014, KWRU submitted the applications for the Permit at Issue. As part of KWRU's applications, the design and permitted capacity of the Existing Wastewater Facility were analyzed, and future wastewater flows for the facility were projected, taking into account all relevant factors, including projected development over an appropriate planning period, new connections from existing development, and the lack of seasonal variation in historic flows. Based on this information, the proposed design and permitted capacities for the Expanded Wastewater Facility were determined. This information is precisely that which would have been required in an updated CAR. Because all pertinent information necessary to determine the design and permitted capacities for the Expanded Wastewater Facility was submitted as part of the applications for the Permit at Issue, a separate CAR was not required and, indeed, would have been redundant and pointless. It should be noted that the Permit at Issue specifically requires submittal of a CAR upon renewal, which is five years from the date of issuance. Further, the Expanded Wastewater Facility is subject to chapter 62-600, including rule 62-600.405, so KWRU would be required to submit a CAR if circumstances specified in the rule were to occur.19/ Thus, Petitioners failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that a CAR was required to be submitted as part of applications for the Permit at Issue. Accordingly, the absence of a CAR as part of the applications is not a basis for denying the Permit at Issue. Deep Injection Well Requirement Petitioners contend that the design capacity for KWRU's wells exceeds 1 MGD, so KWRU was required under section 403.086(10)(e)2. to apply for approval to install deep injection wells——i.e., wells that are cased to a minimum depth of 2,000 feet. Petitioners further contend that KWRU's failure to include an application for deep injection wells in its applications thus mandates denial of the Permit at Issue. Under section 403.086(10)(e)1., injection wells serving wastewater facilities that have a design capacity of less than 1 MGD are required to be at least 90 feet deep and cased to a minimum depth of 60 feet. Under section 403.086(1)(e)2., injection wells serving wastewater facilities having a design capacity equal to or greater than 1 MGD must be cased to a minimum depth of 2,000 feet or such greater depth as may be required by DEP rule. As previously discussed, rule 62-600.200(19) defines "design capacity" as "the average daily flow projected for the design year which serves as the basis for the sizing and design of the wastewater facilities." The rule states that the design capacity is established by the permit applicant, and that the timeframe associated with the design capacity——such as annual average daily flow, maximum monthly average daily flow, or three- month average daily flow——also is specified by the applicant. Additionally, rule 62-600.400(3)(a), which is part of DEP's Design Requirements rule for domestic wastewater facilities, reiterates that the applicant establishes both the design capacity and the timeframe used to define its selected design capacity, with the caveat that the timeframe selected must reflect seasonal variations in flow, if any. As discussed above, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that KWRU's selected design capacity and timeframe ——here, .849 MGD AADF——accurately and appropriately addresses the projected wastewater flows that will be treated by the Expanded Wastewater Facility. As Castle credibly testified, historical flows to the Existing Wastewater Facility do not indicate substantial seasonal residential flow, consistent with the workforce population residing year-round on Stock Island. Moreover, to the extent there may be some seasonal flow variation associated with projected hotel and commercial development, Castle took that into account in determining the design capacity for the Expanded Wastewater Facility. For these reasons, Castle's selection of AADF as the design capacity metric is appropriate, conforms to sound engineering principles, and complies with applicable DEP rules. Further, as previously discussed, the 1.273 MGD peak hourly flow is exactly that——the peak or maximum flow expressed on an hourly basis——that can be processed by the Expanded Wastewater Facility. It does not constitute the design capacity of the Expanded Wastewater Facility, which, by definition, is the average flow over a specified period of time. The persuasive evidence in the record shows that the proposed design capacity of the Expanded Wastewater Facility is .849 MGD AADF, and this design capacity is appropriate and based on sound engineering principles. As such, the design capacity of the facility is less than 1 MGD, so the deep well requirement in section 403.086(10)(e)2. does not apply to the Project. Thus, Petitioners failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the deep well requirement in section 403.086(10)(e)2. applies to the Project. Accordingly, they did not establish that the Permit at Issue should be denied on the basis that KWRU did not apply for approval of deep injection wells as part of the applications for the Project. Identity of Permittee The Permit at Issue is proposed to be issued to Key West Resort Utilities Corporation, which is not an existing entity registered to do business in Florida or in any other state. Petitioners contend, and KWRU and DEP do not dispute, that a permit issued to an entity that does not legally exist cannot legally authorize any activities. Accordingly, to the extent the Permit at Issue is proposed to be issued to Key West Resort Utilities Corporation, Petitioners contend that this constitutes a basis for denying the Permit at Issue. At the hearing, DEP and KWRU presented credible evidence showing that the correct permittee is KW Resort Utilities Corp., not Key West Resort Utilities Corporation as was stated on the proposed Permit at Issue. Further, the permit applications correctly identify KWRU as the applicant for the Permit at Issue. Thus, identification of Key West Resort Utilities Corporation as the permittee on the proposed Permit at Issue was a typographical error, and the evidence establishes that this error will be corrected when the Permit at Issue is issued. If this typographical error is corrected, then the Permit at Issue should not be denied on this basis. Alleged Project Design and Engineering Deficiencies Petitioners allege that KWRU failed to provide reasonable assurance, based on a preliminary design report, plans, test results, installation of pollution control equipment, or other information, that the construction, modification, or operation of the Expanded Wastewater Facility will not discharge or cause pollution in contravention of chapter 403 and applicable DEP rules. Petitioners further allege that KWRU has undersized the design capacity of the Expanded Wastewater Facility and that the appropriate design capacity is greater than 1 MGD, thus triggering the deep well requirement in section 403.086(10)(e)2. Projected Flows to Expanded Wastewater Facility In support of their position, Petitioners presented the testimony of William Lynch, a Florida-licensed P.E., who testified that the future wastewater flows to the Expanded Wastewater Facility projected by KWRU in its applications are incorrect because they do not accurately address planned development in KWRU's service area, as required by the Ten States Standards. Lynch took the position that pursuant to the Ten States Standards, the appropriate planning horizon for the Project is at least ten years, which would require KWRU to project wastewater flow to the Expanded Wastewater Facility through approximately 2025, rather than through 2020, as projected in the applications for the Project. However, the persuasive evidence shows that KWRU utilized an appropriate planning horizon in projecting future wastewater flows to the Expanded Wastewater Facility. KWRU's facility design engineer, Castle testified, persuasively, that although the graphic submitted in the application shows the projected wastewater flows only through the year 2020, the planning horizon he used actually was infinite. This is because the projected buildout of the service area20/ to maximum wastewater flow is anticipated to occur between 2018 and 2020, and after that point, wastewater flows to the facility would remain constant. Thus, it was pointless to depict projected flows out to the year 2025——particularly since the narrative in the application describing the Project makes clear that buildout of KWRU's service area is anticipated to occur by 2020. Because the wastewater flows projected for the year 2020 accurately represent the maximum flows that the Expanded Wastewater Facility can process, the projected planning horizon to the year 2020 is appropriate for the facility, complies with the Ten States Standards, and complies with DEP rules. Lynch also asserted that the projected wastewater flows to the Expanded Wastewater Facility from development identified in the application do not accurately apply the standards in DOH Table I and that this inaccuracy further contributed to underestimation of the design capacity of the Expanded Wastewater Facility. Lynch arrived at this position by applying Table I to all identified future development——both residential and nonresidential——and considering an additional development (Key West Harbor Yacht Club) not listed in the applications. He projected that the future wastewater flow from these developments would be approximately 146,110 gallons per day——approximately 46,000 gallons per day higher than the 100,000 gallons per day that Lynch claimed KWRU projected for the planned developments on Stock Island. Based on the addition of 46,000 gallons to KWRU's proposed design capacity of .849 MGD, Lynch opined that .895 MGD is the design capacity that should have been proposed for the Expanded Wastewater Facility. However, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that, in determining the design capacity of .849 MGD for the Expanded Wastewater Facility, Castle accurately projected the wastewater flow quantities from future development on Stock Island. Castle described in detail the process he undertook to determine the projected wastewater flows from the various land uses and locations on Stock Island through projected buildout between 2018 and 2020. Specifically, he identified planned nonresidential development on Stock Island expected to begin producing wastewater flows in 2014 and applied the DOH Table I standards to determine the projected flows for each development. To determine projected wastewater flow from future residential development on Stock Island, Castle identified approximately 40 acres of scarified or under-utilized property in KWRU's service area and applied a density of 12 equivalent dwelling units ("EDU") per acre,21/ with 167 gallons per day of wastewater flow attributable to each EDU, using actual historic wastewater flow data from the Master Plan. Additionally, for each scarified or under-utilized property having water frontage, he projected one boat slip per 35 feet of frontage and applied a 75-gallon-per-day flow for each boat slip using DOH Table I recreational vehicle flows. For years 2016 through 2019, Castle projected incremental increases in wastewater flows per year22/ to account for potential development of other currently occupied properties. The aggregate of all projected flows from the identified developments, the 40 acres and boat slips, and the incremental increases per year through buildout yielded a projected wastewater flow of .74 MGD to the Expanded Wastewater Facility by years 2018 through 2020, which represents buildout flow to the facility. Castle then added a "safety factor" of 15 percent to the projected .74 MGD wastewater flow to accommodate currently unknown future redevelopment of existing occupied properties, to reach the .849 MGD design capacity. The 46,000-gallon discrepancy between Lynch's .895 MGD design capacity calculation and Castle's .849 MGD design capacity calculation is attributable to four basic differences in how they each determined design capacity. First, Lynch used more recent development agreement and development order information that more precisely identified and quantified specific land uses than the information that KWRU had available to it at the time it prepared and submitted its application. However, the evidence did not establish that the flow information on which Lynch relied and that on which Castle relied were so appreciably different as to significantly affect the projected design capacity for the Expanded Wastewater Facility. Second, Lynch applied DOH Table I to project future wastewater flows from all future planned development on Stock Island, both residential and nonresidential, whereas Castle applied DOH Table I only to determine nonresidential development future flows, and used actual historic flow data from the Master Plan to determine residential development future flows. Castle's residential flow calculation using historical actual flow data conforms to the recommendation in section 11.242(a) of the Ten States Standards that actual flow data be used, to the extent possible, to predict future flows; thus, Castle's calculation likely more precisely projects future flow attributable to residential development on Stock Island.23/ Third, Lynch took into account the Key West Harbor Yacht Club flow into the Expanded Wastewater Facility, whereas KWRU did not consider this flow in projecting future flows to the facility. This omission constituted an oversight on KWRU's part, and the flow from this development should have been included in the wastewater flow projection for the facility. However, the persuasive evidence did not show that this omission constituted a significant error in KWRU's .849 MGD AADF design capacity projection.24/ Fourth, Lynch apparently misinterpreted a statement in the application referencing "such redevelopment" as referring to the known planned developments on Stock Island, which were specifically identified by name in the application, and, thus, interpreted the reference to 100,000 gallons as being the flow KWRU projected for those known, named developments. However, the persuasive evidence established that the 100,000 gallons that KWRU assigned to "such redevelopment" in its application referred not to the known, named developments identified in the application, but instead to presently unknown future development on Stock Island, which Castle took into account by including the 15 percent "safety factor" in determining design capacity. Pursuant to the foregoing, it is determined that KWRU demonstrated, by credible, persuasive evidence, that it accurately estimated future wastewater flows from projected development on Stock Island to determine