The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondents, Enos Kerr and Custom Care Dry Cleaning, Inc., are guilty of the violations alleged in, should take the corrective actions described in, and should pay the penalties assessed in the Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action, and Administrative Penalty Assessment, DEP OGC File No. 06-2382-37-HW (the NOV).
Findings Of Fact Enos Kerr is the President and manager and an owner of Custom Care Dry Cleaning, Inc., a dry-cleaning business located in Tallahassee, Florida. The Respondents have been in business for approximately twenty-five years. For approximately ten years, Custom Care has used Vista LPA-142 as a dry-cleaning solvent. Custom Care uses a spotting agent known as "Picrin" for removal of difficult stains. Vista LPA-142 is also known as paraffinic, napthenic solvent, and aliphatic solvent. It contains 100 percent paraffinic or napthenic solvent. It looks like water but is a white oily liquid that has the odor of hydrocarbon and is a kind of "mineral spirits." "Picrin" contains more than 98 percent chlorinated hydrocarbon. It is listed at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 372.65 and exceeds the de minimis concentration defined in 40 CFR § 372.38. On August 18, 2006, John Johnson, a DEP Environmental Specialist, inspected the premises of Custom Care. He found two partially full 55-gallon steel drums of Vista LPA-142 outside of secondary containment, which contained a 110-gallon storage tank and Custom Care's Midwest dry-cleaning machine (which has a base tank that stores used Vista LPA-142 which has passed through a Filter King purification system for reuse in the dry-cleaning machine). He testified that, not only did Mr. Kerr tell him the drums were full or partially full, they were heavy enough from being full or partially full that Mr. Johnson could not move them easily. On August 18, 2006, Mr. Johnson also observed, hanging on the outside of the wall of the secondary containment area, above the 55-gallon drums, some of the clear plastic tubing, a pump, and a PVC pipe extending from the end of the tubing, which were used to transfer Vista LPA-142 from the 55-gallon drums into the 110-gallon storage tanks. The floor beneath the transfer equipment and the 55-gallon drums was not sealed or otherwise treated to render it impervious. In another part of the premises on that date, also outside secondary containment, was a Forenta spotting board used for removal of difficult stains from fabric before placement in the dry-cleaning machine. Various chemicals, including a plastic bottle containing "Picrin," were in a box or tray attached to the spotting board. Beneath the spotting board was an open plastic waste basket used to collect and contain spotting agent suctioned from the item of clothing being cleaned and funneled to the basket. The floor under the spotting board was not sealed. Custom Care's Filter King purification system uses cloth filters. Periodically, Custom Care replaces the filters containing lint from the dry-cleaning process. The old filters are allowed to air-dry in the secondary containment area before disposal in the municipal solid waste dumpster outside the premises. At the end of Custom Care's dry-cleaning process, the dry-cleaned clothes are wrung out during a mechanical spinning cycle and then manually transferred while still damp or somewhat wet to a Huebsch dryer, which is outside secondary containment and on a floor that was not sealed on August 18, 2006. Air- drying is the last step in the process. DEP did not have the filters and lint analyzed to prove that they were contaminated with Picrin or any other hazardous substance. Instead, DEP assumed that there was some contamination, however small, and relied on the federal "mixture" rule that even the smallest amount of hazardous waste contamination turns previously unregulated solid waste into regulated hazardous waste. Count I - Secondary Containment Respondents' factual defenses to Count I, for not having the Vista LPA-142 in secondary containment on August 18, 2006, are: (1) secondary containment was not required because Vista LPA-142 is not a "dry-cleaning solvent"; and (2) if secondary containment was required, all of the Vista LPA-142 was in secondary containment because the 55-gallon drums and transfer equipment were empty. In support of their first defense to Count I, Respondents maintain that Vista LPA-142 is an aqueous solvent because an analysis of a sample from the base tank that collects used Vista LPA-142 after use and filtration for reuse in the dry- cleaning machine indicates the presence of 0.34 percent water. However, the presence of that small amount of water in the sample did not prove that Vista LPA-142 is an aqueous solvent. Custom Care also contends that Vista LPA-142 is not a "dry-cleaning solvent" because Custom Care buys it from Phenix Supply Company, which not only sells product to dry-cleaners but also sells to other businesses for other uses, making Phenix Supply something other than a "wholesale supply facility." This contention is rejected. See Conclusion 33, infra. Also in support of their first defense to Count I, Respondents pointed to information received from the producer of Vista LPA-142 that it was biodegradable to carbon dioxide and water. However, biodegradation would occur only in the presence of water and naturally-occurring microorganisms and aerobic conditions. Such biodegradation does not mean that Vista LPA-142 is an aqueous-based solvent and not a naphthenic, petroleum- based, dry-cleaning solvent. Respondents also believed Vista LPA-142 was not a petroleum-based dry-cleaning solvent because it has a flashpoint above 140 degrees Fahrenheit. But there was no evidence to prove that having a flashpoint above 140 degrees Fahrenheit means that the Vista LPA-142 is an aqueous-based solvent and not a naphthenic, petroleum-based, dry-cleaning solvent. In support of their second defense to Count I, Mr. Kerr denies telling Mr. Johnson the 55-gallon drums were full or partially full and maintains that the presence of a bung wrench on one of the drums was a fail-safe sign that both were empty (and, essentially, proved that Mr. Johnson was lying). Supposedly, according to Respondents, the Vista LPA-142 always is transferred immediately upon delivery from the 55-gallon drums into the 110-gallon tank and, sometimes, also into the base tank, and that the bung wrench is placed on one of the empty drums as a signal to the supplier that the drums are empty and ready to be removed when the supplier returns in two weeks to check on the drums to see if they are empty and ready to be picked up. This explanation is not logical. To the contrary, the use of the bung-wrench signal tends to prove the opposite--i.e., that the drums were not empty. If the Vista LPA-142 always is immediately transferred in its entirety, there would be need for a bung- wrench signal. Indeed, the Vista LPA-142 could be immediately transferred by the supplier (or by the Respondents while the supplier was still on the premises). In addition, Mr. Kerr conceded that there have been many other occasions when the 55- gallon drums were not completely transferred into the 110-gallon storage tank immediately upon delivery. There also have been occasions when three 55-gallon drums have been delivered by the supplier, all of which would not fit into the 110-gallon reserve tank and the base tank. In addition, during an enforcement meeting on September 13, 2006, to discuss a draft Hazardous Waste Inspection Report, while noting other issues with findings in the report, Mr. Kerr did not take issue with findings concerning the 55- gallon drums. Also in support of their second defense to Count I, Respondents maintain that the transfer equipment is emptied of all Vista LPA-142 before it is re-hung on the wall. This can indeed be accomplished by quickly extracting the PVC extension from the drum, reversing its orientation by 180 degrees so that it point toward the ceiling, and continuing to run the pump until the tubing is empty. In any event, while stains on the concrete floor under where the PVC pipe is hung on the wall may be from Vista LPA-142, which would suggest that the procedure is not always followed to perfection, the NOV did not cite Respondents having the transfer equipment outside of secondary containment. Count II - Unsealed Flooring Respondents' factual defense to Count II, for not having the flooring sealed between the secondary containment area where the dry-cleaning machine was and where the Huebsch dryer was, or where the 55-gallon drums were, is that secondary containment was not required because Vista LPA-142 is not a "dry- cleaning solvent." Factually, that defense already has been addressed in Findings 11-14, supra. Count III - Disposal of Solid Waste Respondents' factual defenses to Count III, for unpermitted and unauthorized disposal of solid waste (i.e., the filters and lint) on August 18, 2006, are: (1) that disposal of the filters and lint in the municipal solid waste dumpster is permitted and authorized because they are not hazardous waste; and (2) that, if they were hazardous waste, they were hazardous due to contamination with Picrin, not with tetrachloroethylene, also known as perchloroethylene or "perc," as alleged in the NOV. In support of their first defense to Count III, Respondents contend that all Picrin used in spot removal would be suctioned out of the item of clothing and collected in the container below the spotting board, or would be evaporated by the steam used in the spot removal process. Indeed, Picrin's boiling point is 165 degrees Fahrenheit, which is lower than the temperature of steam. Respondents contend, as proof of their first defense, that if any trace of Picrin remained on clothing after spot removal, it would be diluted in the Vista LPA-142 used in the dry-cleaning process and then returned to the base tank for reuse after the clothes are wrung out, but that a laboratory analysis of a sample of from the base tank did not indicate the presence of anything but water. However, actually the analysis was only performed to detect the presence of water; the sample was not analyzed for the presence of Picrin, or any of its breakdown products, or anything other than water. There may be traces of Picrin in the contents of the dry-cleaning machine's reservoir. Besides, even if there is no Picrin in the dry-cleaning machine's base tank, that evidence would not preclude the possibility that Picrin is filtered out by the Filter King purification process and is present in the filters and lint. Regardless, while the first defense to Count III was not proven, DEP presented no evidence on the question whether it is likely the filters and lint would be contaminated with Picrin. Rather, DEP's evidence assumed contamination without any further proof. As to Respondents' second defense to Count III, the NOV does in fact reference tetrachloroethylene, also known as perchloroethylene or "perc." However, it also calls the chemical "Picrin ® which contains 100% Tetrachloroethylene ('Perc')." The confusion arose because, during his inspection, Mr. Johnson obtained from Custom Care's files a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Picrin. When he consulted with the manufacturer, he was told that the MSDS was out-of-date, and the manufacturer provided him with the current MSDS for Picrin. Then, the draft Hazardous Waste Inspection Report discussed during the enforcement meeting on September 13, 2006, referred to "today's Picrin [which] contains 100% Trichloroethylene ('Perc')." Mr. Kerr pointed out that "perc" was tetrachloroethylene, not trichloroethylene. From this, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Byer understood Mr. Kerr to be admitting to the use of "perc," which he was not. In an attempt to correct the report in accordance with Mr. Kerr's comment, DEP modified the report so that the final draft referred to: "today's Picrin [which] contains 100% Tetrachloroethylene ('Perc')." Even if the NOV is not defective in referring to "Perc" instead of clearly stating that Picrin was the alleged hazardous waste involved, DEP failed to prove that Picrin was mixed with the filters and lint. For that reason, DEP did not prove the allegations in Count III. Count IV - Investigative Costs The Department's proof of investigative expenses incurred consisted of the salary compensation paid to its investigators. Mr. Johnson’s salary is $17.53 per hour. He spent approximately 55 hours conducting inspections and investigating this case, which totals $964.15. Mr. Byer’s salary is $22.87 per hour. He spent approximately 96 hours investigating this case, which totals $2,195.52. Corrective Actions Upon re-inspection of the premises on November 8, 2006, Respondents were in compliance with all requirements. Deliveries of Vista LPA-142 were being transferred into the 110-gallon storage tank and base tank by the supplier upon delivery, and Respondents had sealed the flooring appropriately. It is not clear from the evidence what was being done with the filters and lint, but apparently they were being appropriately disposed of as hazardous waste at the time of the follow-up inspection. Other Mitigating Circumstances The evidence reflects a misunderstanding on the part of Respondents that, because Custom Care uses Vista LPA-142 and is considered a "mineral spirits" dry-cleaner, as opposed to a "perc" dry-cleaner that uses "perc" or some other form of chlorinated hydrocarbon that is a hazardous material in its dry- cleaning machine, it is not governed by dry-cleaning statutes and regulations.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, George H. Hopper, submitted an application for a license to operate a Class "C" wastewater treatment plant to the Respondent on or about April 8, 1977. On November 28, 1977, the Respondent issued a letter of intent to deny the license. This letter of intent was subsequently modified by a letter to petitioner from Respondent dated January 4, 1978. The Respondent, in the above-referenced correspondence, based its letters of intent to deny the Petitioner a Class "C" wastewater treatment plant operator's license based upon two primary grounds. Those grounds are as follows: "This Department has concluded that you have not fulfilled the actual experience requirement of section 17-16.03(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), as defined by section 17-16.02(8) F.A.C." (See letter dated November 28, 1977.) "In addition to the above referenced deficiency in actual work experience, it has been noted that you have not completed an approved course related to wastewater treatment plant operation as required by Section 17-16.03(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code." (See letter dated January 4, 1978.) Respecting the second allegation, Petitioner presented testimony during the course of the hearing which, in fact, indicates that he did complete an approved coarse related to wastewater treatment plant operation as required by Section 17-16.03(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Additionally, Petitioner presented a diploma supporting this contention. This certificate reflects the fact that the Petitioner satisfactorily completed the course on "Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants" on or about May 2, 1977. Based thereon, and the testimony of Respondent's certification officer, Robert W. Hall, to the effect that the Respondent did comply with the Code requirement which mandates completion of an approved course related to wastewater treatment plant operation, that ground is no longer a basis for the denial of Petitioner's certification. Petitioner testified, and the other documentary evidence introduced during the coarse of the hearing indicates, that Petitioner was employed from January, 1975, through December 25, 1975, as administrator of the Margate Utility Authority. From December 25, 1975, through February 15, 1976, the Petitioner was employed in a position other than as administrator, his resignation being effective on February 15, 1976. Accordingly, the Petitioner was employed at the Authority for a period in excess of one year. What is at issue, is the Respondent's contention that the Petitioner was not actually performing duties tantamount to fulfillment of the actual experience requirement of Section 17-16.03(2)(b), Florida Administrative Cede, inasmuch as his duties as an administrator were more in the nature of being in charge of the facility, with little practical experience as the term "experience" is meant in Chapter 17 of the Florida Administrative Code. Additionally, it was noted that the Petitioner was re-employed by the City of Margate as a supervisor. During the hearing, the Petitioner outlined his duties as an administrator which included being in charge off the overall operation of the wastewater treatment plant. Petitioner testified that when he was first employed at the Margate Utility Authority, the wastewater treatment plants were not operational. He testified that a water-sewer moratorium had been placed by the Board of Health, citing approximately five violations. Petitioner testified that he instituted numerous changes in the operations of the wastewater treatment facilities which included hiring a contractor to supervise deficiencies in the wastewater treatment plant and its injector systems which were over-pressurized. He testified that within approximately two months of his employment with the Authority, he was able to correct approximately 80 percent of the problems and was able to again make the treatment plant operational. Petitioner testified that he normally worked a five day week; however, he was on duty in excess of forty hours weekly for the resolution of all daily operational problems. Evidence introduced during the course of the hearing reveals that the wastewater treatment facility here involved is fully automated and that the operators have very little to do in terms of manual tasks. In this regard, the Petitioner testified that he was on duty at the facility throughout his employment during the period January, 1975, through December, 1975, to operate the wastewater treatment plant. Additionally, the Petitioner testified that his office, as an administrator, was located in close proximity to the wastewater treatment facilities and he was available to in fact operate the wastewater treatment plant, as needed. Finally, Respondent's certification officer, Robert W. Hall, testified that in his opinion, being available to operate as opposed to actual operation is what is required by the actual experience requirements of the Florida Administrative Code. Based thereon, I shall recommend that the Respondent withdraw its notice of intent to deny Petitioner's application for a Class "C" wastewater treatment plant operator's license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's application for a Class "C" wastewater treatment operator's license be GRANTED. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of May, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Russell L. Forkey, Esquire 3081 East Commercial Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Randall E. Denker, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's site located at 13292 N.W. 118th Avenue in Miami, Florida is eligible for reimbursement of the costs of petroleum contamination cleanup pursuant to Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Rinker Material Corporation ("Rinker") owns and operates a site known as the Rinker FEC Quarry located at 13292 N.W. 118th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33127 (the "site"). At the Site, Rinker operated three (3) one thousand (1,000) gallon tanks which stored waste oil, virgin oil and hydraulic fluid. The DER Facility ID Number for the Site is 138628827. On December 2, 1988, Petitioner, as part of a tank replacement program that it was attempting to conduct in compliance with the applicable state and county regulations, began excavating the three underground storage tanks at the Site. During the excavation, a visible sheen was discovered. At the time of the excavation on December 2, 1988, Alan Gillespie of the Dade County Environmental Resource Management (DERM) was present to conduct a closure inspection of the Site. The December 2, 1988 closure inspection was conducted for Dade County DERM in its own capacity and not as an agent for DER. The purpose of the December 2, 1988 visit by Alan Gillespie was to inspect the removal and closure of the three 1,000 gallon tanks containing, respectively, waste oil, new oil and hydraulic fluid. Mr. Gillespie's inspection indicated that, while there appeared to be no holes in the tanks, free product was visible. Mr. Gillespie noted in his inspection report, dated December 2, 1988, that the contamination was not caused by a tank leak, but, instead, by overspills caused by the pouring of waste oil into the tank, spilling locally around the riser and then contaminating the soil around the tank. Rinker took samples at the Site and submitted them to a laboratory for analysis. It is not clear when the laboratory report was returned, but it generally takes two (2) weeks to obtain the laboratory analysis. Upon receipt of the laboratory report, Rinker initiated its efforts to apply for participation in the Inland Protection Trust Fund for reimbursement or site rehabilitation. In order to participate in the Inland Protection Trust Fund, an applicant was required to submit an Early Detection Incentive Program Notice (the "EDI Form") to DER prior to midnight on December 31,. 1988. The back of the EDI Form states that the form must be filed with and received by DER during the 15 month grace period beginning July 1, 1986 and ending October 1, 1987. The EDI program was; originally scheduled to end on September 30, 1987. However, the deadline for filing was extended by the legislature to December 31, 1988. The EDI Notification Form was not amended to change the dates to reflect subsequent amendments to the reporting date made by the legislature. While the back of the EDI Application Form indicates that the notification form must be filed with and received by DER on or prior to the initial deadline, DER considered as timely all applications with a postmark on or before the extended deadline of December 31, 1988. Petitioner's EDI Form for the Site was prepared by William Voshell, environmental manager for Rinker. Mr. Voshell was out of the state during the last few days of December, 1988. Petitioner's EDI Form was reviewed and signed by William Payne as Vice President of Real Estate for Rinker, on Friday, December 30, 1988. William Payne was informed by Mr. Voshell that the EDI Forms needed to be sent out before the end of the year. A cover letter accompanying the EDI Form for the Site was signed for Mr. Voshell by his secretary, Linda Vasquez on December 30, 1988. After signing the EDI Form, William Payne returned the application to Linda Vasquez to "process to mail". He reminded her that it had to be mailed that day. Ms. Vasquez placed the EDI Form and the cover letter in the Petitioner's mail system on December 30, 1988. The Certified Mail Number P 533059801 appears on the envelope containing Petitioner's EDI Form. January 3, 1989 was the first business day of 1989. The envelope containing the EDI Form was postmarked January 3, 1989. A certified mail return receipt attached to the envelope containing the EDI Form and cover letter shows that the return was stamped by the post office on January 3, 1989. The postal receipt for the EDI Form and cover letter was returned to Rinker from the post office on January 3, 1989. DER received Petitioner's EDI Form for the Site on January 9, 1989. Petitioner's normal procedure is to internally meter regular mail and affix a postmark date. However, certified or registered mail is metered and taken to the post office for processing. Registered mail received in the Petitioner's mailroom on December 30, 1988 should have been metered and taken to the post office for processing the same day or at the latest the next business day (December 31st, a Saturday). After the EDI Form was filed but prior to the eligibility determination, Petitioner was required to submit Site characterization information and documentation of the Site conditions before the initiation of cleanup. The evidence did not establish the expense or costs incurred by Rinker in gathering this information. Prior to ruling on Petitioner's EDI application, DER, through DERM, conducted an eligibility inspection at the Site. Alan Gillespie of DERM conducted the EDI eligibility inspection on April 20, 1989. During an EDI inspection, the inspector examines and reports on the existing conditions of a facility including: recordkeeping, the age of the tanks and the conditions of the monitoring wells and whether there is any negligence involved with the contamination that has occurred. During the April 20, 1989 inspection, Alan Gillespie reported that the three 1,000 gallon underground tanks had been removed and replaced with a new aboveground petroleum storage system. On the EDI inspection report, Mr. Gillespie reported evidence of soil contamination and/or recent product loss and noted that such contamination was discovered at the time of tank removal. After completion of the April 20, 1989 inspection report, Mr. Gillespie's supervisor at DERM sent the report to DER in Tallahassee. In 1989, final Early Detection Incentive Program or Reimbursement Program eligibility determinations were made in Tallahassee by DER. At the time of the EDI eligibility inspection of the Site on April 20, 1989, the role of Dade County DERM was only to conduct an EDI inspection at the site and to forward the information to Tallahassee. Prior to making an eligibility determination on the Site, Patricia Dugan, Environmental Administrator of the DER Petroleum Cleanup Reimbursement Section, reviewed the EDI application, the inspections from DERM, documentation of the site conditions prior to initiation of cleanup and the envelope that the application came in. On November 23, 1989, DER issued an order finding the Site to be ineligible for participation in the Reimbursement Program. Initially, Petitioner's reimbursement application was deemed ineligible because of mixed contamination (i.e., the Site contained used oil) and because the application was deemed untimely. Subsequent to the date of the denial, certain legal decisions made it clear that, contrary to DER's position, sites containing used oil were eligible for participation in the Reimbursement Program. Thus, the only remaining predicate for DER's denial of Rinker's application is that the application was not timely filed. Because Petitioner's EDI application was postmarked on January 3, 1989, after the December 31, 1988 statutory deadline, the Petitioner's application was deemed untimely by DER. DER's policy of relying on the postmark date for purposes of determining timeliness was informally arrived at in 1987. DER has never promulgated a rule on this matter nor conveyed its interpretation to affected parties. Petitioner could have and would have internally placed a postmark date of December 30, 1988 on the envelope containing the EDI Form had it been aware of DER's policy.
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 approving Petitioner's application for eligibility under the state's reimbursement program. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23rd day of July, 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 23rd day of July, 1990. APPENDIX Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The following constitutes my rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3, 9 and 10. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 17 and 20. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 26. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 22, 36, 37 and 38. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 37 and 38. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 40. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 41. Rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. Rejected as argument rather than a finding of fact. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 2. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 25. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 22. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 21. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 16. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 18. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 19. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 23. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 24. Rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 22. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 15. 17. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 15. 18. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 37, 38 and 39. 19. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. 20. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. 21. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6. 22. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7. 23. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 8. 24. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 28. 25. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 29. 26. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 30. 27. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 31. 28. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 32. 29. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 33. 30. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 34. 31. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 36. 32. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 35. 33. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 37. 34. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 39. 35. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 15. 36. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 12. 37. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 14. 38. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 15. 39. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 36, 37 and 38. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard A. Pettigrew, Esquire Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33181 Janet E. Bowman Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale W. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to an operating permit for an existing domestic wastewater treatment facility operating in Naples.
Findings Of Fact On May 10, 1991, Respondent issued Petitioner a five- year permit to operate a 0.3 million gallon per day (GPD) domestic wastewater treatment plant known as the Rookery Bay facility in Naples. This permit, which is number DO11-187204, allowed Petitioner to operate an extended aeration plant, using chlorine for basic disinfection and disposing of the reclaimed water in two percolation ponds. The 1991 permit required Petitioner to allow Respondent access to the facility for inspections at reasonable times, notify Respondent of any violations of any permit conditions, maintain total chlorine residual of at least 0.5 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of effluent sample after at least 15 minutes’ contact time at maximum daily flow, maintain annual average effluent quality values for carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) and total suspended solids (TSS) of not more than 20 mg/L of effluent sample with maximum effluent quality concentrations of 60 mg/L in any single effluent sample, maintain a monthly average effluent quality value for fecal coliform of not more than 200 per 100 ml of effluent sample with a maximum effluent quality value of 800 per 100 ml in any single effluent sample, notify Respondent of any discharge from the percolation pond overflows, and monitor influent loading to the facility and apply for a permit modification if the monthly average influent flows approach or exceed the design capacity of 0.3 MGD or if the facility violates treatment standards. Respondent also issued Petitioner a five-year permit to operate a 0.15 GPD domestic wastewater treatment plant at the Rookery Bay facility. This permit, which is number DO11-167093, allowed Petitioner to operate a contact stabilization process plant. On December 29, 1995, Petitioner submitted a renewal application for permit number DO11-167093. Although the permit number references the smaller tank, the renewal application requests a permitted capacity of 0.3 MGD. By Notice of Permit Denial dated February 9, 1996, Respondent denied the permit application on the ground that Petitioner could not provide reasonable assurance that it would operate the facility in compliance with state standards based on a “continued and long standing pattern of noncompliance and violation of . . . rules and standards.” Petitioner’s operation of the Rookery Bay treatment plant has been poor. Respondent has brought an enforcement action against Petitioner, which signed a consent final judgment in January 1994. The consent final judgment required Respondent to pay $4500 in civil penalties. As it applied to the Rookery Bay facility, the consent final order required Petitioner to evaluate the facility to discover the causes of past violations and modify the facility to eliminate these violations. But Petitioner has not complied with material provisions of the consent final judgment. Petitioner’s operator has been held in contempt of court several times for violations at Rookery Bay and a nearby smaller treatment facility known as Port au Prince. Petitioner has several times refused Respondent’s representatives reasonable access to the Rookery Bay facility. At least twice, Petitioner has failed to advise Respondent of equipment failures that resulted in violations of treatment standards. On January 11, 1995, Petitioner cut off the power for several hours to a lift station pump serving a nearby a condominium complex. Predictably, the sewage backed up and overflowed into the street. Petitioner failed to restore the power timely or remove the overflowed sewage. On several occasions, raw or inadequately treated sewage has leaked from the tanks at the Rookery Bay facility. Petitioner has failed to eliminate this problem over the course of its five-year operating permit. On numerous occasions, Respondent’s representatives have detected violations of effluent quality. These violations have arisen inadequate detention time in the chlorine contact chamber. Consequently, the TSS and CBOD levels have repeatedly exceeded permitted standards. The parties dispute the adequacy of the capacity of the Rookery Bay facility. There is considerable evidence, including one statement in the application, that suggests that the facility’s capacity is seriously inadequate. Either the capacity of the Rookery Bay is, and has been, inadequate--in which case at least some of the violations are attributable to overcapacity operation--or, if the facility has had adequate capacity, the operational competence of Petitioner is below the minimum level necessary to provide reasonable assurance of proper operations at this facility in the future. Most likely, the Rookery Bay facility lacks adequate capacity, at least part of the year, and Petitioner lacks the minimum requisite competence to operate the facility in a responsible manner. The strongest evidence in the record suggests that the Rookery Bay facility serves, during peak season, 1500 mobile home connections and 400 apartment connections. These connections generate about 377,500 GPD of raw sewage. A slightly lower value is probable after consideration of the likely presence of recreational vehicles among the mobile home count. But this reduction, even without adjustment for dry-season infiltration and inflow, would not yield sufficient savings in raw sewage as to provide reasonable assurance that the Rookery Bay facility has adequate capacity to serve the present demand or adequate capacity to serve the demand projected over the five-year term of the permit that Petitioner seeks. Even if one were to credit Petitioner’s volume-to- capacity calculations, the results fail to constitute reasonable assurance of violation-free operation of the Rookery Bay facility. Petitioner's calculations leave little if any margin for error at present demand levels, and, given Petitioner’s singularly poor operating history at this facility, these calculations provide poor assurance of compliant operation of this troubled facility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying Petitioner’s renewal application for a domestic wastewater treatment operating permit for the Rookery Bay facility. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 9th day of May, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Sanford M. Martin 2500 Airport Road, Suite 315 Naples, Florida 34112-4882 Thomas I. Mayton, Jr. Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Perry Odom General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Whether Alachua County Environmental Protection Department discriminated against Tilak B. Shrestha based upon his race or national origin, in violation of Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, by releasing Mr. Shrestha from his temporary assignment through Temp Force with the Alachua County Environmental Protection Department and by not hiring Mr. Shrestha for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist within the Alachua County Environmental Protection Department.