an appropriate design capacity of .849 MGD AADF for the Expanded Wastewater Facility. Design Capacity Timeframe Petitioners allege that the timeframe associated with the design capacity specified by KWRU——the annual average daily flow, or AADF——is not appropriate for the Expanded Wastewater Facility because it fails to reflect seasonal flows to the facility as required by rules 62-600.200(16) and 62-600.400(3)(a). Petitioners assert that the design capacity for the facility should instead be expressed in maximum monthly average daily flow ("MMADF") to account for seasonal flows. In support, Petitioners presented the testimony of Lynch, who opined that the KWRU service area experiences seasonal flows driven by the influx of tourists to Stock Island during tourist season. Lynch based this opinion on the wastewater flow data for the Existing Wastewater Facility for the year 2014, and his calculations showing that the three-month average daily flow ("ADF") for October through December 2014 was 11 percent higher than the AADF and that the MMADF for that period was 16 percent higher than the AADF. Lynch considered this variation substantial enough to indicate seasonality, so that MMADF is the appropriate design capacity timeframe for the Expanded Wastewater Facility. Using MMADF as the design capacity timeframe, Lynch opined that the design capacity of the Expanded Wastewater Facility should be 1.04 MGD MMADF——which would trigger the deep well requirement in section 403.086(10)(e)2. Castle chose AADF as the timeframe for the Expanded Wastewater Facility design capacity because historical flow records over a period of years do not show significant seasonal variations in flow for Stock Island. Castle testified, credibly and persuasively, that while the historical flow data shows a consistent slight increase in flows from August to December, in his view, the variation is not significant enough to constitute a seasonal flow. This is consistent with the evidence establishing that Stock Island is a "bedroom community" having a mostly year- round workforce population. Lynch formulated his opinion regarding appropriate design capacity using 2014 flow data for the entire year, which was not available at the time KWRU filed its permit applications for the Project in April 2014. Although Lynch relied on more recent data, his opinion was based only on one year of data. By contrast, Castle selected AADF as the design capacity metric based on the previous five years of flow data, which showed variations in flow ranging between two percent and 12 percent on a three-month average daily flow basis. Castle credibly testified that these variations were not significant enough to indicate seasonal flows and did not closely correlate with tourist season in the Keys. Additionally, in calculating his flow projections for the Expanded Wastewater Facility, Castle assumed 100 percent year-round occupancy for residential units, so that his projected design capacity of .849 MGD necessarily took into account potential seasonal flows. Thus, to the extent there are seasonal flows, the facility simply will receive flows below the design capacity during off-season. The undersigned finds Castle's use of long-term historical flow data more reliable than Lynch's use of only one year of data in assessing whether there is flow seasonality.25/ DEP's wastewater permitting supervisor, Gary Maier, concurred that the variations in wastewater flow do not reflect a significant seasonal variation that would require the use of a smaller averaging period than AADF. Maier also observed that none of the wastewater facilities in the Florida Keys having a design capacity greater than 100,000 gallons per day has a design capacity based on MMADF. This evidences that Castle's selection of AADF as the timeframe metric conforms to the design capacity standard used for facilities of comparable size in the Florida Keys. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that KWRU's selection of AADF as the design capacity timeframe metric for the Expanded Wastewater Facility is appropriate and complies with DEP rules. Petitioners failed to demonstrate that KWRU's selection of AADF as the design capacity timeframe metric violates any applicable laws or rules. Accordingly, Petitioners did not demonstrate that the Permit at Issue should be denied on this basis. Ability of Expanded Wastewater Facility to Reliably Meet AWT Petitioners further allege that KWRU failed to provide a complete application demonstrating that the treatment processes for the Expanded Wastewater Facility will efficiently and reliably meet effluent limitations for design year flow. As discussed above, the evidence establishes that KWRU provided all of the information required for the applications for the Permit at Issue, so DEP correctly determined that the applications were complete before commencing its substantive review of the applications. Also as discussed above, Lynch opined that the proposed design capacity was undersized for the flows he projected for the Expanded Wastewater Facility. However, the persuasive evidence shows that KWRU's proposed design capacity of .849 MGD AADF is appropriate, conforms to sound engineering principles, and meets applicable statutory and rule requirements. In order to ensure that a wastewater facility functions effectively and reliably, it is important that the facility not be substantially oversized for the amount of wastewater flowing into the facility. In an over-sized facility, inconsistent timing of wastewater flow, lack of appropriate chemical environment for waste breakdown, and inadequate food supply for the microorganisms may lead to ineffective performance of the facility. A consequence of these imbalances is that undesirable microbes may populate the facility, causing incomplete solids settlement, overflow of solids downstream to the filters, and operational problems resulting in failure of the facility to treat wastewater to AWT standards. KWRU provided reasonable assurance, based on the proposed .849 MGD AADF design capacity and the other engineering features of the Project, that the Expanded Wastewater Facility is appropriately sized and will effectively and reliably treat the wastewater to AWT standards. Thus, Petitioners failed to prove that the Permit at Issue should be denied on the basis that it is undersized and will not reliably meet AWT standards. Key West Golf Club Reuse System Issues Petitioners contend that as part of the applications for the Project, KWRU proposes to send 1 MGD of reclaimed water to the golf course. Petitioners claim that, given an irrigated area of 100.27 acres and an average irrigation rate of .73 inches per acre per day, only 300,000 gallons of reclaimed water per day is accounted for by reuse as irrigation. On that basis, Petitioners allege that KWRU has not demonstrated that the 700,000 gallon-per-day balance of reclaimed water sent to the golf course will be reused for a beneficial purpose rather than being disposed. This contention is based on a misunderstanding of the structure and function of the reuse system. The 1 MGD flow stated in the permit application is the design capacity of the reuse system, which is not being changed by the Permit at Issue. Importantly, this figure does not quantify the amount of water that is or actually will be sent to the golf course or applied as irrigation to the golf course irrigated area in a single day. Rather, it represents the flow capacity to which the reuse system is designed.26/ The applications for the Permit at Issue do not propose any changes to the quantity of reclaimed water being reused, which is governed by the irrigated acreage at the golf course and the irrigation rate. These parameters are not being changed. As previously discussed, KWRU sends reclaimed water to the golf course only on an as-needed basis, where it is stored in the ponds until needed for irrigation. If the course does not need reclaimed water sent to the ponds, KWRU does not send the water. Thus, the golf course controls the amount of reclaimed water that is sent to the storage ponds. Although the permitted capacity of the reuse system is being expanded from .499 MGD AADF to .849 MGD AADF, the actual amount of reclaimed water sent to the golf course by KWRU is not anticipated to change because, as discussed above, the amount being reused for irrigation is not being changed. Since the amount of reclaimed water being reused for irrigation is not increasing, the reuse system is not being expanded. Thus, the evidence does not show that 700,000 gallons per day of reclaimed water will be sent to the golf course for disposal, inconsistent with rule 62-610.810(2), rather than being reused for a beneficial purpose.27/ Petitioners also assert that the increased permitted capacity of the reuse system constitutes a "new or expanded reuse or land application project," so that an engineering report and reuse feasibility study were required as part of the applications for the Permit at Issue, pursuant to rule 62-610.310(1). KWRU previously provided these documents when it originally applied for authorization of the reuse system. The credible, persuasive evidence shows that increasing the permitted capacity of the reuse system does not trigger the requirement to submit another engineering report or reuse feasibility study. This is because no changes to the structural components or operation of the reuse system facilities are proposed. As Castle credibly explained, and Maier confirmed, the relevant question in determining whether an engineering report is required is whether the land application rate and/or the irrigated acreage is being changed, which would increase the amount of reclaimed water being reused and, thus, would require expansion of the reuse system. As discussed, neither the irrigated area nor the irrigation application rate is proposed to change under the Project. Thus, neither an engineering report nor a reuse feasibility study are required as part of the applications for the Permit at Issue. Therefore, Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the Permit at Issue should be denied on the basis that KWRU did not submit a reuse feasibility or engineering report as part of its applications for the Permit at Issue. Alleged Surface Water Quality Violations by Injection Wells Petitioners allege that disposing of the effluent from the Expanded Wastewater Facility through the injection wells will cause or contribute to violations of surface water quality standards codified in chapter 62-302. Petitioners further allege that, as a consequence, the discharge will violate antidegradation requirements in rules 62- 4.242, 62-302.300, and 62-302.700(1), and that the wells do not comply with the underground injection control rule requirement in rule 62-528.630(7), specific to Monroe County, that the wells not cause or contribute to surface water quality violations. Regulatory Status of Surface Waters in Stock Island Vicinity A significant portion of the surface waters in the Florida Keys, including those surrounding Stock Island and Key West, are classified as Class III surface waters pursuant to rule 62-302.400. Water quality criteria adopted by rule for Class III surface waters are established to protect fish consumption, recreation, and the propagation of a healthy, well- balanced population of fish and wildlife. As previously noted, certain portions of the Florida Keys, including the surface waters surrounding Stock Island and Key West, are designated an OFW. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 302.700(9)(i)13. No degradation of surface water quality, other than that allowed under rules 62-4.242(2) and (3), is permitted in an OFW. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.700(1). The narrative nutrient criterion codified at rule 62- 302.530(47)(a) states: "[t]he discharge of nutrients shall be limited as needed to prevent violations of other standards contained in this chapter. Man-induced nutrient enrichment (total nitrogen or total phosphorus) shall be considered degradation in relation to the provisions of Rules 62-302.300, 62-302.700, and 62-4.242, F.A.C." The narrative nutrient criterion codified at rule 62-302.530(47)(b) states: "[i]n no case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna." These criteria apply in Class III surface waters, including the surface waters in and around the Florida Keys. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.531(1). Rule 62-302.531(2) requires DEP to numerically interpret the narrative nutrient criterion for nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and for nutrient response (chlorophyll- a). Where a site-specific numeric interpretation of rule 62- 302.530(47)(b) has been established, that numeric interpretation constitutes the primary standard applicable to that site. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.531(2)(a). A range of natural factors affect nutrient loading for a given waterbody. Therefore, site- specific numeric interpretations of the narrative nutrient criteria generally are deemed more reliable than broadly applicable, non-site specific criteria. Estuary-specific numeric interpretations of the narrative nutrient criterion in rule 62-302.530(47)(b), consisting of nutrient values for nitrogen and phosphorus and a nutrient response value for chlorophyll-a have been adopted for many areas in the state of Florida, including the Florida Keys. These numeric interpretations——commonly referred to as "numeric nutrient criteria," or "NNCs"——are open water, area-wide averages. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.532(1). For the Florida Keys, seven Florida Keys Marine Nutrient Regions ("FKMNRs") have been identified and geographically delineated on a series of maps adopted by rule. For each of these FKMNRs, NNCs have been adopted for nitrogen, phosphorus, and chlorophyll-a. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 302.532(1)(g). The NNCs for the Lower Keys Region and the Back Bay Region are germane to this proceeding. For the Bay Back Region, the NNCs are .009 mg/L for phosphorus, .25 mg/L for nitrogen, and .3 µg/L for chlorophyll-a. For the Lower Keys Region, the NNCs are .008 mg/L for phosphorus, 0.21 mg/L for nitrogen, and 0.3 µg/L for chlorophyll-a. These NNCs are expressed as annual geometric means that are not to be exceeded more than once in a three-year period.28/ The area of water extending from the shoreline out to 500 meters offshore in the Florida Keys is referred to as the "Halo Zone." DEP has adopted by rule a map delineating the Halo Zone. The NNCs applicable to surface waters in each of the FKMNRs currently do not apply to the surface waters in the Halo Zone. Thus, only the narrative nutrient criteria codified at rules 62-302.530(47)(a) and (b) apply to surface waters in the Halo Zone at this time.29/ Additionally, pursuant to chapter 62-303, the Impaired Waters Rule, DEP has identified and delineated spatial assessment areas in waterbodies based on homogeneity for multiple water quality parameters.30/ These assessment areas, called "Waterbody IDs" or "WBIDs," are delineated for purposes of assessing, through water quality sampling, whether the surface waters within the WBID are impaired——that is, whether they fail to meet one or more of the applicable water quality standards due to pollutants.31/ DEP has delineated several WBIDs, identified by number, in the Halo Zone surrounding Key West and Stock Island. The Halo Zone surrounding Stock Island comprises WBID 6014B, and the Halo Zone surrounding Key West consists of WBIDs 6014A and 8073A through 8073H.32/ The Back Bay Region, which is located north of Stock Island and outside of the Halo Zone, is designated as WBID 8074. The Lower Keys Region consists of WBID 8073, which is located northwest of Stock Island and surrounding Key West outside of the Halo Zone, and WBID 8079, which is located south of Stock Island outside of the Halo Zone. Water quality monitoring, consisting of sampling for a range of parameters, is conducted at monitoring stations within each of these WBIDs. At least one monitoring station is located within each WBID. This water quality sampling is conducted according to DEP's applicable standard operating procedures. The monitoring stations have collected nutrient and nutrient response data spanning a period of years. The data collected in 1995 through 2013 are pertinent to this proceeding.33/ The Keys RAP, which was prepared in 2008 and updated in 2011, prescribes specific management activities to be implemented to restore surface water quality in the Florida Keys, including eliminating cesspits and onsite septic tank systems and connecting wastewater generators to centralized wastewater systems that treat the wastewater to AWT standards. As authorized under rule 62-303.600, DEP determined that the Keys RAP provides reasonable assurance that the restoration goals for the surface waters in the Florida Keys will be achieved by ensuring that all management activities specified in the Keys RAP would be implemented for specified waterbodies by 2015. Accordingly, in February 2012, DEP approved and adopted the Keys RAP by Secretarial Order. Current and historic water quality data show that all WBIDs in the Keys, including those in the Lower Keys Region, Back Bay Region, and Halo Zone for the surface waters surrounding Key West and Stock Island, are not impaired for nutrients——that is, that the NNCs and narrative nutrient criteria, as applicable, are being met. Pursuant to sections 403.061 and 403.067, Florida Statutes, and rule 62-303.600, DEP has classified the Florida Keys WBIDs as Category 2 under the waterbody use attainment classification scheme34/ for nutrients and nutrient response. The classification of the Keys WBIDs in this category means that sufficient water quality data are available to determine that at least one designated use is attained. Thus, as authorized by section 403.067 and rule 62-303.600(2), DEP has placed the Keys WBIDs on the "Delist List."35/ This "de-listing" action recognizes that the Florida Keys WBIDs, including those in the Halo Zone, are not impaired for nutrients and chlorophyll-a. Subsurface Geology in Vicinity of Stock Island The parties agree that, as a general proposition, the ground water and surface waters are connected to each other in the Florida Keys. However, no evidence was presented showing a specific location or locations where ground water connects to surface waters. Although it generally is undisputed that, at some point, ground water connects to surface waters, the parties disagree regarding whether, where, and how long it may take for the injected effluent to reach surface waters. Petitioners contend that due to the local geology, the injected effluent from the Existing Wastewater Facility rapidly reaches surface waters in the vicinity of Stock Island and that the increased discharge through the new injection wells will exacerbate and cause or contribute to surface water quality violations in the immediate vicinity of Stock Island and offshore. In support of this position, Petitioners presented the testimony of Scott Zednek, a Florida-licensed P.G. Zednek opined that due to the absence of subsurface sediments that would prevent upward flow to surface waters, the buoyant freshwater effluent injected down the wells will rapidly vertically migrate through the highly transmissive Key Largo Limestone and Miami Limestone to reach surface waters. To develop his opinion, Zednek reviewed a Florida Geological Survey boring log ("FGS Log") approximately one-third mile from the Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility and a Universal Engineering Services geotechnical study boring log ("UES Log") performed on the KWRU site. The FGS Log was prepared specifically to analyze the subsurface geology. The UES Log was performed as part of a geotechnical study to analyze subsurface conditions onsite specifically for the purpose of determining the load-bearing capability of the KWRU site to support a concrete water tank. As such, the FGS Log provides a more precise view of the subsurface geology in the vicinity of the KWRU site.36/ Based on the UES Log, Zednek opined that there are no confining layers underlying the KWRU site. The UES Log for the site shows N-values, generated using an ASTM-designated process for determining the resistivity or strength of the subsurface, of between two and 43 for the first 60 feet of sediment below the surface. According to Zednek, an N-value of less than 50 indicates lack of a confining layer. Further, his review of the UES Log did not show the presence of Q-layers, which may function as semi-confining layers, or aquitards, that would substantially restrict the movement of fluid, including the injected effluent.37/ Based on the UES Log, Zednek opined that the limestone underlying the site is fractured, creating vertical pathways for the injected effluent to migrate upward to the surface. Zednek testified that the Key Largo Limestone, into which the effluent is injected, is very porous and highly transmissive, facilitating rapid migration once the effluent is injected. Based on his review of the FGS Log, Zednek testified that a Q-layer first appears at approximately 62 feet below the ground surface——below the depth of the injection wells' casing—— so it would not act as a confining layer for the injected effluent. Zednek further observed that this Q-layer is only 1.5 centimeters thick. In his experience, this thickness is not sufficient to create a confining or semi-confining layer. Zednek thus opined that the subsurface geology at the KWRU site will enable and facilitate vertical migration of the injected effluent to surface waters. Zednek also noted the proximity of the Safe Harbor channel cut. He opined that the injected effluent likely would horizontally migrate through the highly transmissive Key Largo Limestone,38/ then vertically migrate to surface waters through the "path of least resistance" at the Safe Harbor channel cut. As further support for his opinion, Zednek cited an interim report summarizing results of a subsurface dye tracer study performed for the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority regional wastewater treatment facility. The study's purpose was to determine whether the subsurface geology at the Cudjoe Key location was sufficiently confining to prevent vertical migration of the injected effluent from shallow injection wells proposed at that facility. According to Zednek, the interim report showed that the subsurface at the injection site was not sufficiently confining to prevent the injected effluent from rapidly vertically migrating to surface waters. Petitioners also presented the testimony of John Paul, Ph.D., in support of their contention that the injected effluent from the Expanded Wastewater Facility would rapidly rise through the subsurface limestone up into surface waters. Dr. Paul testified regarding viral tracer studies he had conducted at Long Key, approximately 65 miles east-northeast of Stock Island, and at the Saddlebunch Keys, located approximately 20 miles east- northeast of Stock Island. In conducting these studies, Paul injected bacteriophage viruses into Class V wells and tracked their movement into surface waters. In the Long Key study, the injected viruses moved through the subsurface limestone to the south-southeast and appeared in surface waters in deep canals on the ocean side of U.S. 1 approximately 53 hours after injection. In the Saddlebunch Keys study, the viruses also appeared in surface waters some distance south-southeast of the location at which they were injected.39/ Paul acknowledged that when the viruses appeared in surface waters, they were detected at a concentration of one trillionth (.0000000000001 or 1 x 10-12) less than the concentration in which they had been injected, indicating significant dilution by ground water and/or surface waters. He also acknowledged that canals dredged to depths shallower than the injected depth may not facilitate rapid migration of the injected effluent to surface waters. In rebuttal, KWRU presented the testimony of Michael Alfieri, a Florida-licensed P.G. who specializes in hydrogeology. Alfieri examined the FGS Log and UES Log, and also reviewed the detailed lithology logs and photographs for the FGS Log. Based on his review of this information, Alfieri opined that the FGS Log indicates the presence of semi-confining layers that function as aquitards in the first 60 feet of subsurface sediment. Alfieri noted that the existence of an aquitard depends on the nature of the geologic materials present at that location, so that N-values do not perfectly correlate with the presence or absence of confining layers. Thus, a carbonate silt or clay having an N-value of only two may better function as an aquitard than a porous, transmissive limestone having an N-value of 50, and silts or clays having a thickness as little as one centimeter may function as an aquitard to significantly impede fluid flow.40/ Based on his review of the FGS Log and the detailed lithology log descriptions and photographs for the FGS Log, Alfieri observed four laminated calcrete zones, six Q-zones, and chalky limestone within the first 60 feet——all of which would function as aquitards to impede the vertical movement of the effluent.41/ Thus, according to Alfieri, the effluent is anticipated to migrate laterally from the injection wells below these confining layers before migrating through a vertical pathway to reach surface waters at an unknown location. To predict the likely migration pathway for the effluent, Alfieri conducted hydrological modeling using a simplistic SEAWAT computer model. He used horizontal and vertical transmissivity values for the subsurface strata derived from geological studies previously conducted in the Florida Keys. Although these studies indicate greater horizontal than vertical transmissivity, Alfieri assumed equal vertical and horizontal transmissivity for modeling purposes——necessarily yielding more conservative results than would be anticipated to occur in real life. Accordingly, the modeling results showed more rapid vertical migration than would be anticipated in real life when the Q-zones and calcrete layers depicted in the FGS Log are considered. Even with these conservative assumptions, the modeling results showed the injected effluent migrating horizontally at least a mile offshore42/ before migrating upward to surface waters. The persuasive evidence shows that the injected effluent will be confined to the subsurface and will travel laterally a substantial distance before rising to surface waters at some unknown location or locations offshore. Thus, the credible, persuasive evidence does not support the conclusion that the effluent will rapidly rise to the surface waters in the nearshore area in the vicinity of the KWRU site.43/ Narrative Nutrient Criteria Petitioners allege that the effluent injected down the wells into the ground water will reach surface waters, causing or contributing to a violation of the narrative nutrient criteria for surface waters codified in rules 62-302.530(47)(a) and (b).44/ In support, Petitioners presented the testimony of James Fourqurean, Ph.D., who has extensive experience in research on Florida Keys aquatic ecosystems in their healthy and imbalanced states. Dr. Fourqurean described these ecosystems in their healthy state and in their nutrient-enriched state. Florida Keys nearshore ecosystems normally are oligotrophic, which means they are nutrient-limited. Thus, they do not normally exhibit high chlorophyll-a levels and microalgae counts. When nutrient levels in the Florida Keys ecosystems increase——whether by increasing the concentration of nutrients in discharges or by increasing the volume of water containing nutrients——primary production, i.e., plant growth, increases. Seagrass communities are phosphorus-limited, so that when these communities are exposed to phosphorus-enriched water, the phosphorus is rapidly absorbed from the water column and is stored in the benthos.45/ This phosphorus capture initially leads to increased seagrass abundance, but as phosphorus enrichment continues, the community species composition rapidly shifts to favoring seaweed and microscopic algae, ultimately damaging or destroying the seagrass community. Coral reef communities similarly are nitrogen-limited. Thus, when coral reef communities are exposed to nitrogen- enriched water, they shift to algae-dominated communities——again, damaging or destroying the coral reef communities. Based on historical aerial photographs of the area surrounding Safe Harbor and his experience studying seagrasses in the Florida Keys, Fourqurean concluded that the natural seagrass populations in the entire Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary area, which includes the Stock Island area, are experiencing ecological imbalance. On the basis of the water quality sampling he conducted in and around Safe Harbor, Fourqurean opined that the imbalance is the result of man-induced nutrient enrichment. However, he did not engage in field studies in and around Safe Harbor, so could not cite specific examples where seagrasses had been replaced by algal-dominated communities in that area. Fourqurean noted that human waste contains high concentrations of phosphorus and nitrogen. In his view, because the effluent from the Existing Wastewater Facility contains phosphorous, it necessarily constitutes a source of phosphorous in the surface waters in Safe Harbor, even though it is injected into ground water. However, he acknowledged the existence of numerous other sources of nitrogen and phosphorus in the Safe Harbor vicinity, including septic