Findings Of Fact The State of Florida funds the Petroleum Cleanup Program (Petroleum Program) which is focused on removing petroleum contaminants from various sites within the State of Florida. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) administers the Petroleum Program, also known as the Underground Storage Cleanup Program. In 12 counties, including Alachua, Florida contracts with the county to manage the Petroleum Program. The Alachua County Environmental Protection Department (Alachua DEP) manages the Petroleum Cleanup sites in Alachua County. Mr. Chris Bird has been the director of the Petroleum Program since 1993. He has worked with Alachua County since 1986. In the 1994-1995 fiscal year, the Florida Legislature was facing a deficit; therefore, the Legislature significantly reduced the funding for the Petroleum Program. As a result, DEP froze the Petroleum Program, and dropped several active sites. The lack of funding resulted in downsizing at both the county and state levels at the beginning of 1995. At the beginning of 1995, the Alachua DEP had three funded positions in the Petroleum Program. Mr. Alex Vieira occupied the position of full-time Professional Engineer. The Alachua DEP also had funding for an administrative position and a full-time Environmental Engineer/Geologist. The Environmental Engineer/Geologist position was vacant at the beginning of 1995. The Alachua DEP originally advertised for the position. However, when the State reduced funding for the Petroleum Program, the Alachua DEP decided not to fill the position with a permanent employee and ultimately froze this permanent position. In order for the Petroleum Program to continue at a minimum level of operation, the Alachua DEP hired temporary employees through Temp Force, a temporary employment agency. Temp Force served as an independent contractor for the Alachua DEP. Temp Force provided Mr. Tilak Shrestha and Mr. Mike Shuler to the Alachua DEP Petroleum Cleanup Program. Mr. Shuler began working at the Alachua DEP through Temp Force two months prior to Mr. Shrestha's Temp Force assignment to the Petroleum Program. At the time of the assignment through Temp Force, Shrestha was not credentialed as a Ph.D. Mr. Shrestha and Mr. Shuler were employees of Temp Force, received their paychecks from Temp Force and acquired no benefits from Alachua County. Mr. Shrestha worked as a Temp Force employee for six months at Alachua DEP and was assigned to various projects at the Alachua DEP. As supervisor for the Petroleum Program, Mr. Vieira assigned projects to both Mr. Shrestha and Mr. Shuler. Mr. Shrestha described his working conditions during his assignment through Temp Force with the Alachua DEP as "good, no complaints," and "good on average." In 1995, the Florida legislature ultimately reduced funding for the Petroleum Program from $1.2 million to approximately $250,000. When the Alachua DEP received notice of these funding cuts, Mr. Bird advised Mr. Vieira that he needed to release one of the Temp Force employees from his assignment with the Alachua DEP. Mr. Vieira retained Mr. Shuler and informed Mr. Shrestha that he would no longer be working on the Petroleum Cleanup assignment through Temp Force. Mr. Shrestha's assignment through Temp Force with the Alachua DEP was terminated on August 10, 1995. During Fall 1995, the legislature substantially changed the law and administration pertaining to the Petroleum Program, both at the county and state levels. In October 1995, Ms. Pegeen Hanrahan became the Petroleum Program supervisor following Mr. Vieira's resignation. Ms. Hanrahan earned a Bachelor's degree in Environmental Engineering and Sociology and a Master's degree in Environmental Engineering. She is a registered Professional Engineer and a certified Hazardous Materials Manager. She began working for Alachua County in 1992 as an Environmental Engineer and later served for three years as Hazardous Materials Program Supervisor for Alachua County. When Ms. Hanrahan became supervisor of the Petroleum Program in Fall 1995, the Petroleum Program had essentially entered a "stand-by" mode. The Alachua DEP declined to send any additional work to its sub-contractors. Therefore, the technical duties involved in the Petroleum Program were reduced and the administrative duties became more important. During the Fall of 1995, there were no permanent employees on staff. Mr. Shuler remained as the only temporary employee in the Petroleum Program and according to Ms. Hanrahan was doing a "perfectly adequate job." Based on the new and reduced Petroleum Program budget for the 1995-1996 fiscal year, the Alachua DEP acted in October 1995 to establish the position of Senior Environmental Specialist in lieu of the Environmental Engineer/Geologist position. The position was advertised in December 1995. The main role of the Senior Environmental Specialist was to assist the Professional Engineer in the area of the administration involved in the Petroleum Program. The duties included filing reports, tracking sites, and submitting task orders and invoices to the office in Tallahassee. Due to the increasing changes in the Petroleum Program, the Alachua DEP required a Senior Environmental Specialist who understood the Petroleum Program's administrative tasks, as well as the State policies pertaining to the Petroleum Program. The Senior Environmental Specialist candidate was required to have a technical background in fields including, but not limited to, engineering, biology or geology. The Professional Engineer, not the Specialist, was assigned the technical review of the Petroleum Program. An applicant's understanding of the technical and administrative duties was necessary. In 1995, the Alachua DEP advertised the position of Senior Environmental Specialist, which included printing an advertisement in the local newspaper, per the County regulations. The Alachua DEP described the administrative tasks of Senior Environmental Specialist to include: preparing reports; making recommendations; receiving and investigating complaints; conducting performance evaluations; counseling, hiring and terminating employees. The Alachua DEP described the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the Senior Environmental Specialist to include: thorough knowledge of the technical methods and procedures involved in the administration of environmental regulations, programs, and policies; knowledge of local, state, and federal rules, regulations, and ordinances related to environmental protection; ability to create concise, clear, and succinct technical reports; and ability to research technical problems, formulate recommendations, and compile related reports. The Alachua DEP described the minimum qualifications for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist as: Bachelor's degree in environmental or natural science, civil or environmental engineering, geology, or hydrology, or related field, and two years' professional level environmental-related experience; or any equivalent combination of related training and experience. The County received 14 applications for the position as Senior Environmental Specialist from applicants, which included Mr. Shrestha and Mr. Shuler. Ms. Hanrahan was supervisor of the Petroleum Program in January 1996 and responsible for the hiring of the Senior Environmental Specialist. She received an Application Referral Document from personnel, stating that each of the applicants met the County's minimum requirements for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist. Upon receipt of the re?sume's and applications, Ms. Hanrahan initially screened the applicants for those who had petroleum-related experience. She narrowed the applicants to four individuals, who included Mr. Shrestha, Mr. Shuler, and two others. On January 22, 1996, Ms. Hanrahan conducted a telephone interview of each of the four applicants who passed the initial screening. The telephone interview was customary hiring practice within the Alachua DEP. During the telephone interview, Ms. Hanrahan asked each applicant the same series of ten questions, designed to test the applicant's level of knowledge regarding technical and administrative aspects of the position of Senior Environmental Specialist. Mr. Shrestha answered five out of a possible eleven answers correctly. This was the second highest score out of the four applicants. Shuler achieved the highest score, answering eight-and-one-half out of eleven answers correctly. Three interview questions specifically addressed administrative issues. Question six asked, "What does RBCA stand for?" Question seven stated, "This year the Florida Petroleum Cleanup Program has adopted a new mechanism for review and approval of work on petroleum contaminated sites. Can you tell me what that program is called?" Question nine stated, "Give two examples of policy decisions under RBCA." Mr. Shrestha failed to answer question six, seven or nine correctly. Mr. Shrestha's failure to correctly answer each of the administrative questions indicated to Ms. Hanrahan that he was unaware of the changes within the Petroleum Program. Another purpose of the telephone interview was to assess the applicants under pressure. Ms. Hanrahan also sought to evaluate how the applicants responded to her authority. During the telephone interview, Mr. Shrestha challenged Ms. Hanrahan regarding the relevance of the questions to the position of Senior Environmental Specialist and she noted his argumentative attitude during the interview. He conceded at the hearing that he did ask her about the relevancy of the questions. Based upon his argumentative tone, Ms. Hanrahan questioned Mr. Shrestha about his ability to accept her supervisory decisions. She decided not to hire Mr. Shrestha for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist based on his limited knowledge of the administration of the Petroleum Program, a factor essential to the position of Senior Environmental Specialist, and his inability to accept her authority as supervisor. Ms. Hanrahan was also aware of critical statements that Mr. Shrestha allegedly had made to female co-workers during his assignment through Temp Force at the Alachua DEP. Ms. Robin Hallbourg is currently employed as Senior Environmental Specialist with the Alachua DEP. Ms. Hallbourg has been with the Alachua County DEP for 15 years. Ms. Hallbourg worked with Mr. Shrestha at the Alachua DEP during Mr. Shrestha's assignment through Temp Force. Ms. Hallbourg testified that Mr. Shrestha told her that "she should be home with her child" and that she "should allow a man to have her job." After this conversation, Ms. Hallbourg discussed his statements with others in the Alachua DEP, including Ms. Hanrahan. Ms. Hanrahan recalled the discussion with her. Ms. Hanrahan hired Mr. Shuler for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist because he proved himself to be the most qualified candidate during the interview process. Ms. Hanrahan kept an interview log on which she noted Mr. Shuler's strong qualifications for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist. She noted his "excellent experience in the Petroleum Cleanup Program and his significant applicable training and experience in program administration." Ms. Hanrahan also noted that his "application and interview showed strong computer skills." Mr. Shuler's Bachelor's degree in Microbiology met the education requirements for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist. Moreover, at the time of Shuler's application, there had been a growing emphasis placed on bi-remediation, which is currently a regularly used process. Given Ms. Hanrahan's education, training,and experience as a Professional Engineer, she determined that a Bachelor's degree in Microbiology was an appropriate background for the position. In addition, Mr. Shuler had the technical knowledge of processes, performance of groundwater sampling, and drilling, as well as other relevant technical knowledge pertaining to the position of Senior Environmental Specialist. Additionally, due to his continued assignment in the Alachua DEP, he was aware of the new administrative duties required of a Senior Environmental Specialist. Ms. Hanrahan had personally observed Mr. Shuler from October 1995 until January 1996, and was extremely satisfied with his performance. As part of the usual hiring process, Ms. Hanrahan submitted her interview log, personnel action form, and applications to the personnel department to support her hiring decision. Mr. Bird approved the hiring decision in his capacity as director, and the personnel department, budget department, and Equal Employment Office then approved the decision. Since his hire, Mr. Shuler has been commended by the Alachua DEP and his supervisors. Ms. Hanrahan informed Mr. Shrestha that he had not been hired for the position during a telephone conversation on January 23, 1996. She did not base her decision to hire Mr. Shuler over Mr. Shrestha on the basis of race or national origin. Ms. Hanrahan is fully aware of Alachua County's Equal Employment Opportunity policy through her position as advisor on the Equal Opportunity Advisory Committee. There is no evidence of any discriminatory hiring decision. In fact, on the same day that Ms. Hanrahan hired Mr. Shuler for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist, she also hired Mr. Gus Olmos for the position of Environmental Engineering Supervisor. Mr. Olmos is from Panama and is Hispanic. Moreover, Dr. Prasad Kuchibhotla is a Professional Engineer with a Bachelor's, Master's and Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering. He is from India and is Asian. Alachua County hired Dr. Kuchibhotla in 1997 and is the current Petroleum Cleanup Program Manager for Alachua DEP. Dr. Kuchibhotla currently has a Senior Environmental Specialist working for him within the Petroleum Program. As was the case in December 1995, the current Specialist's primary duty is to assist him with the detailed administrative tasks involved with the Petroleum Program. On January 27, 1997, Mr. Shrestha filed a formal Charge of Discrimination. The charge was date stamped as received by the Florida Commission on Human Relations on January 30, 1997. Mr. Shrestha is currently employed with Bell South in Atlanta, Georgia. He earns $47,000 per year and receives health benefits.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that Petitioner, Tilak B. Shrestha is not entitled to any relief relating to his charge of discrimination under Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER 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 2nd day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Tilak B. Shrestha 3579-C Meadowglen Village Lane Doraville, Georgia 30340 Robert M. Ott, Esquire County Litigation Attorney Post Office Box 2877 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact On May 6, 1986, George Bailey, doing business as Bailey's Septic Tank Service pursuant to a permit to operate a septic tank cleaning service, pumped out and cleaned the septic tank located at 474 Hinton Street, Port Charlotte, Florida, owned by Davina Hall. On May 21, 1986, upon inspection of that septic tank by Warren McDougall and Dale Holcomb on the complaint of the owner, it was determined that the septic tank inspection hatch lid was not properly sealed. There was a hole where the corner of the inspection hatch lid had been broken off and the soil over the tank was not properly replaced and compacted. The only evidence as to whether anyone else did work on that septic tank after Bailey's and before the inspection was the testimony of the inspectors and Bailey about what they were told by others. That evidence is all hearsay and cannot be relied upon to base a finding under these circumstances. Accordingly, it cannot be found that Bailey's left this tank unsealed and damaged. On September 26, 1985, Bailey's serviced the septic tank located at 1043 Webster Avenue, Port Charlotte, Florida, at the request of Robert Keniston acting as agent for the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Caggiano. The house was vacant when the work was done, but Keniston observed the work in progress. On May 27, 1986, an inspection of the septic tank by Warren McDougall and Emmery Wuthrich of the Charlotte County Health Department revealed that the access lid was broken and had not been sealed. David Sandefer, the employee of Bailey's who performed the work, acknowledged that he left the tank with a broken lid and unsealed because Keniston told him to do so and would not pay the $40 to replace the lid. Keniston denies this and says he did not know of the broken lid until the inspection. Having observed the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Keniston's testimony is more reliable and credible in this regard. On June 10, 1986, the Sarasota County Health Department received a complaint that a Chevrolet pump truck, white cab with a red tank, was dumping sewage and had magnetic signs saying it was a pressure cleaning service. The complaint was being investigated by John Madrak that same day when he saw a truck fitting the description parked at the Frosted Mug, a restaurant in Venice, Florida. There were no signs on the truck. Madrak also observed a puddle under the tank caused by a leak from the outlet valve on the tank. Madrak saw work order forms in the cab of the truck saying Bailey's Septic Tank Service. Madrak talked to the driver of the truck, David Sandefer, and was told that the truck was owned by Bailey, but was not being used for septic tank cleaning. Sandefer said it had just been repainted. The driver left the Frosted Mug and Madrak followed at the instruction of his supervisor. After a lengthy chase, the truck stopped at a convenience store and Bailey, Madrak, Venice Police Officer Dodd and Sheriff's Deputy Lowen converged on the scene. Bailey acknowledged ownership of the truck, but indicated that it was being used as a water tank truck in a pressure cleaning business and not as a septic tank pump truck. It had been repainted and had not been used for septic tank service for 4 to 6 weeks prior thereto. Bailey owns two other pump trucks that were being used in the septic tank business. The truck had hoses and shovels consistent with use for pumping septic tanks. The truck had no signs indicating by whom it was being used. The truck was leaking from the outlet valve, but no evidence was presented as to the substance leaking from the truck. No one sampled, touched or smelled the leaking material and no one looked in the tank to see what was inside. At no time did anyone observe the truck in the act of pumping sewage.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order and therein Dismiss the complaint in Case No. 86-2107. Find the Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Case No. 86- 2633. Dismiss the complaint in Case No. 86-2624. Suspend the septic tanking cleaning service permits of George E. Bailey, doing business as Bailey's Septic Tank Service, for a period of one year and impose a fine of $500.00. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of October, 1986, 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 15th day of October, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties to this case. Specific rulings on proposed findings of fact of Petitioner Case No. 86- 2107 Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance or as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 2(2); 3(2). Proposed findings of fact 4 and 5 are unnecessary. Specific rulings on proposed finding of fact of Petitioner Case No. 86-2623 Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance or as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(5); 3(5); 5(4); 6(4); 7(5); 8(4). Proposed findings of fact 4, 9 and 10 are unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 2 is subordinate to the facts actually found. Specific rulings on proposed finding of fact of Petitioner Case No. 86-2624 Each of the following proposed finding of fact are adopted in substance or as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(7); 1(7); 3(7); 4(8); 5(8); 6(8); 8(9); 9(10); 10(11); 11(11); 12(12). Proposed findings of fact 13, 14, 15, and 17 are unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 7 and 16 are subordinate to the fact actually found. Specific rulings on proposed findings of fact of Respondent Case No. 86- 2107 Proposed finding of fact 1 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 1 and proposed finding of fact 2 is similarly adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Proposed findings of fact 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are subordinate to the facts actually found. Proposed finding of fact 8 is unnecessary. Specific rulings on proposed findings of fact of Respondent Case No. 86- 2623 Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance or as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(4); 2(4);; 3(4); 4(5). Proposed findings of fact 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are subordinate to the facts actually found. Proposed findings of fact 11 and 12 are unnecessary. Specific rulings on proposed findings of fact of Respondent Case No. 86- 2624 Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance or as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(7); 3(13); 4(12); 6(8); 7(13); 8(13); 10(11); 11(11); 12(11). Proposed findings of fact 2 and 9 are subordinate to the facts found. Proposed finding of fact 5 is rejected as not supported by the credible evidence. Proposed finding of fact 13 is unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony N. DeLuccia, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 06085 Fort Myers, Florida 33906 Robert B. Bennett, Jr., Esquire 46 N. Washington Boulevard, Suite 13 Sarasota, Florida 33577 William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Reimbursement Program The Florida Legislature created the Petroleum Contamination Site Cleanup Program to encourage responsible persons with adequate financial ability to conduct site rehabilitation and seek reimbursement in lieu of the state conducting cleanup. Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes (1993). Site owners and operators or their designees become entitled to reimbursement from the Inland Protection Trust Fund (IPTF) of their allowable costs at reasonable rates after completing a program task. Section 376.3071(12)(b), Florida Statutes. The costs of site rehabilitation must be actual and reasonable. Section 376.3071(12)(d), Florida Statutes. "Allowable" costs are those which are associated with work that is appropriate for cleanup tasks, i.e. whether the cost represents work that is technically necessary for the program task and otherwise not in violation of reimbursement limitations prescribed by statute or rule. In order for costs to be reimbursable, an applicant must convert charges in an application into applicable units and rates. Rule 17-773.100(5), Florida Administrative Code. DEP has a predominate rate schedule to determine whether a specific allowable cost is reasonable. DEP bases its predominate rates on a study of average rates that contractors charge for a particular task. In addition, DEP reviews each application to determine whether the overall cost and the methods used to perform the work are reasonable. DEP must also evaluate each application to determine whether a charge is an actual cost of a project. Contractors or subcontractors do not actually incur a fully reimbursable cost when they promise the site owner or its designee that they will perform work for an amount less than other professionals would charge, then allow the site owner or its designee to file a claim for reimbursement at or near the predominate rate. Such an agreement creates a back flow of funds to the site owner or its designee. This is true even though the charges are within the range of DEP's predominate rates. DEP never intended the rate schedule to create an entitlement to reimbursement regardless of the cost that contractors and subcontractors actually incur. Requests for reimbursement must apply to costs which are "integral" to site rehabilitation. Rule 17-773.100(2), Florida Administrative Code. "Integral" costs are those which are essential to completion of site rehabilitation. Rule 17-773.200(2)(11), Florida Administrative Code. After integral costs have been identified and incorporated on a units and rates basis in an invoice, the invoice may be marked up at two levels. These markups are subject to certain limitations: There can be no more than two levels of markups or handling fees applied to contractor, subcontractor or vendor invoices (Rule 17-773.350(9), F.A.C.); There can be no markups or handling fees in excess of 15 percent for each level of allowable markup applied to contractor, subcontractor or vendor invoices (Rule 17-773.350(10), F.A.C.); and There can be no markups or handling fees applied to invoices between any two entities which have a financial, familial, or beneficial relationship with each other (Rule 17-773.350(11), F.A.C.). In order to be reimbursable, costs must have been actually "incurred." Rule 17-773.700, Florida Administrative Code. "Incurred" means that allowable costs have been paid. Rule 17-773.200(9), Florida Administrative Code. A contractor must pay all invoices generated by a subcontractor at 100 percent of their face value prior to submission of an application in order to qualify those invoices for reimbursement. When a contractor pays a subcontractor's invoices, the contractor paying those invoices may apply the first-tier markup. Prior to submitting a reimbursement application, a funder or "the person responsible for contamination site rehabilitation" (PRFCSR) must pay the contractor for its invoices and markup. Then, the funder may apply the second- tier markup and submit the reimbursement application to DEP. DEP does not contest the second level of markup in these applications. DEP rules restrict reimbursement when parties within the usual "chain" of reimbursement (PRFCSR or funder, contractor and subcontractor) have financial, beneficial or familial relationships with each other or the site owner. These terms are defined in Rules 17-773.200(1), 17-773.200(6), 17- 773.200(7), Florida Administrative Code. The application form requires disclosure of such relationships through the Program Task and Site Identification Form. DEP's rules and written guidelines do not address or apply to activities, including financing arrangements, occurring outside of the chain of reimbursement if an applicant does not include charges for such activities in an application. Heretofore, DEP has not deducted finance costs that an applicant does not include as a line item in a reimbursement application. DEP must perform financial audits to ensure compliance with Chapter 376, Florida Statutes, and to certify site rehabilitation costs. Rule 17- 773.300(1), Florida Administrative Code. DEP performs this audit function: (a) to establish that the PRFCSR incurred the cost; (b) to determine that adequate documentation supports the claimed costs as incurred; and (c) and to review the reasonableness and allowance of the costs. The audit staff interprets the term "incurred" to mean that the applicant paid the costs included in the reimbursement application. DEP's audit staff usually does not inquire as to the level of a PRFCSR's financing where the application contains no line-item financing charges. However, the audit staff makes appropriate inquiries depending on the facts and events surrounding an individual application. Pursuant to Rule 17-773.350(4)(e), Florida Administrative Code, "[i]nterest or carrying charges of any kind with the exception of those outlined in Rule 17-773.650(1), F.A.C." are not reimbursable. The exceptions to the payment of interest set forth in Rule 17-773.650(1), Florida Administrative Code, are not at issue here. An interest rate charge on short-term borrowed capital from an unrelated third-party source is a "cost of doing business." DEP's predominate rates are fully loaded. They include a variable for all direct and indirect business overhead costs such as rent, utilities and personnel costs. DEP includes the cost of short-term borrowed capital in the direct and indirect overhead components of the fully-loaded personnel rates. Rule 17-773.700(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioners PRFCSRs are entitled to make application for reimbursement of allowable markups and costs of site rehabilitation that they incur. In these consolidated cases, the site owners or operators designated either Petitioner ET or Petitioner SEI as PRFCSR. The PRFCSR is typically referred to as the "funder" in the reimbursement chain. Petitioner ET is a trust formed in 1993 and domiciled in Bermuda. It acts as American Factors Group, Inc.'s (AFG discussed below) conduit for funds that finance activities associated with Florida's petroleum contamination site cleanup program. The named beneficiaries of the trust are those contractors and subcontractors entitled to payment of costs for activities integral to site rehabilitation and for allowable markups of such costs. The sole trustee of ET is Western Investors Fiduciary, Ltd. (WIFL). WIFL is also the owner and a beneficiary of ET. Any profit that ET derives from funding petroleum contamination site cleanup flows through WIFL to investors who provide funds to finance site rehabilitation. American Environmental Enterprises, Inc. (AEE, discussed below) provided the investment funds for the reimbursement applications at issue here. WIFL is a limited liability corporation created and domiciled in Bermuda. The officers of WIFL are: William R. Robins, President; John G. Engler, Vice-President; and Peter Bougner, Secretary. The directors and shareholders of WIFL are: William R. Robins, John G. Engler, Paul H. DeCoster, Alec R. Anderson and Nicholas Johnson. Petitioner SEI is a corporation incorporated and operating under Florida law. Organized in 1994, SEI acts as AFG's conduit for funds to finance activities associated with Florida's petroleum contamination cleanup program. The officers and directors of SEI are: William R. Robins, President; John G. Engler, Executive Vice President; and Paul H. DeCoster, Secretary. William R. Robins is the sole shareholder of SEI. ET filed the petition for administrative hearing on behalf of SEI in at least four cases: Case Numbers 96-405, 96-425, 96-433, 96-437. Respondent DEP is the agency charged with the duty to administer the IPTF and Chapter 376, Florida Statutes. Financing Entities American Factors Group, Inc. (AFG) is a privately held corporation incorporated and operating under New Jersey law. AFG is not a party to this proceeding. AFG, acts as the servicing agent for contracts associated with factoring activities and other types of financing operations. AFG, through one of its divisions, Environmental Factors (EF), entered into factoring contracts with: (a) Gator Environmental, Inc. (Gator), general contractor; and (b) Tower Environmental, Inc. (Tower), prime subcontractor. Through these agreements, EF or its assignee bought the rights of Gator and Tower to future reimbursement payments at a percentage of the face value of the relevant invoices. The officers of AFG are: William R. Robins, President; John G. Engler, Vice President; and Paul H. DeCoster, Secretary. Bleak House, Inc. (Texas) owns the stock of AFG. American Environmental Enterprises, Inc. (AEE) is incorporated and operating under Nevada law. AEE is not a party to this proceeding. AEE, as the assignee under the EF contracts, is a third-party provider of capital to various entities in the reimbursement process. The officers of AEE are: William R. Robins, President; John G. Engler, Vice-President; and Paul H. DeCoster, Secretary. Bleak House, Inc., (Nevada) owns the stock of AEE. Bleak House, Inc., (Nevada) is incorporated and operating under Nevada law. Bleak House, Inc. (Texas) is incorporated and operating under Texas law. Officers of both corporations are William R. Robins, President; John G. Engler, Vice President; and Paul H. DeCoster, Secretary. Magazine Funding, Inc. owns the stock of both Bleak House corporations. Magazine Funding, Inc. is incorporated and operating under Nevada law. Officers of Magazine Funding, Inc. are William R. Robins, President; John G. Engler, Vice-President; and Paul H. DeCoster, Secretary. Family Food Garden, Inc. owns the stock of Magazine Funding, Inc. Family Food Garden, Inc. is incorporated and operating under Massachusetts law. Officers of Family Food Garden, Inc., are William R. Robins, President; and Paul H. DeCoster, Secretary. Six shareholders own the stock of Family Food Garden, Inc. None of these shareholders are related by familial ties to the officers or directors of the aforementioned companies or any relative thereof. Each of these companies -- ET, SEI, WIFL, AEE and AFG (including EF) share common officers and directors. Each of the companies maintain their own books and business records, file their own tax returns, and maintain records in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction in which they were established. They operate pursuant to their respective bylaws or trust documents. ET, WIFL, and SEI do not have common assets with AEE or AFG (including EF). ET, WIFL and SEI do not have a beneficial, financial, or familial relationship with AEE or AFG (including EF) as Rule 17-773.200, Florida Administrative Code, defines those terms. Despite the facial organizational and structural integrity of ET, WIFL, SEI, AEE and AFG, the officers and directors of AFG and/or AEE created ET, WIFL, and SEI, in large part, for the benefit of AFG and/or AEE as a means to invest funds in petroleum contamination site cleanup programs. The officers and directors of AFG specifically created SEI to meet the needs of AFG's Florida investors. The purpose of each funder is to maximize the profits of AFG and its investors. AFG has other investment vehicles (funders) which it uses at times depending on the needs of its investors. AFG waits until the last instance before deciding which entity it will designate as funder in any particular factoring scenario. AFG usually does not make that decision until the day AFG's designated funder issues a funder's authorization to the general contractor. At the hearing, Mr. Stephen Parrish, a vice president of AFG, testified as the party representative for ET and SEI. ET, WIFL and SEI have no employees. EF or AFG responded to DEP's request for Petitioners to provide additional information about the financing scheme utilized here using stationary bearing EF's or AFG's letterhead. At least five of these letters written on SEI's behalf, refer to ET, an affiliate of AEE, as the funder. Nineteen of the letters written on ET's behalf refer to ET, an affiliate of AEE, as the funder. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that AFG and/or AEE negotiated less than arms-length contractual agreements with ET, WIFL, and SEI. Petitioners admit that they are "affiliates" of AEE and AFG through contractual agreements. However, there are no written factoring contracts between Petitioners and AFG such as the ones that exist between AFG, Gator and Tower. The only documented evidence of agreements between Petitioners and AFG are transactional based bills of sale representing the sale to AEE of Petitioners' right to receive reimbursement from IPTF. AFG created these bills of sale for bookkeeping purposes. AFG did not even go to the trouble of tailoring the form for the bills of sale for their stated purpose. For all practical purposes, Petitioners are under the management and control of AEE and AFG. Petitioners and AFG disclosed their affiliation in meetings with DEP staff and through correspondence and other documentation, including but not limited to: (a) letter to DEP dated July 13, 1994 from AFG's counsel; (b) Addendum to Certification Affidavit signed by a certified public accountant in each application; (c) funder's authorization form; (d) letters sent to DEP between August 14, 1995 and November 19, 1996. Factoring and the Factoring Transactions Factoring is the purchase and sale of an asset, such as an account receivable, at a discount. An account receivable reflects the costs that a business charges after rendering a service but before the entity responsible for payment pays for that service. When a contractor completes a rehabilitation task, the contractor's invoice is an account receivable until it receives payment. In these consolidated cases, AEE provided short-term capital to Gator and Tower at an interest rate equal to the discount percentage of the relevant invoice (account receivable). Gator and Tower did not sell their account receivables to AEE. Instead, AEE, as the assignee of EF, purchased a contractual right to receive Gator's and Tower's reimbursement payments. In exchange, AEE advanced them a discounted amount of their invoices. The discounted amount of each invoice represents a loan from AEE to Gator and Tower. The difference between the face amount of the invoices and the discounted amount of the invoices represents interest. A discount percentage and an interest rate are equivalent. The amount of the discount represents interest on the loans or advances provided by AEE. It is an interest expense to the contractor or subcontractor. The amount that Gator and Tower actually incurred is the discounted amount of their invoices. The Factoring Agreements On or about April 25, 1994, EF and Tower entered into a Prime Subcontractor Factoring Agreement which set forth the terms under which EF or its assignee would finance Tower's site remediation work. At that time, the parties to the contract anticipated that EF would retain a general contractor to perform on-site remediation services with Tower acting as prime subcontractor. In the contract, Tower agreed to sell to EF its right to receive payments from the general contractor at a percentage of the underlying invoices. Subsequent to the execution of April 1994 Prime Subcontractor Factoring Agreement, Tower experienced financial difficulties resulting in its inability to pay subcontractors for work that they performed under non-EF contracts. These financial difficulties made it impossible for Tower to meet its payroll that was due in two weeks. Tower and its subcontractors under the non-EF contracts approached AFG and EF requesting financial assistance to resolve Tower's financial difficulties and to ensure that the subcontractors would be paid for their work. At that time, the program tasks under these non-EF contracts were complete or substantially complete. Given the preexisting contractual relationship between EF and Tower on other projects, AFG determined that it could use a similar financing arrangement to resolve Tower's financial problems. Such an arrangement also would protect AFG's investment in projects being conducted under the EF-Tower contracts. On or about July 8, 1994, EF and Tower executed an addendum to the April 1994 Prime Subcontractor Factoring Agreement. This addendum applied to projects that were not covered by the original Prime Subcontractor Factoring Agreement. The addendum required Tower to sell to EF Tower's right to receive payments from the general contractor. In return, EF agreed to advance Tower a discounted amount equal to 97 percent of the face amount of Tower's invoices. Tower agreed to pay EF 100 percent of the face amount of the invoices upon receipt of payments from the general contractor. The discounted amount of each invoice represents a loan from AEE to Tower. Late in 1993 or early in 1994, Gator began negotiating a contract with EF to provide general contracting services for on-site remediation work on unspecified Florida projects being financed by EF. Gator began serving as general contractor on some of these unspecified projects prior to the execution of a contract. On or about July 8, 1994, EF and Gator entered into a General Contractor Factoring Agreement. In this contract, EF agreed to provide financing for projects on which Gator served as general contractor. Gator agreed to sell to EF its right to receive payments from the funder (ET or SEI) at a percentage of Gator's underlying invoices. On or about July 13, 1994, EF and Gator entered into an Addendum to the July 8, 1994 General Contractor Factoring Agreement. This addendum applied to projects which were not covered under the original General Contractor Factoring Agreement. The addendum required Gator to sell to EF Gator's right to receive payments from the funder (ET or SEI). In return, EF agreed to advance Gator a discounted amount equal to 88 percent of the face amount of Gator's invoices. Gator agreed to pay EF 100 percent of the face amount of the invoices upon receipt of payments from the funder. The discounted amount on each invoice represents a loan from AEE to Gator. Gator and Tower negotiated the respective factoring contracts and addenda thereto at arms-length. Pursuant to the terms of these contracts, EF assigned to AEE the rights to payments due to Tower from Gator and to Gator from ET or SEI. ET and SEI were not named parties to these contracts. The factoring contracts and the corresponding addenda apply to the reimbursement applications at issue here. Pursuant to those agreements, the following interrelated transactions took place though not necessarily in this order. First, Tower provided EF with a Site Certification Affidavit for a certain project. Tower also sent Gator a complete reimbursement application for the project and an invoice for Tower's services and the services of its subcontractors and vendors. Next, EF designated either ET or SEI as the funder. The funder then sent Gator a funder's authorization form. This form acknowledged that EF was an affiliate of the funder. It is the only documented evidence of a contract between the funder and Gator. Gator's receipt of the form constituted authorization for Gator to perform work on the project subject to reimbursement for all reimbursable costs and paid subcontractor invoices. Within two days of receiving the funder's authorization for a project, Gator issued Tower a subcontract/purchase order. Gator notified EF and the funder of such issuance. Upon receipt of the subcontract/purchase order, Tower sold to AEE (at a discount) Tower's right to receive full payment from Gator. A bill of sale evidenced this transaction. Tower agreed to repay AEE the face amount of Tower's invoice upon receipt of payment from Gator. Tower executed an agreement indemnifying the funder and guaranteeing the performance of all services and the delivery of all goods. Tower agreed to a reserve trust fund deposit as security for the ultimate reimbursement payment from the IPTF. Within four days of receiving the complete reimbursement application from Tower and within two days of receiving the funder's authorization, Gator and a certified public accountant (retained by EF) were supposed to review all supporting documentation on the project. The stated purpose of this review was to determine whether the invoices of Tower and its subcontractors were reimbursable under DEP guidelines. As to 30 of the instant applications, Tower completed the on-site work before Gator became involved. In those cases, Gator performed a minimal due diligence review, if any, of Tower's on-site work. This included comparing Tower's technical and administrative files with the applications prepared by Tower. Without Gator's minimal review and risk assessment on these 30 applications, EF would not have included them as projects covered by the addenda to the factoring contracts. As to 15 of the instant applications, Petitioners claim that Gator not only reviewed Tower's work product but also, issued subcontractor/purchase orders selected and scheduled subcontractors, and made on-site visits. However, there is no persuasive record evidence as to the specific activities or the level of Gator's involvement in on-site work on any one of these 15 applications. When Gator and EF's certified public accountant completed their assessment, Gator prepared a deficiency letter and sent it to all parties. The report advised EF, the funder and Tower whether any of Tower's charges were in excess of the reimbursable amount. Tower could accept or reject any disallowance set forth in the deficiency letter. If there was no problem with a disallowance or within five days of Tower's acceptance of a disallowance, AEE advanced Tower an amount equal to 97 percent of Tower's invoice. Tower used these funds to pay subcontractors and vendors. The discounted amount of Tower's invoice represents the actual cost that Tower incurred. Tower signed a repayment agreement in which it promised to repay AEE the face amount of Tower's invoice upon receipt of payment from Gator. When Tower received the discounted cash advance from AEE, it had to contribute the reserve deposit (to cover any reimbursement shortfalls) to a reserve trust, domiciled in Bermuda, which was affiliated with EF. Tower was a beneficiary of the reserve trust to the extent of its contribution less any monies it owed AEE after the IPTF reimbursed the funder. Meanwhile, Gator sold to AEE (at a discount) Gator's right to receive full payment from the funder. A bill of sale evidenced this transaction. Gator agreed to repay AEE the face amount of Gator's invoice upon receipt of payment from the funder. AEE advanced Gator an amount equal to 88 percent of the face amount of Gator's invoice. The discounted amount of Gator's invoice represent the amount that Gator actually incurred. Gator used these funds to pay Tower the face amount of its invoice. Tower in turn repaid AEE in full. Gator signed a repayment agreement in which it promised to repay AEE the face amount of its invoice upon receipt of payment from the funder. For the 45 applications at issue here, the addendum to the General Contractor Factoring Agreement did not require Gator to deposit any amount in the reserve trust which was domiciled in Bermuda and affiliated with EF. Next, Gator prepared an invoice for its services and the services of Tower and its subcontractors including a 15 percent markup and an application preparation fee. Gator's invoice could not include a charge for "management time." Then, Gator forwarded its invoice and Tower's invoice to the funder together with the complete reimbursement application. In the meantime, ET and SEI sold AEE their right to receive reimbursement from the IPTF at a discount equal to 87 percent of their total invoice amount. A bill of sale for each transaction is the only documented evidence of an agreement between the funders and AEE. ET and SEI agreed to repay AEE for the face amount of their invoices upon receipt of payment from IPTF. The funder prepared an invoice for the face amount of Gator's and Tower's invoices plus a 15 percent markup. Upon receipt of ET's or SEI's invoice, AEE advanced them the discounted amount as agreed. ET or SEI used the funds advanced by AEE to pay Gator the face amount of its invoice. Gator in turn repaid AEE in full. When ET or SEI receive a reimbursement payment from the IPTF, they will remit the total payment to AEE. The total cost for each project increased as the discount percentage and the face amount of each invoice passing up through the chain grew larger. In regards to some applications, the relevant dates on the subcontract/purchase order, Gator invoice, and Tower invoice are the same. It is clear that the turn around time on all of the above referenced transactions, including the time between the payment of the advances by AEE to Gator and Tower and their subsequent repayment of 100 percent of the face amount of an invoice to AEE, was very short--a matter of days or weeks. In Summary, the financing of the pending reimbursement applications involved the following interrelated transactions but not necessarily in this order: AEE as the assignee of EF purchased the right of ET, SEI, Gator and Tower to receive reimbursement for their services at a discount. ET, SEI, Gator and Tower agreed to repay AEE in full. Tower prepared and submitted to Gator an invoice for services provided by Tower and its subcontractors. Tower also prepared and submitted to Gator a reimbursement application for the program task. AEE advanced Tower the agreed upon discount amount. Tower used these funds to pay its subcontractors and vendors. AEE advanced Gator the agreed upon discount amount. Gator used these funds to pay Tower. Tower repaid AEE in full. Gator prepared an invoice for services provided by Gator, Tower and Tower's subcontractors including a 15 percent markup and submitted it with the reimbursement application either to ET or SEI. AEE advanced ET or SEI the discounted amounts as agreed. ET or SEI paid Gator in the full amount of Gator's invoice plus markup. Gator repaid AEE in full. ET or SEI prepared an invoice for its services plus the services of Gator, Tower, and Tower's subcontractors and a 15 percent markup. ET or SEI submitted the reimbursement application to DEP. When ET or SEI receives reimbursement from the IPTF, they will remit the total payment to AEE. The Applications Petitioners filed the 45 applications that are the subject of this proceeding between July 18, 1994 and February 17, 1995. The financing scheme that Petitioners utilized in these applications was unique. Prior to receiving these applications, DEP never had reviewed reimbursement applications using the type of financing scheme at issue here. In fact, the instant cases present a scenario never contemplated by DEP when promulgating rules and developing written policies. DEP has established a list by which it determines whether an applicant is charging a "reasonable rate." DEP developed that list in accordance with Petroleum Cleanup Reimbursement (PCR) Guideline Number 1. PCR 1 establishes a "predominant rate" for costs involved in the site rehabilitation process. The predominant rate may be exceeded by up to 30 percent for personnel charges, and by up to 50 percent for non-personnel charges. Within these ranges, DEP evaluates each application and determines whether the PRFCSR is entitled to reimbursement for "allowable cost" at "reasonable rates." The work performed by Tower was at or near DEP's "predominant" rate. In no instance were Tower's rates near the upper limits of the reasonable rate ceiling. Tower's invoices appear to represent work that was integral to site rehabilitation which was broken down into appropriate units and rates. There is no evidence of "price fixing" between any entities engaged in site rehabilitation. There is no evidence that Tower intentionally inflated the costs of cleanup or of the scope of cleanup services to cover the cost of financing. There are no familial, beneficial or financial relationships, or any other form of affiliation between Tower and its subcontractors. A certified public accountant (CPA) attestation accompanied the applications indicating that Petitioners incurred (paid) all relevant costs. The applications did not include charges associated with the financing arrangements as line items. The CPA attestations referenced an addendum to the Certification Affidavit. The addendum indicated that "American Environmental Enterprises, Inc., an affiliate of the Environmental Trust, has provided financing to certain contractors and subcontractors by factoring invoices which are included within this application." The CPA provided the reference to the addendum in the CPA attestation as an "emphasis of the matter" statement rather then an "exception," or a modification of the CPA's attestation that Petitioners had incurred all costs in the application. The CPA firm performing the attestation services previously informed DEP of its intent with regard to "emphasis of the matter" reports. Nevertheless, the difference between the face amount of an invoice and the discounted amount of that invoice clearly represents interest. This interest was not allowable as an actual and reasonable cost of site remediation because Gator and Tower agreed to accept a lesser amount for their services prior to submittal of the applications. Therefore, they did not actually incur the amount reflected in the face amount of their invoices. DEP's predominate rates and units are fully loaded. Interest rate charges on borrowed capital from unrelated third-party sources are a "cost of doing business." DEP's fully-loaded rates include a variable for all direct and indirect business overhead costs such as rent, utilities and personnel costs. The direct and indirect overhead components of DEP's fully-loaded rates include the cost of short-term "working" capital. However, DEP never intended the predominate rate schedule to entitle an applicant to reimbursement for costs that it did not actually incur. In the instant cases, funds that passed down through the chain from ET or SEI to Gator or from Gator to Tower flowed directly and immediately back to AEE who was affiliated with the funder. Any profit derived by the funder, ET or SEI, will flow directly to AEE and its investors. The amount that Petitioner's actually incurred before they submitted the applications was the amount that AEE advanced to Tower and/or its subcontractors for integral site work plus the actual cost of Gator's allowable services, if any, which were separate and distinct from Tower's work, plus any allowable markup(s). Factoring Policy At the time that Petitioners submitted the subject applications for reimbursement, there was no rule or written guideline governing financing transactions, including factoring, occurring outside of the usual chain of reimbursement. DEP normally did not inquire about such financing so long as an applicant did not pass the costs of such financial transactions to DEP in the application as a line-item cost. There was no policy disallowing reimbursement for the face amount of the invoices when an applicant sold the right to payment, i.e. the receivable, at a discount to a disinterested third-party in an arms- length transaction. Commencing on August 31, 1994, DEP began to develop a policy regarding the use of factoring as a financing mechanism in the reimbursement program. DEP staff exchanged numerous documents regarding the subject of factoring. In one of those documents, Charles Williams, DEP's Reimbursement Administrator indicated that "we absolutely need to have a Big Meeting to decide what to do once and for all." In a November 1994 telephone conversation, DEP provided AFG's counsel with an informal opinion of how DEP would handle a factored application as described by Will Robins of AFG in an earlier meeting with DEP staff. The statement was: that the difference between the amount that a contractor accepted in payment for his services, which was a discounted amount after factoring, . . . and the face value of the invoice which was claimed and marked up in the application was determined to be a carrying charge or interest, which is specifically disallowed for reimbursement in the reimbursement rule. American Factors Group. Inc. and the Environmental Trust v. Department of Environmental Protection, DOAH Case No. 95-0343RU, Final Order issued July 24, 1995. DEP advised AFG's counsel that it would deal with factored applications involving other entities on a case by case basis. On December 20, 1994, John Ruddell, Director of DEP's Division of Waste Management, sought permission from DEP's Policy Coordinating Committee to promulgate a rule amendment to Chapter 62-773, Florida Administrative Code (formerly Chapter 17-773, Florida Administrative Code.) A draft rule accompanied the request. The draft rule was developed in compliance with Chapter 94-311, Section 6, Laws of Florida, which required DEP to revise its reimbursement rule. The draft rule provided that: nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to authorize reimbursement for the face amount of any bill or invoice representing incurred costs when the receivable has been sold at a discount. In all such cases, reimbursement shall be limited to the actual discounted amount accepted by the provider of the goods or services . . . . The draft rule had the effect of prohibiting factoring as a mechanism for financing site rehabilitation work. It did not single out any other type of financing mechanism. DEP did not promulgate the draft rule because the problems with the program were too numerous to correct in a timely fashion by rulemaking. Instead, DEP focused on drafting proposed legislation. In the meantime, DEP requested that Petitioners furnish additional information regarding the instant applications. Between March 1, 1995 and November 17, 1995, ET and SEI responded to DEP's requests with letters bearing AFG's or EF's letterhead. The letters state that prior to filing the applications, ET or SEI paid Gator for the face amount of Gator's invoices plus Gator's markup. Gator then paid the subcontractors for the face amount of their invoices. Prior to these payments, AEE an affiliate of ET, or SEI purchased the right to receive the amount due to Gator from ET and the right to receive the amount due to subcontractors from Gator. In each case, AEE bought the right to receive at a discount. According to the financing scheme, ET or SEI received sufficient funds from AEE to make the payments to Gator. ET or SEI, in turn, were obligated to pay AEE following their receipt of the funds claimed in the reimbursement application. On April 21, 1995, DEP issued a memorandum to DEP application reviewers to guide them in the processing of reimbursement applications. The memorandum indicated that: invoices from subcontractors, vendors, suppliers and/or the general contractor which were paid a factored (e.g., discounted) amount by a third party capital participant (e.g., funder) represents the actual amount incurred by that entity and subsequently by the general contractor. The memorandum directed reviewers to deduct costs in an amount equal to the difference in the face value of an invoice or application and the amount paid for the right to receive payment under that invoice or application. DEP did not direct the policy set forth in the April 21, 1995 memorandum towards any individual company. DEP intended the policy to apply to "any combination of a general contractor, management company, funder and responsible party" in any situation in which a third-party capital provider paid any program participants a factored (discounted) amount of their invoices." The April 21, 1995, policy did not condition DEP's position on factoring on any affiliation between any parties. Between August 14, 1995 and January 19, 1996, DEP took action on the 45 applications that are the subject of this proceeding. As reflected in those notices, DEP denied reimbursement of costs claimed in those applications "as a result of factoring of the supporting invoices" and because "the difference between the face amount of the supporting invoices and the amount factored represents interests or carrying charges which are specifically excluded from reimbursement pursuant to Rule 62-773.350, F.A.C." The notices properly reflect a basis of denial of costs that is consistent with DEP's policy as reflected in the December 20, 1994 draft rule and the April 21, 1995 memorandum. DEP has proven that its policy on factoring is consistent with its legislative mandate to deny reimbursement of costs which are not actual and reasonable. Affiliation Policy Not all out-of-chain affiliations between entities constitute a problem with regard to reimbursement. However, the instant cases presented DEP with unique facts as to the relationship between AEE, AFG, ET, WIFL and SEI which DEP's rules and written policies do cover. The mere existence of common corporate officers does not, in and of itself, cause AFG/AEE, ET, WIFL, and SEI to lose their integrity as separate legal entities, or make them "one and the same." Common officers of corporations are not an element of the term "financial relationship," nor does the concept of common corporate officers appear in the definitions of beneficial relationship, familial relationship, indirect interests, material interests, or sources of income. DEP's position at hearing that "affiliation" is a major key to it's position with regard to factoring does not appear in any of the documents in which DEP has either discussed or disseminated information regarding factoring. There are no requirements in DEP's application forms to disclose the nature of the relationships between an applicant and an applicant's source of financing. DEP makes no standard inquiry of funders to disclose the nature of any affiliation between the funder and the provider of capital. Nevertheless, the record supports DEP's position that it can deny reimbursement for costs when a PRFCSR has an "affiliation" with a factoring company outside of the chain of reimbursement under the facts of these cases. It is not contested that ET, WIFL, SEI and AFG and its sister company AEE are affiliated. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that this affiliation goes beyond a mere contractual agreement. AFG, AEE, WIFL (which owns ET and is a trust beneficiary), and SEI have common officers and directors. These officers and directors created ET and SEI primarily for the benefit of AFG and AEE as conduits for investment of funds in Florida's petroleum contamination site rehabilitation program. AFG has other investment vehicles, in addition to ET and SEI, which it can designate as a funder depending on the needs of its investors. AFG usually waits until the last instance to select the funder that it will use in any particular case. AFG often selects the funder on the same day that the funder issues its authorization to the general contractor. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that AFG and/or AEE and the Petitioners did not negotiate the contractual agreements between them at arms-length. A bill of sale evidencing the sale of Petitioners' right to receive reimbursement on each application is the only documented evidence of agreements between Petitioners and AFG or AEE. Any profit derived by ET flows back to AEE through WIFL. ET and SEI are under the management and control of AEE and AFG's officers and directors. For all practical purposes ET and SEI are "one and the same" as AEE and AFG. The affiliation between AEE, AFG, WIFL, ET and SEI is especially troublesome here where AEE advanced the discounted amount of invoices to: (a) Tower so that it could pay its subcontractors in full; (b) Gator so that it could pay Tower in full; and (c) its affiliates, ET and SEI, so that they could pay Gator in full. Gator's and Tower's immediate repayment in the face amount of the invoices to AEE is a back flow of funds (interest) to an entity affiliated with Petitioners. All of these transactions took place before Petitioners filed the instant applications or within a few days thereafter. They create a paper trail indicating that the parties within the "chain" at each level incurred the face amount of the next lowest level. However, the only amount actually incurred at the time Petitioners submitted the applications was the discounted amount of the invoices. Interest or Carrying Charges "Incurred" means that "allowable costs have been paid." (Rule 17- 773.200(9), Florida Administrative Code) Under DEP's rules, the facial meaning of the term is that persons must receive due return for their invoiced goods and services, billed on a units and reasonable rates basis, for allowable costs of site rehabilitation. A finance charge usually does not effect DEP's determination of charges that were "incurred" unless that charge appears as a line-item cost which is not the case here. However, these consolidated cases presented DEP with a new scenario in which Gator and Tower immediately repaid the face amount of their invoices to AEE retaining only the discount amount of their invoices to pay the actual costs of the level below them before submitting the applications. Moreover, they included the carrying charges in the applications as having been "incurred." Case Number 95-403RU, Pick Kwick No. 143, DEP Facility No. 528515448 is a typical example showing how the entities in the chain paid interest charges and included them in the application. In that case, Gator provided Tower with a subcontract/purchase order on July 8, 1994. Tower provided Gator with an invoice in the amount of $17,556.43 on July 8, 1994. Tower's invoice represented services performed in connection with the initial remedial action task at the Pick Kwick No. 143 facility including $269.90 for application preparation. On or about July 8, 1994, Gator provided ET with an invoice in the amount of $20,149.41. This invoice included Gator's 15 percent markup in the amount of $2,592.98 and $269.90 for application preparation. On August 4, 1994, AEE purchased Gator's right to receive payment from ET. AEE advanced Gator $17,696.44 or 88 percent of Gator's invoice. The interest charge on the advance was $2,452.97. On August 4, 1994, AEE purchased Tower's right to receive payment from Gator. AEE advanced Tower $17,029.74 or 97 percent of Tower's invoice. The interest charge on the advance was $526.69. On August 10, 1994, AEE purchased ET's right to receive payment from IPTF. AEE advanced ET $20,831.41 or 87 percent of ET's invoice. The interest charge on the advance was $2,981.93. On August 15, 1994, ET filed the reimbursement application in the amount of $23,813.34. This amount included ET's 15 percent markup on the face amount of Gator's invoice. Prior to filing the application, ET paid Gator, $20,149.41. Gator then paid Tower $17,556.43. Following receipt of payment from ET, Gator repaid AEE $20,149.41. Following receipt of payment from Gator, Tower repaid AEE $17,556.43. Gator and Tower made these repayments within a matter of weeks of the time that AEE advanced funds to them. Calculating simple interest, the annualized interest rate on the loan from AEE to Gator was approximately 144 percent. The annualized interest rate on the loan from AEE to Tower was approximately 36 percent. These were the interest rates, as predetermined by the discount percentage in the addenda to the factoring contracts (Gator at 88 percent and Tower at 97 percent), in approximately 30 of the 45 applications. In the other 15 applications, the Gator sold its right to receive payment at a discount percentage between 87 to 89 percent of the face amount of the invoice. In those cases, Tower sold its right to receive payment at a discount percentage between 95 and 72 percent of the face amount of the invoice. There is no evidence that Petitioners made adjustments to the costs in the applications where Gator and Tower sold their right to payments for a discount percentage at an amount other than as stated in the addenda to the factoring contracts. Analysis of the transactions involved in each of the subject applications clearly shows that the financing scheme utilized here was not equivalent to a "plain vanilla" loan from a disinterested third-party capital provider such as a bank. DEP properly deducted costs from Petitioners' applications that represented interest which Gator and Tower agreed to repay to Petitioners' affiliate, AEE, before Petitioners submitted the applications. The only costs that Gator and Tower actually incurred was the net amount that they received after factoring their invoices. That amount includes the difference between the face amount Gator's and Tower's invoices and the amount that AEE advanced to them. Gator and Tower did not actually incur allowable costs in the amount of the interest paid to AEE when they : (a) agreed to accept reimbursement for their services at a discount; (b) accepted the full amount of their invoices from the next highest level; and (c) passed the full amount of their respective invoices back to AEE. DEP did not envision this type of elaborate factoring plan when it created its simple definition of "incurred" as meaning allowable costs have been paid. It is important for participants in the program to know the "rules of the game." Applicants have to make technical and financial decisions regarding site cleanup. They have to pay all contractors and subcontractors prior to submitting an application. In this case Petitioners' attempts to win DEP's pre-approval of their various factoring proposals were unsuccessful because DEP did not have enough information about the transactions and the relationships of the entities involved. After DEP received additional information from Petitioners, it became abundantly clear that the rules were insufficient to cover the financing scheme presented here. As early as November 4, 1993, Petitioners acknowledged that "the provisions of Rule 170773, F.A.C. do not specifically address the types of situations that arise when providing capital for cleanup activities through funding groups such as AFG." Petitioners revealed their final plan in July of 1994 just before they began filing the applications. At that time, Petitioners knew DEP's concerns. They also knew DEP could not make a decision on an application until they filed the application with DEP. Inconsistent Application of Statutes, Rules and Written Guidelines DEP has authorized financial transactions by which other applicants, after incurring (paying) all costs and filing their applications, sold or pledged their right to future payment to an entity outside the usual reimbursement chain. In those cases, DEP did not deduct interest associated with such transactions. DEP's approval of such transactions came before Petitioners filed their applications in this matter. There is no evidence that those transactions involved the factoring of invoices and an agreement to repay interest before the PRFCSR submitted the applications. Likewise, there is no evidence of an affiliation and less than arms-length negotiation between the funder and the financing company in those cases. The record contains no evidence of an inconsistent application of DEP's statutes, rules or written policies before or after Petitioners filed the instant applications. Reservoir Capital On March 14, 1994, DEP met with Reservoir Capital Corporation (Reservoir) to discuss a change of address notice directing reimbursement orders and checks for Clean America Financial, Inc. (Clean America) applications to a Baltimore, Maryland address. During that meeting Reservoir's counsel informed DEP that Reservoir "paid a percentage, not the full cost, for each application." DEP representative, Paul DiGuisseppe, informed Charles Williams of that conversation by memorandum dated March 15, 1994. Mr. DiGuisseppe later spoke with a representative of Clean America (the funder) and advised him to provide a list of facilities pledged to Reservoir for which notices and payments were to be sent to the Baltimore, Maryland address. On March 30, 1994, Clean America wrote to Charles Williams and Doug Jones, providing a list of sites pledged to Reservoir and directing DEP to send payments to the Baltimore, Maryland address. Among the sites pledged to Reservoir were Curry Station, DEP Facility No. 309103537 and Scardo Automotive, DEP Facility No. 428511319. On June 17, 1994, DEP issued a reimbursement order to Scardo Automotive at the Baltimore, Maryland address. On July 1, 1994, DEP issued a reimbursement order to Curry Station at the Baltimore, Maryland address. These orders did not contain a denial of costs or deductions of interest based upon the disclosed fact that Reservoir had purchased the applications for an amount less than their face value. However, there is no evidence that either of the applicants sold the right to receive reimbursement before submitting the application. Additionally, there is no evidence that Reservoir was affiliated with Clean America. On April 11, 1996, DEP revisited the Reservoir Capital factoring mechanism. In that instance, DEP reviewed a situation in which Reservoir Capital directly paid a subcontractor's invoice in an application that All American Funding (All American) filed. Reservoir had purchased the receivable of All American, and applied part of the purchase price to directly pay a subcontractor. There is no evidence of any "affiliation" between Reservoir and any other entity in the reimbursement chain. Prior to the meeting with Reservoir, DEP intended to deny those costs since it appeared that Reservoir actually paid them rather than the applicant, All American. As a result of that meeting, DEP requested additional information from Reservoir. At the time of hearing in these cases, DEP had not made a decision in that case pending receipt of the requested information. Governor's Bank On March 9, 1994, Governors Bank wrote to Charles Williams requesting that DEP directly remit to Governors Bank any reimbursement due on an application filed by Clean America due to the fact that Clean America "secured its borrowings from the bank with any rights to payment which CAFC has in connection with certain reimbursement applications." On March 30, 1994, Clean America sent a letter to Charles Williams and Doug Jones requesting that the DEP honor the March 9, 1994 letter directing payment to Governor's Bank. On November 4, 1994, Clean America advised DEP that DEP was to remit additional final reimbursements to Governors Bank. The letter advised DEP that "based upon a loan relationship Governor's Bank established with Clean America . . ." reimbursement payments had been assigned to Governors Bank and therefore "all payments and proceeds must be remitted to Governor's Bank." There is no record evidence that Clean America entered into a loan agreement with Governors Bank prior to submittal of the application or that the applications included claims for interest paid to the bank. There is no evidence of any affiliation between Clean America and the bank. The financing mechanism that Petitioners used for these 45 applications is not similar to a "plain vanilla" bank loan where a lender advances funds after an applicant files an application and directs DEP to forward reimbursement payments to a bank lock box. Barriston Environmental Investors L.P. On March 11, 1993, Barriston Environmental Investors, L.P. (Barriston) wrote to John Ruddell, Director of the DEP's Division of Waste Management and described a mechanism of financing by which Barriston (the funder) would obtain funds, at least partially through bank debt, for the payment of subcontractors' site rehabilitation invoices. In the Barriston proposal, the subcontractor would remit an "investment banking fee" of 5 percent of the value of the invoices back to the funder upon payment of 100 percent of the invoices. Barriston's letter acknowledged that this fee would not be reimbursable under the program. In addition, the Barriston funder would receive a commitment fee from the site owner which the Barriston funder would not include in the reimbursement claim. A reference in the letter to the payment of interest on funds advanced on the site owner's behalf does not specify the time frame in which interest would be paid, i.e. before or after the filing of an application. The letter sought DEP's approval and assurance that the payment of 100 percent of the invoices would entitle Barriston to full reimbursement including both markups. Barriston's letter requested an informal response because it realized that DEP had no authority to take official agency action without the submission of an application. On April 9, 1993, DEP responded to the Barriston letter. In its response, DEP stated that the arrangements appeared to be consistent with current statutes and rules and would be eligible for the full reimbursement allowed by DEP's rules. However, there is no record evidence of any official agency action on an application submitted in accordance with Barriston's proposal. Interest Indemnification Interest indemnification encompasses a situation in which a contractor pays interest directly back to a funder during the period of time after submittal of an application but before reimbursement by the IPTF. In June 1995, a DEP employee contacted Petitioners' certified public accountant (CPA) inquiring about the practice and seeking copies of his other clients' interest indemnification contracts. After that conversation, the CPA discussed the matter with another DEP employee to confirm his understanding that financing issues were outside of the scope of DEP's review so long as an applicant did not include such charges in the application. Since the June 1995 discussions, DEP has reimbursed applications which were financed through interest indemnification without adjustments for the payment of interest. However, the interest indemnification payments applied to applications after the applicants filed them with DEP to replace long-term interest that IPTF is no longer paying. The applicants were not seeking reimbursement of those payments as incurred costs. Petitioners have not established their entitlement to reimbursement for the factored amounts of their invoices. DEP presented competent evidence to support its "factoring" and "affiliation" policies as applied here. In addition, the evidence indicates that DEP has not inconsistently applied such policies to other similarly situated reimbursement applicants. Petitioners have failed to prove that DEP's denial of costs based upon factoring is not reasonably related to the purpose of reimbursement review and otherwise unsupported by competent evidence. The April 21, 1995 policy statement is a rule as defined in Section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes. DEP was not aware of the need for such a rule when it made the last substantive amendments to Rule 17-773, Florida Administrative Code, in 1993. Nevertheless, DEP demonstrated that the non-rule policy is a reasonable interpretation of Sections 376.3071(12)(b) and 376.3071(12)(d), Florida Statutes. DEP provided an evidentiary basis to support its factoring policy in these consolidated cases. The difference between the face amount of the invoices and their factored amount did not represent allowable costs which were actual and reasonable. DEP deducted the amount of the relevant discount percentage (on a prorated basis) from each invoice submitted by Tower and its subcontractors. There is a discrepancy between the amount that DEP deducted from each invoice (itemized) and the total deduction based on a lump sum in 33 of the 45 cases which DEP did not explain during the hearing. Therefore, before DEP enters a Final Order, it should review the supporting documents to determine the correct deduction in each application. "Value Added" Policy Funders and contractors are entitled to take a markup of paid contractor and subcontractor invoices for allowable costs at reasonable rates. The invoices must represent actual and reasonable costs which are integral to site remediation. Contractors are entitled to a first-tier 15 percent markup for supervising and/or coordinating on-site remediation, for investing capital while awaiting reimbursement by paying subcontractors invoices, and for assuming liability for the performance of the subcontractors. Funders generally are entitled to a second-tier 15 percent markup as an incentive to provide funds to finance the work. Markups are expressly subject to limitations set forth in Section 17- 773.350(9), (10) and (11), Florida Administrative Code. There are no other specific or implied limitations on markups in the rules or written guidelines. Requiring each entity that receives a markup in the reimbursement chain to pay contractor, subcontractor, and vendor invoices helps ensure that each level in the reimbursement chain pays the participant at the next lowest level. In these cases, each level in the reimbursement application chain "technically" paid the next lowest level. DEP policy in effect at the time