tanks, boat cleaning operations and pump outs, and storm water runoff. He further acknowledged that he did not know where or when effluent from the Existing Wastewater Facility (and, by extension, the Expanded Wastewater Facility) may reach surface waters. Fourqurean acknowledged that the Permit at Issue would authorize the injection of effluent treated to AWT standards into ground water, rather than directly to surface waters, and he further acknowledged that the total phosphorus and nitrogen loading from the Expanded Wastewater Facility would substantially decrease as a result of conversion to AWT, even though the volume of effluent discharged down the wells may as much as double. He remained concerned that the Expanded Wastewater Facility may contribute phosphorus——even in very small quantities——to surface waters, causing imbalance to seagrass communities. He also opined that when saline ground water and the fresher effluent mix, the resulting brackish solution would dissolve the calcium carbonate comprising the subsurface limestone, releasing stored phosphorus that would eventually reach surface waters and negatively affect nearshore seagrass communities, However, he acknowledged that depending on subsurface physical conditions and flow paths of the effluent, phosphorous, nitrogen, or both, may be completely removed prior to the effluent reaching surface waters. He further acknowledged that seagrass community health in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary has improved in the last two years and that water quality also has improved, reversing a ten-year decline. This is consistent with replacement of onsite septic tanks by central wastewater treatment systems in the Florida Keys. On rebuttal, KWRU presented the testimony of William Precht, who has extensive experience with Florida Keys geology and aquatic communities. Precht confirmed the existence of numerous sources of significant nutrient enrichment in the Safe Harbor vicinity other than the Existing Wastewater Facility, and noted that these sources must be taken into account when analyzing nutrient enrichment in Safe Harbor. He testified that raw wastewater is particularly deleterious to benthic communities. Thus, connecting wastewater generators that currently use septic tanks to central wastewater treatment systems can significantly improve water quality. Precht observed that Fourqurean's single-day sampling in the Safe Harbor area provided information regarding variability in nutrient concentrations, but characterized Fourqurean's conclusion that the Existing Wastewater Facility was the source of the nutrients as "unscientific" because it was based on supposition rather than on testing. He opined that the limited data set gathered over a one-day period could not reliably identify the source of nutrient enrichment in Safe Harbor. Precht testified that flushing capability is a key influence on nutrient concentration in surface waters. The further from a natural marine environment that water quality testing is performed, the more likely water quality will be poor due to nutrient enrichment from land-based sources. Given the configuration of Safe Harbor, water quality would be poorest in the interior dead-end canals and would steadily improve as one moved into more open water and flushing increased, with the highest water quality in open waters outside the canal system. Precht opined that the presence of noxious benthic plant life in the Safe Harbor vicinity may be attributable the destruction of seagrass communities in the area by historical dredging, rather than due to nutrient enrichment. Based on the reduction in total nitrogen and total phosphorus loading as a result of implementing AWT, Precht opined that the proposed discharge will not negatively affect the biological communities in the Safe Harbor vicinity. He further opined that due to the rapid uptake of phosphorus in the marine environment and due to denitrification that occurs in ground water and in marine surface waters, there is little chance that any nutrient loading that may result from the injected effluent would cause damage to the coral reef environment. Also on rebuttal, Alfieri persuasively testified that although phosphate release does occur when freshwater is injected into limestone that formed in a saline environment, this process gradually occurs over "geologic time"——that is, over millions of years. Therefore, he did not anticipate a significant release of phosphate from the subsurface limestone as a result of the effluent discharge. Also, limestone rapidly absorbs phosphorous, so phosphorus in the injected effluent would be absorbed quickly by the subsurface limestone.46/ Further, in any event, the effluent will be diluted by at least seven orders of magnitude——that is, one hundred millionth (.00000001)——of the injected concentration by the ground water, and/or by surface waters (assuming the effluent eventually reaches surface waters). As discussed above, the Keys RAP was prepared in 2008 and updated in 2011. The Keys RAP prescribes specific management activities to be implemented to restore surface water quality in the Florida Keys, including eliminating cesspits and onsite septic tank systems and connecting wastewater generators to centralized wastewater systems that treat the wastewater to AWT standards. Pursuant to the Impaired Waters Rule and DEP's adoption of the Keys RAP, activities that are consistent with the Keys RAP are considered to provide reasonable assurance that the narrative nutrient criterion in rule 62-302.530(47)(b) will be met. As discussed above, the Project will expand a centralized wastewater treatment plant that will accept, and treat to AWT standards, wastewater generated by development on Stock Island——including development that currently relies on onsite septic tanks for wastewater disposal. The Project is consistent with the Keys RAP, so there is reasonable assurance that the Project will meet the narrative nutrient criterion in rule 62-302.530(47)(b). The persuasive evidence shows that the Project will not cause or contribute to alterations of nutrient concentrations in water bodies so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna. Thus, Petitioners failed to show that the Project will cause or contribute to violation of the narrative nutrient criterion in rule 62-302.530(47)(b). Further, for the reasons discussed below, it also is determined that the Project will not violate the narrative nutrient criterion codified at rule 62-302.530(47)(a). Numeric Nutrient Criteria Petitioners also allege that the effluent will cause or contribute to violation of the estuary-specific numeric interpretations of the narrative nutrient criteria for the Back Bay nutrient region, codified at rule 62-302.532(1)(g)1., and the Lower Keys nutrient region, codified at rule 62-302.532(1)(g)3. In support, Petitioners cite the results of surface water sampling performed by Fourqurean in the Safe Harbor area showing high levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, and chlorophyll-a. Petitioners contend that these high nutrient levels evidence that the existing injection wells already are causing or contributing to surface water quality violations in the waters surrounding Stock Island, and that the increased effluent discharge from the proposed new injection wells will exacerbate this situation, further causing or contributing to violations of surface water quality standards. In preparing his opinion regarding the effect of the proposed injection wells on surface water quality, Fourqurean sampled surface water quality on one day at nine stations located in the vicinity of Stock Island, ranging from shallow waters inside the Safe Harbor basin to deeper waters offshore. Samples were collected at the surface and at a depth of one meter below the surface following the standard operating procedures for water quality sampling established by the Florida Keys Water Quality Protection Program. Fourqurean testified that the samples collected at the stations inside the Safe Harbor basin and near the shore of Stock Island showed very high levels of chlorophyll-a, evidencing that these areas are dominated by microalgae and, thus, are eutrophic. Additionally, the samples collected inside the Safe Harbor basin exhibited very high phosphorus concentrations—— almost three times greater than the estuary-specific numeric nutrient criterion for phosphorus. Phosphorus concentrations correspondingly decreased as samples were collected outside of the basin and offshore. Nitrogen concentrations followed a similar pattern in the sampling that Fourqurean conducted inside and outside of the Safe Harbor basin. According to Fourqurean, the high nutrient concentrations in the samples taken in Safe Harbor, when compared to the lower concentrations in samples taken outside of Safe Harbor, evidence the existence of a large source of phosphorous and nitrogen in Safe Harbor——in his view, the Existing Wastewater Facility. However, Fourqurean acknowledged that there are many potential nutrient enrichment sources on Stock Island, including fishing operations, boat sewage pump-outs, and direct discharges of storm water to surface waters. He further acknowledged that the specific source of phosphorus and nitrogen in the surface waters surrounding Stock Island cannot be identified. He did not opine as to the relative amounts of nutrients in surface waters that he believes are being contributed by the Existing Wastewater Facility or that will be contributed by the Expanded Wastewater Facility, as compared to other nutrient sources in the Safe Harbor area. He also acknowledged that a scientifically-valid water quality study would require more than a single day of sampling.47/ Kenneth Weaver, environmental administrator for DEP's Standards Development Section,48/ credibly and persuasively testified, and the water quality data for nutrients and chlorophyll-a collected in the WBIDs surrounding Key West and Stock Island show, that the surface waters in these WBIDs meet the applicable NNCs.49/ Historical water quality data also show that since 2008, the surface waters in these WBIDs continuously have met the baseline concentrations on which the NNCs were established and adopted. Even with the increased volume of wastewater treated by the Expanded Wastewater Facility, implementation of the AWT standard by the facility's wastewater treatment trains will substantially reduce the amount of total nitrogen and total phosphorus discharged into ground water through the injection wells. Specifically, for total nitrogen, the concentration will be reduced from 13.92 mg/L to 2.25 mg/L, and the total amount of nitrogen loading will be reduced from 58 to 15.9 pounds per day, representing a total net reduction of 72.4 percent in the discharge of total nitrogen. For total phosphorus, the concentration will be reduced from 3.47 mg/L to .75 mg/L, and the total amount of phosphorus loading will be reduced from 14.4 to 5.3 pounds per day, representing a total net reduction of 63.3 percent in the discharge of total phosphorus.50/ Weaver addressed the effects of these projected nutrient discharge concentrations on the surface waters in WBIDs 8074 and 8079, which comprise the portions of the Lower Keys Region and Back Bay Region closest to the KWRU site. He opined that, because these regions are currently meeting the applicable NNCs for nitrogen and phosphorus, and because KWRU's implementation of AWT will result in substantial reduction of total nitrogen and phosphorus loading, the NNCs will continue to be met in these regions——even in a "worst-case" scenario that assumes all of the treated effluent from the Expanded Wastewater Facility is disposed of through the injection wells and reaches the surface. The persuasive evidence shows that the Project will not cause or contribute to violations of the applicable numeric nutrient criteria. Thus, Petitioners failed to show that the Project will cause or contribute to violation of the applicable numeric nutrient criteria in rule 62-302.532(1)(g)1. and 3. Surface Water "Free-From" Standards Petitioners allege that the effluent contains iron and copper above detection limits, as well as personal care products and pharmaceuticals, and that these constituents violate rules 62-302.500(1)(a)5. and 62-302.530(61). Rule 62- 302.500(1)(a)5. requires all surface waters of the state to be free from domestic, industrial, agricultural, or other man- induced non-thermal components of discharges which, alone or in combination with other components of discharges (whether thermal or non-thermal), are present in concentrations which are carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic to human beings or to significant, locally occurring wildlife or aquatic species, unless specific standards for such components are established by rule. Rule 62-302.530(61) effectively requires surface waters to be free from substances in concentrations which injure, are chronically toxic to, or produce adverse physiological or behavioral response in humans, animals, or plants. These rules collectively comprise the "free-from" standards for surface waters. Petitioners presented no evidence to substantiate the allegation that the effluent from the Expanded Wastewater Facility will contain pharmaceuticals or personal care products. However, even assuming these constituents were present in the effluent, Petitioners did not present evidence showing that they are carcinogenic; mutagenic; or teratogenic to human beings or to significant, locally occurring wildlife or aquatic species; or that they are injurious or chronically toxic to, or produce adverse physiological or behavioral response, in humans, animals, or plants. Petitioners did not present evidence showing that the effluent contains copper and iron in quantities that violate any applicable surface water quality standards, including the surface water "free-from" standards. Paul testified, based on sampling he conducted at domestic wastewater outfalls discharging directly to surface waters, that effluent treated to AWT standards often contains pathogenic bacteria and viruses that constitute threats to human health. On this basis, he opined that even though the effluent from the Expanded Wastewater Facility is treated to AWT, it may contain pathogenic constituents that are harmful to human health. However, as previously discussed, the evidence shows that the effluent discharged through KWRU's injection wells will be substantially diluted by groundwater, and also by surface waters to the extent it reaches surface waters at some unknown location. Accordingly, the results of Paul's pathogen studies cannot be extrapolated to conclude that KWRU's effluent also will contain pathogenic bacteria and viruses in such amounts as to constitute a threat to human health. Petitioners failed to show that the effluent disposed of in the injection wells will cause or contribute to violations of the surface water quality standards in rules 62- 302.500(1)(a)5. and 62-302.530(61). Dilution to Meet Surface Water Quality Standards Petitioners allege that KWRU is relying on dilution of the effluent in order to meet surface water quality standards without having been permitted for a mixing zone, in violation of rule 62-302.500(1)(c).51/ This contention lacks merit. As discussed in detail above, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that the effluent discharged through the injection wells will not violate water quality standards for and parameters, including for nutrients, and will not cause or contribute to the violation of water quality standards. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that once injected, the effluent will horizontally migrate a considerable distance before it may migrate vertically to reach surface waters. The parties generally agree that ground water and surface waters are "connected" in the Florida Keys. To that point, although it appears likely that at some point the effluent will reach surface water, the evidence does not establish that is an absolute certainty. Nonetheless, even assuming the effluent would reach surface waters at some unknown location and time, the persuasive evidence shows that it would be so substantially diluted by the ground water that it would neither cause nor contribute to violations of surface water quality standards. Further, the persuasive evidence, consisting of Weaver's "worst case" analysis of nutrient loading from the effluent discharge, which assumed no dilution by ground water, establishes that even if the effluent——which will be treated to AWT standards——were discharged directly into surface waters, it would meet the applicable nutrient criteria. Finally, Petitioners' claim assumes that the effluent will be discharged into surface waters. However, as discussed above and in greater detail below, to the extent the effluent ultimately may be discharged to surface waters, such discharge would be indirect, so would not be subject to statutory and rule provisions requiring establishment of a mixing zone. For these reasons, Petitioners failed to prove that KWRU violated any applicable law or rule by not requesting and obtaining a mixing zone for the discharge of the effluent through the injection wells. Class V Injection Wells in Monroe County Petitioners also allege that issuance of the Permit at Issue violates rule 62-528.630(7), which requires all Class V Group 3 domestic wastewater injection wells in Monroe County to provide reasonable assurance that operation of the well will not cause or contribute to a violation of surface waters standards as defined in chapter 62-302. As discussed above, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that the operation of the wells as authorized under the Permit at Issue will not cause or contribute to violations of surface water quality standards codified in chapter 62-302. Accordingly, Petitioners failed to prove that the Permit at Issue should be denied on the basis that it violates rule 62-528.630(7). Antidegradation Petitioners contend that the Permit at Issue must be denied because KWRU failed to provide reasonable assurance that the injection of effluent will not violate the antidegradation requirements applicable to surface waters codified at rules 62- 4.242, 62-302.300, 62-302.530(47)(a), and 62-302.700(1). This contention lacks merit. As more fully discussed below, the antidegradation requirements in these rules apply only to a direct discharge to surface waters, which is not present in this case. Here, the evidence clearly establishes that the injection wells do not directly discharge effluent into surface waters. It is undisputed that the effluent will be injected from the wells into Class III ground water, where it will migrate through the subsurface strata. Although it is likely that, due to a "connection" between ground water and surface waters, the effluent ultimately will reach surface waters at some unknown location or locations at some unknown time, this constitutes an indirect discharge, which is specifically excluded from the term "discharge of a pollutant." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-620.200(13). However, even if the antidegradation rules did apply to the discharge of the effluent through the injection wells, Petitioners failed to prove that the discharge would degrade surface waters. As discussed above, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that the surface waters in the Florida Keys, including those in and around Stock Island and Key West, currently meet the narrative and/or nutrient criteria, as applicable, and that effluent discharged through the injection wells will be treated to AWT standards, substantially reducing the facility's total nutrient loading below current levels. Thus, the credible, persuasive evidence established that, even in a "worst-case" scenario, which assumes no dilution of the effluent by ground or surface waters, the effluent still would not cause or contribute to a violation of the narrative or numeric nutrient criteria. As discussed above, the credible, persuasive evidence showed that, in fact, the effluent will be very substantially diluted by the ground water into which it is injected, and will be further diluted if and when it ultimately reaches surface waters. For these reasons, Petitioners failed to prove that KWRU did not provide reasonable assurance that the disposal of the effluent through the injection wells would not degrade surface waters, in violation of rules 62-4.242, 62-302.300, 62- 302.530(47)(a), and 62-302.700(1). Alleged Violation of Ground Water Standards Petitioners allege that KWRU did not provide reasonable assurance that the injection wells would not violate applicable ground water standards. Petitioners further allege that there is an underground drinking water source under Stock Island. In that case, more stringent ground water quality and injection well rule standards would apply to operation of the injection wells. Petitioners did not present any credible, persuasive evidence to support these allegations. The persuasive evidence establishes that although there is a fresh water lens under Stock Island, it is not classified as an underground source of drinking water52/ due to its substantial variability in horizontal and vertical extent, which renders the salinity levels highly variable. Thus, the ground water at Stock Island is classified as Class G-III ground water which is non-potable ground water having a total dissolved solids content of 10,000 mg/L or greater, or having a total dissolved solids content of 3,000 to 10,000 mg/L and having been determined to have no reasonable potential as a future source of drinking water or designated by rule as an exempted aquifer. Only the minimum criteria for ground water, known as the "free-from" standards, apply to Class G-III ground water. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-520.430(1). These criteria require that at all times and in all places, ground water be free from discharge components in concentrations that are carcinogenic, teratogenic, mutagenic, or toxic to humans; acutely toxic within surface waters affected by ground water; pose a serious danger to the public health, safety, or welfare; create or constitute a nuisance; or impair the reasonable and beneficial use of adjacent waters. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-520.400. There is no evidentiary basis on which to infer that the effluent from Expanded Wastewater Facility that is disposed through the injection wells will violate the free-from standards KWRU's many years of effluent monitoring at the Existing Wastewater Facility show that the effluent does not violate these standards. Further, David Rhodes, a Florida-licensed P.G. employed by DEP, credibly testified that a violation of the free- from standards necessarily would entail the presence of toxic materials in KWRU's effluent and that there would be immediate and dramatic effects on the flora and fauna at the golf course, where reclaimed water is reused for irrigation. Since such effects never have occurred, it is reasonable to infer that the effluent from the Expanded Wastewater Facility will not violate the free-from standards.53/ Additionally, as previously addressed, the credible, persuasive evidence demonstrates that no surface water quality violations will result from installation and operation of the injection wells as part of the Expanded Wastewater Facility. Accordingly, the reasonable and beneficial use of adjacent waters will not be impaired due as a result of the injection wells. Petitioners also claim that due to inadequate treatment by the Expanded Wastewater Facility, the effluent disposed in the injection wells will contain unacceptably high levels of bacteria and viruses. The persuasive evidence establishes that KWRU provides high-level disinfection prior to injecting the effluent or sending the reclaimed water for reuse at the golf course. Historical monitoring data shows that KWRU's effluent complies with applicable microbial standards, and unrebutted evidence consisting of quality-related beach closure data for the Florida Keys, gathered as part of the Department of Health's Healthy Beaches monitoring program, indicates that no beach closings in the Florida Keys ever have been attributed to KWRU's Existing Wastewater Facility. Petitioners did not prove that KWRU failed to provide reasonable assurance that operation of the injection wells authorized as part of the Project will not result in violations of applicable ground water standards. To the contrary, KWRU provided reasonable assurance that the effluent from the Expanded Wastewater Facility disposed in the injection wells authorized as part of the Project will not violate any applicable ground water standards. Alleged Water Quality Violations Due to Reuse System Petitioners allege that KWRU did not provide reasonable assurance that the storage of up to 1 MGD of reclaimed water in the reuse system storage ponds on the Key West Golf Club golf course will not cause or contribute to a violation of surface water quality standards and ground water standards. Specifically, Petitioners posit that, because the ponds are unlined, reclaimed water from the Expanded Wastewater Facility will leach from the ponds into the ground water and reach surface waters, violating surface water quality standards and ground water standards and negatively impacting human health through high levels of microbial pathogens, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products. Petitioners further allege that discharge of reclaimed water from the ponds into the ground water could mobilize constituents of concern from the Key West Landfill and a closed waste-to-energy facility, both of which are near the golf course, ultimately resulting in surface water quality standards and ground water violations. In support of these contentions, Petitioners presented the testimony of Scott Zednek, who testified that the reclaimed water, which is fresher than the surrounding ground water, may leach from the ponds into the ground water, and thereafter potentially may reach surface waters. According to Zednek, this leaching could occur because the ponds are unlined. Additionally, Zednek opined that, because there is a closed landfill near the golf course, the reclaimed water leaching from the reuse system ponds could mobilize and spread contaminants from the landfill. The persuasive evidence demonstrates that storage of the reclaimed water in the reuse system ponds will not result in violations of ground water standards or surface water quality standards. Although the golf course ponds are unlined in the sense that a high-density polyethylene or impermeable clay liner has not been installed on the bottom and sides of the ponds, over the years, marl has formed on the bottom and sides of the ponds, creating an aquitard that substantially confines the reclaimed water to the ponds, rather than allowing it to readily leach into the ground water. Further, the reclaimed water generally is less saline than the ground water underlying the course, so tends to "float" on top of, rather than readily mixing with, the denser, more saline ground water. Additionally, the evidence shows that years of historical ground water monitoring data obtained through monitoring wells on the golf course near the reuse system ponds showed no ground water standards violations as a result of storing reclaimed water from KWRU in the ponds.54/ Because the amount of reclaimed water being sent to the reuse storage ponds is not being changed by the Project, and the nutrient levels in the reclaimed water are being through AWT, there is no factual basis from which to infer that storage of the reclaimed water in the pond will result in violations of ground water standards or surface water quality standards. The persuasive evidence also does not support Zednek's view that reclaimed water leaching into the ground water from the storage ponds will mobilize pollutants under the nearby landfill. As discussed above, the persuasive evidence establishes that, due to the aquitard, there will be very little leaching of reclaimed water into the ground water, and even if such leaching did occur, there would be very little mixing of the reclaimed water with the more saline ground water. As such, there is no demonstrated factual basis on which to infer that reclaimed water will flow under, and mobilize and spread pollutants from, the landfill. Further, the evidence establishes that the predominant ground water flow direction under Stock Island is to the south- southeast. Since the landfill is located north of the reuse system ponds, any reclaimed water that did enter ground water would flow south-southeast, away from the landfill. Zednek also opined that if the storage ponds overflowed, the reclaimed water could run off into surface waters, resulting in surface water quality violations. However, the evidence establishes that KWRU will only send as much reclaimed water to the reuse storage ponds as the Key West Golf Club requests, so any assertion that the ponds will overflow is speculative. Further, even if the ponds were to overflow, Petitioners did not show that the reclaimed water would flow into surface waters, or that it would violate surface water quality standards if it were to flow into surface waters. Petitioners did not prove that KWRU failed to provide reasonable assurance that the storage of reclaimed water in the reuse system storage ponds at the Key West Golf Club will not violate any ground water standards. Stated another way, KWRU provided reasonable assurance that the storage of reclaimed water in the reuse system ponds at the Key West Golf Club golf course will not cause or contribute to violations of ground water standards or surface water quality standards. Applicability of AWT to Existing Wastewater Facility Commencing January 1, 2016, the two new treatment trains authorized by the Permit at Issue must meet the AWT standards. These treatment trains are authorized to treat wastewater to specified secondary standards through December 31, 2015. Petitioners assert that the Permit at Issue must be denied because the two new treatment trains should be required to meet AWT standards immediately upon operation, and that allowing the new treatment trains to meet secondary standards through December 31, 2015, violates section 403.806(10) and rule 62- 620.620(4). Sections 403.086(10)(c) and (d) expressly impose the AWT standards on all new or expanded domestic wastewater discharges after December 31, 2015. Accordingly, the Permit at Issue is completely consistent with the statute. Further, the Permit at Issue does not violate rule 62- 620.602(4). That rule requires a wastewater facility permit applicant to make certain specified demonstrations when a permit is renewed, revised, or reissued having a less stringent effluent limitation than contained in a previous permit. Although the Existing Permit states that the Existing Wastewater Facility has been modified to meet the AWT standards, it further states: "[t]he extended aeration process will be switched to the AWT nutrient removal system prior to January 1, 2016." The clear import of this statement is that the AWT standards are not required to be met until January 1, 2016, consistent with section 403.806(10). Because the Permit at Issue also requires the new treatment trains to meet the AWT standards commencing on January 1, 2016, the Permit at Issue does not impose a less stringent effluent limitation than that imposed by the Existing Permit; accordingly, KWRU is not required to make the so-called "anti-backsliding" demonstrations set forth in rule 62- 620.620(4). Furthermore, it is undisputed that the new treatment trains will not be constructed and operational before January 1, 2016; thus, as a practical matter, the new treatment trains must meet the AWT standards immediately upon going into operation. Thus, Petitioners have not shown that the Permit at Issue should be denied on the basis that it violates section 403.806(10) and rule 62-620.620(4). Petitioners' Standing As noted above, Petitioner Halloran, resides in Key West, Florida. His residence fronts on the water and he owns a boat. Halloran and his family use and enjoy the waters around Key West for swimming, fishing, kayaking, and other in-water recreational uses, eat local-caught seafood, and engage in nature photography. Halloran also owns rental properties that front on the water, and he owns and rents out dock space for houseboat mooring. He is a member of Last Stand. Halloran has challenged the Permit at Issue because he is concerned that the increased discharge of effluent from the Project down the injection wells will degrade the waters around Key West where he and his family engage in in-water recreational uses. He also is concerned that the increased effluent discharge, particularly nutrients, will harm the seagrasses, coral reefs, and the benthic communities in the waters around Key West. Halloran read the initial petition prepared and filed in this proceeding, and he skimmed the Amended Petition specifically to determine the changes from the initial Petition.55/ He acknowledges that he does not completely recall the entire contents of the initial petition or the Amended Petition. Petitioner Last Stand is a not-for-profit corporation incorporated under Florida law. Naja Girard D'Albissin, a member of the Board of Directors of Last Stand, appeared on behalf of Last Stand. D'Albissin testified that Last Stand currently has approximately 105 members. Last Stand's mission is to promote, preserve, and protect the quality of life in Key West and the Florida Keys, with particular emphasis on protecting the natural environment. Last Stand historically has engaged in environmental advocacy directed toward governmental entities and engaged in litigation opposing activities that its members believe would harm the natural environment. In July 2014, Last Stand's Board of Directors voted to challenge the Permit at Issue. Respondent DEP stipulated that 52 members of Last Stand spend time or reside in Monroe County, 50 members enjoy the waters and natural environment of the Florida Keys, and 50 members believe that their use and enjoyment of the natural environment and economic interests in Monroe County will be adversely affected by the Project. Last Stand tendered, for admission into evidence, affidavits of some of its members attesting to the substantial interests they contend will be injured by the Project. However, Last Stand had refused to allow Respondents to engage in discovery regarding these members' alleged substantial interests; accordingly, the undersigned did not allow these members to testify at the final hearing.56/ The affidavits were excluded from admission into evidence as unsupported hearsay. See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. Entitlement to Permit at Issue KWRU met its burden under section 120.569(2)(p) to present a prima facie case demonstrating entitlement to the Permit at Issue by entering into evidence the applications and supporting materials for the Permit at Issue for the Project. Additionally, KWRU presented persuasive, competent, and substantial evidence beyond that necessary to meet its burden under section 120.569(2)(p) to demonstrate its entitlement to the Permit at Issue. Petitioners did not meet their burden of persuasion under section 120.569(2)(p) in this proceeding to demonstrate that the Project does not meet all applicable statutory and rule requirements. Furthermore, on rebuttal, KWRU and DEP thoroughly addressed and rebutted the grounds that Petitioners allege justify denial of the Permit at Issue. The persuasive evidence demonstrates that the Project meets all applicable statutory and rule requirements. Accordingly, KWRU is entitled to issuance of the Permit at Issue.
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 approving the issuance of Domestic Wastewater Facility Permit FLA014951-012-DWIP and UIC Permits 18490-020 and 18490-021. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of January, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 15th day of January, 2016.
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether Celebrity Resorts, Inc., (Celebrity) is entitled to a permit to construct a wastewater treatment and reuse/disposal facility in Marion County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Proposed Project Celebrity is seeking a DER permit to construct a 0.065 million gallon per day wastewater treatment and reuse/disposal facility to serve a proposed recreation vehicle (RV) park. The facility is to be located in northern Marion County on the southern border of Orange Lake, an Outstanding Florida Water. The RV park is to be located on 75 acres of land, and is to contain 372 RV and "park model" sites, four bath houses, a clubhouse, and an expanded boathouse. The sewage treatment plant (STP) and effluent disposal system, consisting of a spray irrigation system, are to be located on the southern end of the site, away from Orange Lake. There is a "break" in the watersheds of the Celebrity property caused by a ridge across the approximate center of the project site. The effect of this "break" is that approximately one-half of the property drains toward the lake while the approximate southerly half of the property drains into an independent depression creating a watershed separate from the lake. Some underground pipes for a sewage collection system were installed at the site without an appropriate DER permit. Celebrity stopped the installation upon notice from DER that a permit was required for such installation. The permit needed for the installation of the collection system pipes was not the permit for the sewage treatment project which is being considered in this proceeding. Celebrity was penalized for its collection system violation, which was resolved with a consent order. Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) The STP is an extended aeration plant. It is designed to meet secondary treatment standards (90% removal of BOD and suspended solids from raw sewage) and basic disinfection. This type of treatment plant is very reliable. All mechanical components have a 100% backup so if a pump or blower fails, another is available to operate. The STP is designed to be capable of treating the flow from this RV park. Additionally, the facility has a holding pond for treated sewage effluent that can store five days of flow. Furthermore, because the RV park is a transient facility, it is possible in an emergency to shut down the entire plant and have people leave. By its nature, this is much more convenient in an RV park that in a residential or commercial neighborhood. The holding pond is to be lined with a 60 millimeter high density polyethylene liner, so there should be no leakage to the ground or groundwater even if there is an accident in the STP causing release of untreated sewage into the holding pond. The STP is to be maintained five days a week and must be attended for three nonconsecutive visits a week by a Class D certified plant operator. The amount of dissolved/undissolved heavy metals in the effluent is typically not a problem in domestic sewage effluent such as from the proposed RV park. To the extent that trace amounts of metals will exist, the STP will remove some heavy metals from the effluent during the treatment process and entrain them in the sludge (which will be taken to appropriately licensed landfill). There is no possibility of effluent leaking or discharging from the plant to directly discharge to Orange Lake, even if the STP completely malfunctions. Although the proposed STP is not a highly sophisticated plant, reasonable assurances have been provided that the STP will comply with DER's requirements for secondary treatment and basic disinfection and proper operation. Effluent Disposal System (Spray Irrigation System) Phase I of the effluent disposal system (spray irrigation system) is 3.66 acres in size, with an additional 1.7 acres designated if Phase II is implemented. Approval under this permit authorizes only the 3.66 acres on Phase I. Numerous separate sprinkler heads will spray the treated effluent on the field. The heads can be separately controlled and shut down. The sprayfield is sited on the southwestern corner of the 75-acre site and is separated hydrologically from the Orange Lake drainage basin by the "break" referred to in Paragraph 4 above. Therefore, surface water drainage in the area of the sprayfield drains away from the lake and does not connect back to the lake. The permitted loading rate is 1.7 inches per week, or approximately 24,000 gallons per day at full capacity. This amount corresponds to only approximately 170% of natural rainfall, but is more evenly distributed and controlled. After uptake of nutrients by green plants and evaporation (evapo- transpiration), the average amount of treated effluent that will percolate below the "uptake zone" to the surficial aquifer (to the extent that such exists on the site) is 0.3 to 0.4 inches per week. The surficial water table in the area of the sprayfield generally flows to the north toward the lake, although the flow is not immediately direct toward the lake. The Floridan Aquifer (which is beneath the intermittent surficial water table) in the area of the sprayfield generally flows away from the lake to the south and southeast. There are four sinkholes on the 75-acre site, although none of these four sinkholes have been identified on the 3.66-acre sprayfield. The four sinkholes on the 75-acre site and the majority of sinkholes in the area are "subsidence sinkholes." These sinkholes do not result in an open void down to the limerock after the collapse forming the sinkhole, but instead continue to have unconsolidated material above the limerock, even though a depression forms on the surface. One of the sinkholes has standing water within it and could possibly represent a connection with the lake water table or the Floridan Aquifer, but that sinkhole is separated hydrologically from the sprayfield site by the "break" across the property. There will generally be a slight increase in hydrologic conductivity through a subsidence sinkhole, since the unconsolidated material on the surface remains and is loosened. In some cases there may be even less hydrologic transmissivity due to a "jamming up" of the unconsolidated material, and in some cases there may be an increase in transmissivity when the unconsolidated material falls into an even less consolidated state. A "lineament" may exist on the 75-acre site. A lineament is a fracture zone, which indicates an increase in ground water transmissivity, resulting in an increase in solution of limestone and therefore indicating a more likely location for sinkhole formation. If a sinkhole develops within the sprayfield and if the sinkhole results in an increased area of ground water transmissivity, it could be a conduit for treated effluent to reach the surficial aquifer or Floridan Aquifer. Sinkholes which may form on the site are subject to being repaired with impervious material which prevents their becoming routes of contamination to the aquifer. In addition, the loading rate of any single sinkhole that forms within the spray irrigation field is so light and so easily shut down that there is a high confidence rate that no new sinkhole will act as a conduit for even the small immediate discharge over the area of the new sink to reach the Floridan Aquifer. A spray irrigation effluent disposal system is appropriate for this area which is subject to sinkhole formation. Spray irrigation allows dispersal of the effluent over a large area as opposed to a percolation pond which concentrates in the percolation area and therefore increases the chance of sinkhole formation and the chance of larger amounts of effluent reaching the Floridan Aquifer if all the intervening safeguards should fail simultaneously. In addition, the repair of any sinkhole forming within the sprayfield is simplified by the ability to simply shut off the sprinkler head or heads affecting that sinkhole while repair is being effected. Permit conditions further limit excessive effluent application rates by limiting the amount of flow, prohibiting application during storm events, and requiring monitoring of the flow. Spray irrigation is a common method of effluent disposal which generally has fewer problems than use of percolation ponds. No evidence has been presented that discharge from the sprayfield will cause violations of groundwater quality standards or violations of surface water quality standards, including the Outstanding Florida Water requirements in Orange Lake. Reasonable assurance has been provided that the proposed effluent disposal system will not violate DER water quality standards or other applicable DER rules. Standing Petitioner Suto could be substantially affected by this proposed facility if it causes pollution to Orange Lake since she uses the lake for nature photography. Additionally, she resides to the southeast of the proposed sprayfield and has concerns over contaminated ground water reaching her property and affecting her drinking water. Petitioner Riley could be substantially affected by this proposed facility if there is pollution to the Floridan Aquifer since she lives southeast of the proposed facility and has two drinking water wells on this property. Additionally, Petitioner Riley is a user of Orange Lake and therefore could be substantially affected by the proposed facility if it impacts the lake. Petitioner Solomon could be substantially affected by the proposed project if the project impacts Orange Lake since Mr. Solomon earns his living on the lake as a commercial fisherman and bass fishing guide.