Petitioners submitted the instant applications for reimbursement was to allow markups of paid invoices at two levels. However, prior to the submission of the instant applications, DEP was not aware of a case where a general contractor claimed a markup for work that was complete before the general contractor became involved in the project. With regard to all of the pending reimbursement applications, Gator applied a 15 percent markup to all of Tower's invoices including the invoices of Tower's subcontractors. With regard to a minimum of 30 of the 45 sites, Gator clearly did not supervise, manage or direct site remediation activities performed by Tower or its subcontractors. In fact, Gator did not become involved until after Tower completed these tasks. In at least 30 of the instant cases, Tower was acting as the general contractor when all of the on-site remediation took place. However, Tower could not apply a 15 percent markup to the invoices for its own services. Gator made it possible for Petitioners to claim the markup on Tower's invoices. As to the 15 sites at which Gator allegedly had some type of involvement with on-site remediation activities, there is no persuasive evidence regarding the specific activities or the level of Gator's involvement on any particular project. On September 1, 1994, Restoration Assistance, an entity under contract with DEP to review reimbursement applications, issued a memorandum to its reviewers directing them to complete their review and do a "total denial" on "Gator Environmental packages." The memorandum advised the reviewers that "Bruce" was drafting canned language to use in DEP's denial statement. On or about April 21, 1995, DEP presented its reviewers with a memorandum setting forth an initial overview of a "value added" policy for markups taken by a "management company" involved in site remediation activities. According to the memorandum, DEP would allow reimbursement of claims for actual project management work and value-added services. The memorandum further provided that DEP would allow markups to a management company which only provided cash-flow services for a majority of the program task period even if the management company performed no other service. However, DEP would deny a markup if the management company provided such services during a "one month time period." DEP intended for the April 21, 1995 memorandum to acquaint DEP reviewers with the emerging DEP policy on markups. DEP's rules and written guidelines do not address the distinction made in the April 21, 1995 memorandum regarding the timing during which a management company could provide cash flow services and still be entitled to a markup. On October 20, 1995, Charles Williams issued a DEP policy memorandum for reviewers to use in reviewing reimbursement applications. Through that memorandum, DEP finalized and implemented the "value added" policy. The memorandum states that: if the 'GC' [general contractor] was involved with the management of the project during the course of the actual work by subcontractors, [DEP] rules do not preclude them from applying a markup. However, if the 'GC' came along after the work was completed by other contractors and their involvement was more of a due diligence exercise to faciltiate (sic) a funding arrangement by a third party, then the 'GC' markup would not be justified, though a markup by the actual funder listed as the PRFCSR could be allowed. Prior to the establishment of the "value added" policy on October 20, 1995, DEP made no inquiry as to whether a contractor provided value added services in order for the contractor to be entitled to a markup. DEP applied the "value added" policy to all pending applications (including the ones at issue here) resulting in a deduction of Gator's markup in all of the subject cases. The Department of Banking and Finance reviewed and issued a report (Comptroller's Report) on the Petroleum Contamination Site Cleanup Reimbursement Program on November 29, 1994. This report addressed the issue of markups in the reimbursement program. The Comptroller's Report recognized that DEP found the multiple markup structure to be beneficial in that it "attracts the involvement of companies whose role in cleanup projects is limited to providing funds to finance the work [and] attracts investors who provide funds which might not otherwise be available--thus facilitating cleanup of contaminated sites." The Comptroller's Report describes a two-tier arrangement involving a "prime contractor engaged to manage the cleanup project" and a "funding entity." The report acknowledges that the prime contractor "might have only limited direct involvement in the cleanup, having engaged subcontractors for most or all of the actual work." The example in the Comptroller's report did not state what DEP's policy would be if a subcontractor had completed all of the actual work before the contractor became involved. Even without this consideration, the report was critical of DEP's allowance of markups on either level. The Petroleum Efficiency Task Force (PETF) issued its final report on financing contractors on August 17, 1994. This report discussed DEP's policy of allowing two markups. In this discussion, the PETF recognized that "funders must be able to rely on the skills and knowledge of contractors to minimize reimbursement shortfalls." The PETF recommended for future consideration that "the Department should provide in rulemaking that contractors who take the first-tier 15 percent markup on subcontracted work must adequately supervise the work." When the PETF issued its report, there was no existing rule that established any level of on site supervision or any other specific criteria for applying one of the two allowable levels of markup, other than paying invoices for integral site rehabilitation work. DEP's rules and written guidelines did not substantively change with regard to the "value added" policy from the April 22, 1993 revision of Chapter 17-773, Florida Administrative Code, to the October 20, 1995 memorandum which established a non-rule limitation on the ability of an entity to apply a markup to paid invoices. Because the rules and written guidelines do not reflect the "value added" policy, a participant in the program would not be aware of it even if the participant requested program information. Gator technically paid 100 percent of the face value of Tower's invoices. Without Gator's involvement, AFG and AEE would not have financed these applications. However, DEP presented persuasive evidence at the hearing to support its position that Gator was not entitled to a markup because Gator's services added no value to site remediation projects. In the instant cases, Gator performed some type of a minimal due diligence review of Tower's site work. Gator allegedly reviewed Tower's technical and administrative files, cross-referenced technical and administrative files with the applications which Tower prepared, made visits to some job sites, and prepared a deficiency letter to determine the appropriateness of the scope of Tower's work. However, all of these functions were repetitious of the work that was performed by Tower and the certified public accountant attesting to the Certification Affidavit. Gator limited the deficiency letters to the question of whether the scope of Tower's services were reimbursable. However, there is no evidence that Tower's deficiency letters resulted in adjustments to costs in the applications as filed by Petitioners. The deficiency letters served only to adjust the discount percentage set forth in the addenda to the factoring contracts. Tower was a qualified engineering consulting firm that employed its own engineers and geologists. Gator's employee that reviewed the technical information in Tower's files was not a Florida professional engineer. He was not qualified as a certified public accountant to determine whether a charge was within DEP's reasonable rates. The Gator employee was a Florida professional geologist but he did not sign and seal the deficiency letter as such. There is no reference in DEP's rules or written policies to a deficiency letter. AFG required Gator to prepare the deficiency letter within two days of the date on which EF provided Gator with the opportunity to review a completed task. This two-day turn around time allegedly afforded efficiency of payment. Gator did not begin its review of an reimbursement application until after Gator received an invoice from Tower. The relevant subcontract/purchase order issued by Gator to Tower, the Tower invoice and the Gator invoice were often prepared on the same day. Gator technically paid Tower's invoices with funds that AEE advanced. Tower used these funds to repay AEE. When Gator received payment from ET or SEI, it passed the funds back to AEE before ET or SEI submitted the applications to DEP or immediately thereafter. Pursuant to the addenda to the factoring contracts, Tower, not Gator, contributed to a reserve trust account which AEE will use to cover any reimbursement shortfalls. Gator indemnified AEE and guaranteed its own work but did not assume a risk of loss on Tower's work. On most if not all of the applications, Gator performed no meaningful management or supervisory functions. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Gator's primary purpose in these consolidated cases was not to afford AFG a level of comfort as to the appropriate scope of the individual program tasks but to ensure that third-party investors maximized their profits. The "value added" agency statement has the effect of a rule which DEP did not contemplate when it promulgated its rules and written policies. Nevertheless, DEP's decision concerning the value added policy is within the scope of its delegated legislative authority. DEP has proven that reimbursement for Gator's services was not allowable as actual and reasonable costs of site remediation. Therefore, it is not entitled to a first-tier markup. Computer Costs Prior to January 1, 1995, DEP determined the reimbursability of computer costs based upon a "units and rates basis" as provided by Rules 17- 773.100(5), and 17-733.700(2)(d), Florida Administrative Code. DEP evaluated computer costs "as a certain number of hours [at] a reasonable rate." Pursuant to the units and rates rule provisions, there was no rational basis for DEP to deny the computer costs contained in applications filed prior to January 1, 1995. On January 1, 1995, DEP established a policy by which it would disallow in full any computer costs greater than $750. Under that policy, DEP would reimburse in full an applicant's computer costs with supporting invoices of $749 dollars, but disallow in full computer costs with supporting invoices of $751. DEP's reimbursement orders involving more than $750 in computer costs after January 1, 1995 routinely stated that "there was insufficient justification to demonstrate that this computer time was integral to the task or necessary." DEP applied the computer policy to all applications filed and pending review at the time it developed the policy, regardless of when an applicant performed the work or generated the records. DEP applied the January 1, 1995 computer policy to the application in Case No. 95-4606 which ET filed on July 18, 1994. In that case DEP denied $1,456.25 in computer costs allowing no reimbursement for computer time. On April 27, 1995, DEP implemented a new policy by which it evaluated computer costs based upon a calculation of allowable personnel hours per task as opposed to a units and rates basis. Under that policy DEP would evaluate the total allowable personnel hours in a task and limit computer costs to 10 percent of those hours up to a maximum of $750. Under the April 27, 1995 policy, DEP reduced the reimbursement for computer costs to $500 if the reimbursable amount exceeded $750 after DEP made the 10 percent calculation. DEP implemented the April 27, 1995 policy through the use of a calculation work sheet which it provided to its application reviewers. DEP applied the April 27, 1995 computer policy and work sheet to all applications pending review at the time DEP developed the policy, regardless of when the applicant performed the work or generated the records. DEP applied the April 27, 1995, policy in all of the subject cases subsequent to Case No. 95-4606, with the following exceptions: Case Nos. 96- 0432RU, 96-1006 and 96-1009, which had no denial of computer costs; and Case No. 96-1352, in which DEP applied the 10 percent limitation, but reimbursed 896.75 dollars of the computer costs. After implementation of the April 27, 1995 policy, DEP made no effort to adjust the denial of all computer costs in Case No. 95-4606 under the January 1, 1995 policy. The only other category in which DEP evaluates reimbursement on a percentage of hours basis, rather than a units and rates basis, is total management costs. DEP's written guidelines and Rule 17-773.350(16), Florida Administrative Code, limit management costs to a percentage of total allowable personnel hours. There are no rules or written guidelines that would limit computer costs based upon criteria other than a units and rates evaluation, or that would support DEP's policies as reflected in the January 1, 1995 and April 27, 1995 policy memoranda. DEP's rules and written guidelines did not substantively change with regard to this issue from the time Petitioners filed the subject applications, to the time DEP established the January 1, 1995 and the April 27, 1995 computer policies. DEP did not issue any PCRs or other written guidelines to place applicants on fair notice of DEP's new policies with regard to computer costs. DEP presented no persuasive evidence at the hearing to support its January 1, 1995 and April 27, 1995 policies. The only basis for the policy was DEP's representation that it developed the policies as a "reasonableness issue" in order to reduce the amount of computer costs that were appearing in reimbursement applications. DEP did not demonstrate that it based the new policies on any calculation of the amount of computer time necessary to perform a remediation task. Once the total computer costs reached $750 dollars, DEP gave no consideration to the scope or complexity of the task. Given the difference in the amounts involved in performing site remediation services (e.g. an application totaling 7,249.75 dollars in Case No. 96-0411RU versus an application totaling 149,080.02 dollars in Case No. 96-0425RU) and the differences in program tasks (see Rule 17-773.500, Florida Administrative Code), a policy establishing a flat numerical limit on computer costs that an applicant may claim in an application is not reasonable. DEP presented no evidence at the hearing to prove the basis for its retroactive application of the policies to work performed and applications submitted prior to the development of the policies. DEP did not attempt to explain the basis for its failure to apply the rules and written guidelines in effect at the time the work was performed or the records generated. Based upon the foregoing, DEP's denial of computer costs in each of these applications is not supported by the statutes, rules and written guidelines in effect at the time the work was performed or the applications were filed. Each application contains information supporting the computer costs. The application Certification Affidavits and CPA attestations demonstrate that Petitioners incurred the computer costs which DEP should reimburse. The reimbursement for computer costs should be in full except to the extent that DEP allocates to a supporting document a prorated share of the amount of a discount on a factored invoice. As a final note, of the computer costs denied in 16 of the 45 reimbursement notices, the sum of the allowances and deductions does not equal the overall claim. The differences ranged from a few dollars to over four hundred dollars. DEP provided no evidence to explain the discrepancy in the amount calculated by DEP in its notices. Miscellaneous Costs Prior to September 27, 1995, DEP reimbursed miscellaneous line-item costs when the applicant furnished support for them in the application. The miscellaneous costs policy as of May 17, 1995 even dispensed with the requirement of supporting invoices when these costs totaled less than 300 dollars. DEP's reviewers are employees of a firm that provides DEP with application review services as an independent contractor. On September 27, 1995, after a meeting with DEP staff, the application reviewers implemented a policy to deny costs for "overhead." Under the new policy, certain items were overhead, including but not limited to: gloves, mason jars, sampling disposables, phone calls, excessive faxes, excessive copying, small hand tools, shipping documents, etc. The application reviewers had to exercise their own discretion as to which items were "overhead" until they received a guideline from DEP. The reviewers decided to approve overhead expenses of less than $50 and deny items for more than $50. The policy continued in existence at least through November 9, 1995. DEP applied the miscellaneous/overhead policy to all of the subject applications, regardless of the date of cleanup work or application submittal. The application reviewers applied the miscellaneous/overhead "policy" without the knowledge of DEP's Reimbursement Administrator, Charles Williams. When Mr. Williams found out about the policy, he "counselled them that they need to reverse that position." The correct policy would allow reimbursement of "miscellaneous/overhead" costs that the reviewers denied in 33 of the 45 applications. DEP made no effort to correct the denial of these costs based upon its erroneously applied policy. DEP presented no persuasive evidence at the hearing to support its application of the miscellaneous/overhead policy in applications submitted prior to the development of the policy. DEP did not explain the basis for its failure to apply the rules and written guidelines in effect at the time the subcontractors performed the work or generated the records. Based upon the foregoing, DEP's denial of miscellaneous/overhead costs in 33 applications in which DEP denied such costs is not supported by the applicable states, rules and written guidelines. Each application contains information supporting the miscellaneous costs. The applications' Certification Affidavits and CPA Attestations demonstrate that Petitioner's incurred the miscellaneous costs. Therefore, DEP should reimburse those miscellaneous costs. The reimbursement should be in full except to the extent that DEP allocates to a supporting document a prorated share of the amount of a discount on a factored invoice. Airfare From June 17, 1993, to sometime prior to January 31, 1996, DEP's policy with regard to the reimbursement of airfare was to pay airfare integral to site rehabilitation when such costs were relatively inexpensive. By no later than January 31, 1996, DEP developed and applied a policy to deny all airfare costs regardless of whether the applicant provided justification. On March 13, 1996, DEP decided that once again it would reimburse airfare with sufficient justification such as a comparison with car travel. DEP considers the changes in reimbursability of airfare as "just procedures to follow," and applicable without regard to the timing of work performed. DEP denied airfare charges in Case No. 96-1353 as overhead charges. DEP's rules and written guidelines did not substantively change with regard to airfare from June 17, 1993, when airfare was reimbursable, to the policy