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order granting to Celebrity Resorts, Inc., a permit to construct a wastewater treatment facility and spray irrigation disposal system subject to the conditions set forth in the Intent to Issue. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of July, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-2722 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Celebrity Resorts, Inc. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 4(1); 5(2); 6(4); 7(5&6); 8- 12(7-11); 13(12); 14(13); 15(14); 16(15&16); 17(17); 18(18); 19-21(20-22); and 22-27(26-31). Proposed findings of fact 1-3 are unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 28 is subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 4-6(1-3); 7-13(5-11); 14(12); 15-17(13-15); 18(17); 19(18); 20-26(19-25); 27-32(26-31); and 33-35(32- 34). Proposed findings of fact 1-3 are unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Delcie J. Suto, Pro Se 2400 N.W. 165th Street Citra, FL 32113 Carol B. Riley, Pro Se 2250 N.W. 165th Street Citra, FL 32113 Crawford Solomon, Pro Se 1303 N.W. 186th Place Citra, FL 32113 Karen English 3680 West Highway 318 Citra, FL 32113 Marilyn Nehring P. O. Box 481 Orange Lake, FL 32112 John Monsees 2400 NW 165 Street Citra, FL 32113 William L. Townsend, Jr. Attorney at Law Post Office Box 250 Palatka, FL 32178-0250 Douglas H. MacLaughlin Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue Whether the Respondent, the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), should deny the Petitioner's application for a Class C drinking water treatment plant operator certificate based on the Petitioner's alleged cheating on the examination.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), previously determined that the Petitioner, Ralph Sanchious (Sanchious), was eligible for certification as a Class C Water Treatment Operator, subject only to successful completion of DER's examination. Sanchious sat for the November 2, 1989, examination administered at the Polk Correctional Institution (PCI) in Polk City, Florida. Although the examination notice that had been mailed to Sanchious, as well as to the other examinees, stated that examinees were not allowed to have "[a]ny other papers or notes . . . in the examination room," Sanchious brought his examination notice itself and the envelope it came in. At least one other examinee did the same. During the examination, which was multiple choice, Sanchious copied the question numbers on the envelope and marked next to each question number the letter signifying the choice he had made as his answer. He did not try to hide what he was doing. He did it openly right in front of the examination proctor, Henry P. Ziegler, Jr. Sanchious intended to take the record of his exam answers with him when he left the examination to help him pass a reexamination, if he did not pass the November 2, 1989 exam. Since examinees must give the examination booklet containing the multiple choice questions to the proctor at the end of the examination, it is not clear how a record of his answers would help him pass a reexamination unless Sanchious knew or believed he could learn when the same examination would be re-administered. It must be inferred that Sanchious knew or believed he could learn when the same examination would be re-administered, although it is not clear how he knew or why he believed he could learn this. Ralph Nichols, the instructor who taught the course that prepared Sanchious to take the examination, did not know or believe he could learn when the same examination would be repeated unchanged, and he did not think any of the examinees knew or could learn this. Neither the DER rules, the written examination notice, nor the oral instructions of the examination proctor advised Sanchious or the other examinees that he was not permitted to record his answers or take the record of his answers with him when he left the exam. Sanchious did not think what he was doing was wrong, was cheating or was in violation of any rules or regulations of either the DER, PCI or any test-taking "conventions." If he did, he would have tried to hide what he was doing from the proctor. At the end of the examination, Ziegler, the proctor, collected the examination answer sheets, test booklets and scratch paper, if any, from all examinees. Normally, Ziegler would return the answer sheet and exam booklet to the testing agency and destroy the scratch papers to maintain test security. But he confiscated Sanchious' answer sheet, examination booklet and materials, including the record of his answers that he had made on the envelope, and asked Sanchious what was on the envelope. Sanchious answered truthfully and told Ziegler what he planned to do with his record of the answers. Ziegler, an accepted expert in proctoring examinations, understood from examination "conventions" he had learned as an examination proctor that it is a breach of examination security, and therefore forbidden for proctors to allow, an examinee to record examination answers and leave the examination site with them. Ziegler conferred with Barbara Jacobs, PCI Educational Program Manager, to ask her what she thought should be done. Jacobs then told Sanchious he would not be permitted to remove the envelope on which he had recorded his answers. Sanchious replied with words to effect "fine, I already finished the examination, and all my answers are on the answer sheets." Ziegler, Jacobs and Nichols conferred further to decide whether what Sanchious had done was "cheating." They decided it was and declined to forward Sanchious' answer sheet to DER. Ziegler's letter to DER explained that he and Jacobs "deem taking out answers to these tests to be a serious breach of test security, since it is possible that Sanchious might have wanted to sell the answers to other inmates on his compound. We are both sure that you would not want Sanchious to do this, so we have withdrawn his answer sheets from the rest of the test takers' sheets and are not forwarding Sanchious' answer sheet to you for scoring. We trust you agree with our decision to not allow this inmate's test to be scored due to what we firmly believe was an unacceptable breach of security of your tests on the part of Sanchious." Although the DER did not respond to Ziegler's letter, it denied his application certification because it did not consider Sanchious to have passed the exam. Sanchious' answer sheets remain in the possession of Barbara Jacobs at PCI. DER authorizes the use of scratch paper in their certification examinations. DER has no rules or written notification of any kind that examinees may not record their answers on scratch paper during the examination. In fact, DER now encourages examinees to keep track of where they are on the examination by marking the examination booklet; and marking the answers on the booklet, as well as the answer sheet, would be one acceptable way of keeping track. It is understood that the examination proctor will collect the exam booklets and all scratch paper. DER always has allowed examinees other than prison inmates, and now allows all examinees, to review their scored examination answer sheets and the examination booklet to verify any incorrect answers. Persons choosing such a review are not permitted to take notes of the correct answers with them after the review. On two occasions, DER has discovered that an examinee smuggled "crib sheets" (summary notes of substantive information that probably would assist an examinee) into the exam site. Once, the proctor caught the examinee; the other time, it could not be determined who had smuggled the "crib sheets." Once DER received anonymous information that an individual in Orlando regularly was obtaining a list of what purported to be the actual answers to questions and was furnishing the list to certain examinees as a favor. This information has not resulted in any findings, and it is not clear how the individual would have obtained a written list of correct answers to the questions on a particular examination. On the most recent examination in Jacksonville, DER caught an examinee smuggling into the examination a list of the actual answers to the questions. Again, it is not clear how the answers were obtained. None of these incidents involved an examination at PCI, and none involved an examinee recording his own answers to exam questions on a separate piece of paper with intent to leave with the record of the answers after the examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent, the Department of Environmental Regulation, enter a final order that the Petitioner's answers to the November 2, 1989, Class C Water Treatment examination be scored and, if the Petitioner scored a passing grade, that the Petitioner be certified as a Class C Water Treatment Plant Operator. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-7002 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1989), the following rulings are made on the Respondent's proposed findings of fact (the Petitioner not having filed any): 1.-3. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven by the evidence. Ziegler first conferred with Nichols before deciding that Sanchious had "cheated." Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven by the evidence. It was not proven whether Sanchious knew or could learn when the same examination would be re- administered, knowledge that would be indispensable to the use of Sanchious' exam answers to cheat on a subsequent examination. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 6.-10. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 11. First sentence, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary; second sentence, see 5., above. 12.-13. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 14. Rejected as not proven by the evidence. First, Setchfield agreed that whether Sanchious or someone else knew or could learn when the same examination would be re-administered would be indispensable to the future use of his exam answers to improve one's odds of choosing or guessing correct answers. Second, she testified that she could not answer the "philosophical" question whether the "cheating" she described would have occurred when Sanchious recorded and removed the answers with the intent to try to use them to improve his odds of choosing or guessing correct answers on a future exam or when he actually used the information on a future examination. COPIES FURNISHED: Ralph Sanchious (W-44) Polk Correctional Institution 3876 Evans Road, Box 50 Polk City, Florida 33868 Cynthia K. Christen, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 =================================================================
The Issue The issue presented in this case is whether the Petitioner has the requisite experience necessary in order to qualify to take a Class A drinking water treatment plant operator certification exam.
Findings Of Fact On May 11, 1989, Petitioner, Albert Galambos, submitted an application to Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation ("DER"), to take the prerequisite examination necessary for certification as a Class A drinking water treatment plant operator. On May 20, 1989, Helen Setchfield, Certification Officer for DER mailed to the Petitioner a Notice of Final Order of Denial of Petitioner's Application for Examination and Certification as a Class A drinking water treatment plant operator. The Notice of Final Order of Denial stated that Petitioner was ineligible to sit for the examination and/or was ineligible for certification as a Class A drinking water treatment plant operator because his "actual experience is in an occupation which does not qualify as actual experience as an operator of a treatment plant as defined in Section 17-16.03, Petitioner has worked at the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority Department ("Authority") for 17 years. His current position is Water and Sewer Mechanical Operations Supervisor, a position he has held since 1983. This position entails actual onsite operational control of the equipment and mechanical processes of the Authority's water production plants and overseeing all maintenance of equipment at the Authority's three regional water treatment plants and the smaller interim plants, developing safety procedures for the operation of equipment, training plant personnel in the mechanical operation of the equipment, establishing maintenance schedules and maintaining those records, and taking samples as necessary to determine proper equipment functioning, performing or overseeing the loading of chemicals and the connecting of chlorine cylinders, and the recharging of these systems. He assists the certified operators in remedial action if some aspect of the plant is not functioning properly, but he has no supervisory authority over the certified operators. Petitioner is held responsible by the Division Director for the smooth running of the equipment at the Authority's water treatment plants. He prepares reports, logs and records regarding the mechanical equipment and operations of the plant. Petitioner supervises and manages 36 employees who are mechanics, electricians and laborers. From 1979 to 1983, Petitioner was a plant maintenance foreman for the Authority. This position included responsibility for supervising and performing skilled mechanical tasks on a variety of mechanical equipment at the water plants. From 1976 to 1979, Petitioner was a plant mechanic at the Authority. This position was skilled work at the journeyman level in the installation, repair, and maintenance of mechanical equipment at the water plants. Between 1974 and 1976, Petitioner worked in an unclassified position doing what a diesel plant operator does at the Authority. This position involved responsibility for the operation of large diesel engines used to drive large pumps and related equipment. From 1972 and 1974, Petitioner was a semiskilled laborer with the Authority. This position involved heavy manual work requiring limited skills in various maintenance tasks. Petitioner has never served as a drinking water treatment plant operator nor been licensed as a drinking water treatment plant operator at any classification. Petitioner has not previously applied for, nor obtained any water treatment plant operator certification. Petitioner has successfully completed the required course work for Class A operator certification. Petitioner is a high school graduate and has successfully completed the required coursework for certification. These activities yield three years and four months of constructive experience towards certification. Petitioner's experience prior to 1983 did not constitute actual experience because in those positions, Petitioner did not have operational control of a drinking water treatment plant. Even if Petitioner's current position was accepted as "actual experience" (a determination which is specifically not resolved here,) the combination of Petitioner's constructive and actual experience would be less than the twelve years of experience required for certification as a Class A operator. Thus, Petitioner has failed to prove that he meets the experience requirement necessary for certification as a Class A drinking water treatment plant operator. Petitioner's current position is supervisory and he has a great deal of maintenance experience gained through his various positions at the Authority. Petitioner's current position affords him the opportunity to learn about many aspects of operating a treatment plant efficiently by conducting inspections of the treatment plant processes, monitoring of the treatment plant processes, and adjusting the treatment plant processes. However, the evidence did not establish that Petitioner manages the treatment plant processes as required to constitute actual experience under the existing rules. It is unclear from the evidence presented whether Petitioner's day-to- day onsite experience at the plants constitutes the actual operational control of a water treatment plant. It would appear that Petitioner's current position does not allow him experience in managing the overall treatment process. However, further evidence and/or a better understanding of Petitioner's job responsibilities could alter this observation. In view of the disposition reached in this case, that issue need not be addressed further at this time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue a final order denying Petitioner's application of May 10, 1989, for certification as a Class A drinking water treatment plant operator. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of January 1990. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of January, 1990.
Findings Of Fact Trans/Circuits is a manufacturer of electronic printed circuit boards located at 210 Newman Way, Lake Park, Florida. Trans/Circuits' manufacturing operation involves the deposition of copper on plastic boards and the use of a lead or tin etch resist in order to create an electrically conducting circuit board. In the course of the manufacturing process, rinsewaters are used which become contaminated with copper and lead from the manufacturing process. These rinsewaters undergo chemical treatment to remove the metals and other contaminants, and are then discharged into an unlined percolation pond located behind Trans/Circuits' facility. About 36,000 gallons of effluent are discharged into the pond every day. The percolation pond discharges into ground water underlying Trans/Circuits' facility which groundwaters contain less than 3000 milligrams per liter (mg/l) of total dissolved solids. Trans/Circuits uses a Havviland brand wastewater treatment system. The system at present does not provide treatment sufficient to remove copper, fluoride, and lead from the wastewater effluent in compliance with the DER class G-II groundwater standards for these metals, i.e., 1.0 mg/l of copper, 1.5 mg/l of fluoride, and .05 mg/l of lead. Trans/Circuits has exceeded the effluent limitations for copper and lead at almost all times since at least June 1984. Trans/Circuits is not likely to comply with those standards for at least six months, by Trans/Circuits' own admission. The Operating Permit Application, Case No. 83-3676 Trans/Circuits requested a hearing to contest the DER Notice of Intent to Deny the application for an operating permit. The burden of proof and burden of going forward is therefore on Trans/Circuits to show that it is entitled to issuance of the operating permit. In this regard, Trans/Circuits did not introduce into the case any evidence relating to the operating permit application and did not introduce the application, itself. Further, Trans/Circuits did not present any evidence that its installation will abate or prevent pollution, or that it can provide reasonable assurances that the system which it seeks to operate will not discharge, emit or cause pollution. The Trans/Circuits facility has never been in compliance with DER standards and cannot provide assurances that it will be in compliance at anytime in the foreseeable future. Further Trans/Circuits has been operating without an operating permit at least since October 1983. The Month-to-Month Authorization, Case No. 84-0191 On September 17, 1982, DER issued a Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action (NOV) to Trans/Circuits. The NOV alleged that Trans/Circuits violated provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and DER rules in operation of its industrial waste water treatment and disposal system. Trans/Circuits requested and received an informal conference to discuss the allegations of the NOV, which conference was held on October 20, 1982. At the informal conference, DER and Trans/Circuits reached agreement on a resolution of the issues raised by the NOV. On November 4, 1982, a Consent Order was issued by DER, setting forth the parties' agreement and requiring Trans/Circuits to perform certain corrective actions. In the consent order, Trans/Circuits agreed not to discharge industrial wastewaters into waters of the state "without an appropriate and valid permit authorizing such discharge or having otherwise obtained Department authorization." At the time the consent order was issued, Trans/Circuits was operating pursuant to a DER construction permit which was issued for the purpose of allowing Trans/Circuits to make certain modifications to its treatment system to bring the system into compliance with DER effluent standards. The construction permit expired in January 1983, but Trans/Circuits continued to operate. About one month after the construction permit expired, DER notified Trans/Circuits that it was violating the consent order by operating without DER authorization. The parties met to discuss the matter, and agreed that Trans/Circuits would cease operation for one week to conduct bench-scale testing to identify problem areas and possible corrective actions. Trans/Circuits did cease operation and conduct the testing as agreed. Trans/Circuits presented the data resulting from their bench scale testing to DER, and represented that it had identified problem areas that needed correction. DER evaluated the data and agreed to allow Trans/Circuits to operate for a limited time to gather plant effluent quality data which would form the basis for DER's decision whether to allow operation to continue. DER did not take enforcement action to have Trans/Circuits cease operation at that time because DER wanted to give Trans/Circuits time to show that it could comply with the effluent standards as it claimed it could. On March 23, 1983, DER notified Trans/Circuits that there had been a significant improvement in the plant's ability to produce effluent of acceptable quality, and DER authorized Trans/Circuits to make modifications in order to improve effluent quality. DER at that time gave Trans/Circuits authorization to operate for an indefinite period, with the condition that DER would rescind its approval if the program of sampling and system approval did not continue. Trans/Circuits accepted the authorization on DER's terms. On April 12, 1983, DER granted Trans/Circuits' month-to-month authorization to operate ". . . provided continued improvement is made in your system's operation and the Department can reasonably anticipate system compliance." This authorization was in response to a request from Trans/Circuits for 90-day temporary operating approval in order to demonstrate that the system could comply with state standards. By letter dated October 5, 1983, DER withdrew its authorization for month-to-month operation of Trans/Cirouits' facility because it believed that compliance with state standards could no longer be reasonably anticipated. Despite Trans/Circuits' best efforts, the facility was not in compliance and DER had no assurance that continued operation would bring the facility into compliance within a reasonable amount of time. Trans/Circuits has never ceased operation since DER withdrew its month-to-month operating approval. Trans/Circuits has not had a DER permit for construction or operation of the facility since the expiration of their last construction permit in January, 1983. At a meeting on December 1, 1983, Trans/Circuits' general manager admitted that he was aware that Trans/Circuits' was in violation of the terms of the consent order by continuing to operate without DER authorization. Analysis of Trans/Circuits' plant effluent for April 1983, shows that average lead levels were 0.21 parts per million (ppm) (or mg/l), average fluoride levels were 2.45 ppm, while average copper levels were 0.51 ppm. These were the effluent levels existing when Trans/Circuits was granted its month-to- month approval for operation. Since the month-to-month authorization was granted, the majority of Trans/Circuits' effluent samples have not complied with the DER standards for lead, copper, and fluoride. Since April 16, 1984, five percent or less of Trans/Circuits' effluent samples have complied with the effluent standards for lead and copper. In the week or two prior to hearing, the majority of effluent samples contained lead at a concentration of 0.2 to 0-5 ppm (with some higher), and contained copper at a concentration of between 2 and 3.5 ppm (with some higher). The most recent data available indicate that Trans/Circuits is not in compliance with the effluent standards for lead, copper and fluoride. Daily average effluent concentrations for lead and copper are significantly greater now than they were when DER issued its month-to-month authorization. Groundwater samples just outside Trans/Circuits' property show violations of the DER standards for lead. The evidence shows that Trans/Circuits effluent quality has not improved since April 1983. Effluent concentrations of lead and copper have actually increased significantly since October 1983, when DER withdraw its month-to-month authorization. Trans/Circuits does not even expect to know before December 1984, whether its present system can attain compliance with effluent standards. The Construction Permit Application On March 8, 1984, Trans/Circuits applied to DER for a permit to construct modifications and improvements to the existing Havviland wastewater treatment system. Although the stated purpose of the requested construction was to upgrade the system to achieve compliance with the Riviera Beach Sewer Use Code so as to allow a sewer tie-in, Trans/Circuits had abandoned that purpose by the time of the hearing. Trans/Circuits now seeks to upgrade the systems so that the effluent can comply with the applicable standards for discharge to ground water. When DER received the application, it was reviewed by a DER engineer to see if it was complete. The engineer determined it was not complete, and notified Trans/Circuits on April 6, 1984, that additional information was needed to complete the review process, all of which information was necessary to determine whether a permit should be issued for the requested construction. Trans/Circuits' general manager objected to the request for additional information, claiming that all the requested information was not necessary to review the application. However, at the request of Trans/Circuits' counsel, a meeting was held between representatives of Trans/Circuits and DER to discuss the request for information that was needed for review of the application. Trans/Circuits thereafter, withdrew their objections, and agreed to provide the requested information. Trans/Circuits responded to DER's request for additional information on June 27, 1984, at 3:30 P.M. the day prior to hearing. Trans/Circuits delivered a packet of information to DER at that time that purported to be the requested information. Also at that time, however, Trans/Circuits told DER that it had already performed some of the construction for which a permit was sought, and that it was not sure what, if any, of the remaining construction would be undertaken. The information that was submitted to DER was not all of the information requested by DER. No flow diagram was submitted and waste effluent analysis was lacking. Without this information, it is impossible to determine whether or not reasonable assurance has been provided by Trans/Circuits that DER standards will be met. Even if all of the requested information had been submitted, DER could not issue a construction permit to Trans/Circuits because its future construction plans are now only speculative. Trans/Circuits does not know what modifications it intends to construct, or when exactly such modifications will be made. All that is certain is that Trans/Circuits does not intend any longer to construct the modifications for which it made application. DER evaluates applications to determines whether all proposed modifications works as a system. Trans/Circuits is the applicant for this permit and has the burden of showing that it is entitled to issuance of the permit. Here Trans/Circuits failed to present any evidence of what construction it actually plans to do, let alone that the purposed construction meets the criteria and that it is entitled to the permit.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation: Denying Trans/Circuits application for an operation permit; Denying Trans/Circuits application for a construction permit; and Withdrawing the month-to-month authorization for Trams/Circuits' operation. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of September, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 19th day of September, 1984.