implemented on January 31, 1996, in which airfare was not reimbursable, to March 13, 1996, when airfare was reimbursable once again. DEP issued no PCRs or other written guidelines to place applicants on fair notice of the changes in policy with regard to airfare. DEP has not provided any evidence to support the basis for the fluctuations in its airfare policy. DEP presented no evidence at the hearing to provide the basis for its application of the airfare policy to work performed and applications submitted prior to the development of the changes in policy. DEP did not explain the basis for its failure to apply the rules and written guidelines in effect at the time the subcontractors performed the work or generated the records. Based upon the foregoing, DEP's denial of airfare costs in the application for Case No. 96-1353 is not supported by the applicable rules and written guidelines. The application contains information supporting the miscellaneous costs. The application's Certification Affidavit and CPA Attestation demonstrate that Petitioner ET incurred the airfare costs. Therefore, DEP should reimburse airfare costs in full except to the extent that DEP allocates to a supporting invoice the prorated amount of a discount on a factored invoice. Inconsistent Agency Practice The application of DEP's factoring policy did not treat Petitioners in a manner different from other funders. Heretofore, DEP was not aware of a case where program participants factored their invoices before filing an application and claimed the face amount of those invoices for reimbursement. The affiliation between Petitioners and AFG and/or AEE was also unique. DEP issued a memorandum requiring funders to provide "clarification regarding essential cost documentation" on July 26, 1995. The purpose of this memorandum was to remind application reviewers of the need for a funder to submit an invoice documenting and supporting its line-item claim for the second- tier 15 percent markup. DEP did not intend for this memorandum to limit DEP's ability to inquire about relationships and transactions taking place outside the usual chain of reimbursement when an application on its face refers to a factoring scheme involving an "affiliation" between the factoring company and the funder. DEP does not deduct finance charges when an applicant incurs (pays) all invoices, submits the application, then sells the receivable or agrees to pay long-term interest pending receipt of payment from the IPTF. In the instant cases, Petitioners agreed to accept reimbursement for their services at a discount before they submitted the applications then included the cost of borrowing capital in the application. DEP does not routinely ask questions of other applicants regarding their financing. Nevertheless, under the facts of these cases, DEP would have been remiss in its duty if it had not made such inquiries. DEP's actions in the instant cases are not inconsistent with its actions taken in other cases with other similarly situated entities because there is no evidence that other such cases exist. Bias On August 31, 1994, Bruce French provided Charles Williams with a memorandum in which Mr. French discussed factoring. In his memorandum, Mr. French concluded that DEP could only reimburse the "discount" amount that the factoring company actually incurred/paid the funders. On September 1, 1994, Mr. French had a discussion with someone named "Toni" at McGuinnes Laboratories regarding the laboratories' use of AFG services for financing invoices to Tower. On September 2, 1994, Mr. French related in a memorandum to Charles Williams, his understanding that the laboratory had different price lists for different customers, generally depending on volume of analysis performed and individual payment agreements. Mr. French surmised that the laboratory's price for services "is inflated to deal with AFG's discount price to be paid by AFG." Mr. French concluded that, under those circumstances, AFG's financing arrangements may "represent collusion on behalf of all parties to the application to defraud DEP for the benefit of AFG. That is, prices are 'fixed' prior to performing of services." On September 2, 1994, Mr. Williams responded to Mr. French's memo by indicating that the scenario presented by Mr. French "sounds interesting" and that DEP would "absolutely need to have a Big Meeting to decide what to do once and for all." On September 12, 1994, Mr. French provided information on factoring to Bill Sittig of DEP's Office of the Inspector General and to Mr. Williams. Mr. French included a drawing entitled "The Tangled Web They Weave or the Hidden Discount Line Items and other Fluff, August 31, 1994 Interpretation of Bruce French's Discussion." At the hearing, neither Mr. Sittig nor Mr. Williams remembered seeing the drawing. There is no competent evidence as to the identity of the person creating the drawing. There is no persuasive competent evidence that Mr. French was biased against Petitioners or any other entity utilizing factoring as a mechanism of financing. Moreover, DEP had no direct and demonstrable bias against Petitioners. Timeliness of Agency Action Prior to filing the instant applications, representatives of the funders and AFG presented various financing schemes to DEP for pre-approval. In each proposal, the person speaking for AFG also spoke on behalf of the funders. At all times relevant here, Paul DeCoster was secretary and counsel for AFG. He was also secretary of SEI and a corporate director and shareholder of WIFL. In September of 1993, Mr. DeCoster wrote a letter to DEP describing a proposed financing scheme in which AFG would purchase the account receivables of contractors engaged in site rehabilitation. AFG's plans were in a formative stage at this time. Mr. DeCoster wrote DEP a follow-up letter dated October 4, 1993. This letter states that: the amount of financing required to meet [certain contractor clients'] working capital needs is so large that FEC [a funder] must find large institutional investors to accommodate them. For service of finding such investors, FEC proposes to charge a fee to the contractor client, which would be in addition to the 15 [percent] 'markup' taken by the investor providing the financing. The October 4, 1993 letter disclosed that contractor clients would deposit funds in a trust account as security for the performance of their work. The trust would invest its funds "in accounts receivable purchased from AFG, the parent of FEC, and any income earned by the trust on those investments would inure to the benefit of AFG." The plan that Mr. DeCoster proposed was markedly different from the scheme utilized here. The most noticeable differences are that the subject applications did not involve a finder's fee, FEC as a funder, or the purchase of AFG's accounts receivable by a reserve trust. In October of 1993, Will Robins met with DEP staff to discuss the manner in which the reimbursement program would apply to a proposed financing scheme. In this proposal, AFG would charge contractors an application/initiation fee and/or a commitment fee. The transactions between the entities in the instant applications did not involve an application/initiation fee and/or a commitment fee. When Mr. Robins made his presentation, DEP did not know the specific relationships between the entities involved or Mr. Robins' position as an officer, director, and or shareholder of these entities. After that meeting, counsel for AFG sent DEP a letter dated November 4, 1993. The letter acknowledges that the existing rules did not "specifically address the types of situations that arise when providing capital for cleanup activities through funding groups such as AFG." The letter identifies ET as the proposed funder through which AFG would finance cleanups. According to the letter, ET would incur the costs but AFG would hold the right to receive the ultimate reimbursement payment from the IPTF. The letter clearly reveals DEP's concern that the proposed application/initiation fee was a "kickback" which should be deducted from the funder's markup. In January of 1994, counsel for AFG wrote a letter to DEP describing a financing scheme which differs in some respects from the financing scheme at issue here. This letter states that AFG intended to purchase receivables of the funder and the general contractor at a discount. Under this plan, the general contractor and the funder would claim the two allowable markups. The subcontractors would pay AFG a finder's fee. The letter reveals that AFG, its affiliates, and investors would recover the cash equivalent of both levels of markups plus a fee from subcontractors for funding the high costs of risky projects. The letter states that: since the Department's reimbursement rules do not specifically address the issue of site cleanups that are funded through private sources of capital . . . it is important that we know if there are any obvious or glaring problems with this plan that would cause reimbursement to be withheld otherwise restricted. On July 13, 1994, counsel for AFG wrote DEP to explain some modifications in the details to the proposed plan for the purchase and sale of receivables at a discount. This letter informed DEP that AFG would have a financial affiliation with the funder (ET) which would exist outside the chain of reimbursement and which would have no effect on either the markups or the overall reimbursement amount reflected in any application. All contracts within the chain of reimbursement (between ET, SEI, Gator, Tower, and its subcontractors) would be negotiated in arms-length transactions. The letter states: In this plan the subcontractors will perform their work on the site and will prepare their invoices in a manner consistent with any publicly or privately financed cleanup. Those invoices will be complied and forwarded to the general contractor for its review and the general contractor will add on the markup allowed by rule to the subcontractor's bills. The reimbursement application will then be forwarded to the funder who will ensure that all bills have been paid and who will be identified as the "person responsible for conducting site rehabilitation" on the reimbursement application. The funder will take the second markup allowed by rule, and will submit the reimbursement application to the Department of Environmental Protection for processing. Reimbursement will ultimately be paid by the Department to the funder in accordance with the reimbursement application. At no step in this process will the Department relinquish any authority to review and approve either the scope and nature of the cleanup or the rates charged by the contractors and subcontractors. Petitioners filed the first of their applications with DEP on July 18, 1994, five days after the date of the July 13, 1994 letter. In late November, 1994, after all but 4 of the 45 applications were filed, DEP placed a telephone call to Petitioners' counsel advising him of the position DEP intended to take with regard to his client's financing arrangements. DEP did not provide any written confirmation of that call, or issue any document describing its policy, until April 21, 1995. In each of the above described letters and/or meetings, AFG's attempt to ascertain DEP's position regarding the various proposed financing mechanisms was unsuccessful. However, AFG was aware that DEP could not take a position that represented official agency action until an applicant actually filed an application. At no time did DEP make any affirmative statement which misled Petitioners regarding the acceptability of AFG's proposals. There is no persuasive evidence to support a finding that the agency did not timely respond to the claims for reimbursement.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that DEP enter a Final Order in each of these consolidated cases: (a) disallowing reimbursement of the first- tier markup; (b) disallowing reimbursement of any factored invoice in an amount equal to the amount of the discount on that invoice; and (c) allowing reimbursement of costs associated with airfare, computers, and miscellaneous/overhead expenses. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Gary Early, Esquire Christopher R. Haughee, Esquire Akerman, Senterfitt and Eidson, P.A. 216 South Monroe Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2555 W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Betsy F. Hewitt, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Perry Odom, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
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 issue in this case is whether the Petitioner has the actual experience required for certification as a Class B domestic wastewater treatment plant operator.
Findings Of Fact By application filed September 16, 1991, James H. Redden applied for certification as a Class B domestic wastewater treatment plant operator. At the time of the application, Mr. Redden was employed as a laboratory technician at a Class B Collier County regional wastewater treatment facility. From August 15, 1978, to July 31, 1989, Mr. Redden was employed at the Colgate-Palmolive Company facility at Jeffersonville, Indiana. The Colgate-Palmolive treatment facility is an Indiana Class D industrial wastewater treatment plant. Mr. Redden is certified by the State of Indiana as a Class D industrial wastewater treatment plant operator. During his employment at the Jeffersonville facility, Mr. Redden held positions as an associate chemist, senior chemist/plant microbiologist, and wastewater treatment plant supervisor. His duties included daily operations and supervision of personnel, scheduling and performance of maintenance activities, budgeting, ordering, materials balance, sludge management, laboratory analysis, quality assurance and quality control programs, and compliance with various state and federal reporting requirements. Mr. Redden has no experience either in the operation of a drinking water or domestic wastewater treatment plant, or at a DER-permitted industrial wastewater treatment plant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order denying the application of James H. Redden for certification as a Class B wastewater treatment plant operator. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 9th day of April, 1992. APPENDIX The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner: The Petitioner did not file a proposed recommended order. Respondent: The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 2-4. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol Browner, Secretary Dept. of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Dept. of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 James H. Redden 1362 Chesapeake, Avenue Naples, Florida 33962 Francine M. Ffolkes, Esq. Assistant General Counsel 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact Background And Stipulations. Petitioner, Mad Hatter Utilities, Inc. (Mad Hatter) made application on May 14, 1987, for a permit to construct on a 46-acre site in south central Pasco County a 0.5 million gallon per day (MGD) field-erected, extended aeration wastewater treatment plant and spray irrigation effluent disposal system. The application also proposes the use of a 0.1 MGD temporary packaged facility to provide services during the construction and before operation of the proposed field-erected plant and disposal system. Prior to final hearing, the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) determined in free-form agency proceedings that reasonable assurances had not been provided that 0.5 MGD of effluent could be disposed of on the site safely and in accordance with the applicable statutes and rules using the proposed spray irrigation disposal system and that the capacity of the plant and disposal system should be limited to 0.1 MGD. Mad Hatter filed a petition challenging the DER's proposed agency action to down-size Mad Hatter's application Love Our Lakes Association (the Association) and Augustine L. Miro (Miro) each filed a petition challenging the DER's proposed agency action to grant the down-sized application. Pasco County intervened in support of the DER's proposed agency action. Also, prior to the hearing, the parties stipulated that the proposed wastewater treatment plant, in itself, provides reasonable assurance that wastewater will be treated in accordance with the requirements of the applicable statutes and DER rules and standards. However, remaining for resolution is the issue of how much effluent can, with reasonable assurance, be disposed of on the site safely and in accordance with the applicable statutes and DER rules and standards using the proposed effluent disposal system. 1/ At the final hearing, the standing of all of the parties was stipulated. Whether Plant Capacity Should Be Limited To Currently Available Effluent Disposal Capacity. In addition, at final hearing, the DER changed its position and urged that a permit could and should be issued to Mad Hatter to construct the proposed 0.5 MGD capacity wastewater treatment plant subject to the installation of a physical "baffle" or partition capable of limiting the actual operational capacity of the treatment plant (and, therefore, the effluent disposal system) to 0.1 MGD. The proposed "baffle" is described by Mad Hatter Exhibit 10, in evidence. Mad Hatter proposed a 0.5 MGD wastewater treatment plant because it is the smallest centralized plant that can be field erected and still provide economies of scale in its construction. The evidence proved that a proposed welded but removable steel "baffle" of the kind described in Mad Hatter Exhibit 10 would, along with other DER controls, provide reasonable assurance that the actual operational capacity of the plant would not exceed the effluent disposal limitation placed on the DER construction permit. Depending on where in the extended aeration chamber the baffle is placed, the reduction in treatment capacity will be proportional to the reduction in size of the aeration chamber, e.g., a reduction to 1/5 of design size will limit effective treatment capacity to 0.1 MGD. In addition to the physical "baffle," typical permit conditions require a wastewater treatment plant operator to report levels of plant activity to the DER and allow the DER to inspect the plant at reasonable times. In addition, customers of a wastewater treatment plant must receive a DER permit to send wastewater to the plant for treatment, and the permit places a limit on the amount of wastewater sent for treatment, giving the DER control over the inflow to the plant (and, therefore, the outflow, too.) Allowing Mad Hatter to build a plant with more capacity than currently available effluent disposal capacity allows Mad Hatter to more cost-effectively provide for anticipated future need for sewage treatment in the Land O'Lakes area. Rather than Mad Hatter or other utilities having to build multiple, inherently less cost-efficient "package plants," each at new construction costs, Mad Hatter could simply remove the "baffle," which itself costs only about $10,000, if additional effluent disposal capacity could be established. Excess plant capacity provides an incentive for Mad Hatter to explore the real possibility of contracting with customers for the use of treated wastewater ("gray water") as a source of additional effluent disposal capacity. The result would comport with the DER's policy to encourage reuse. Capacity Of The Currently Proposed Effluent Disposal System. Mad Hatter proposes to apply 0.41 MGD at an average of 2.4" of wastewater per week to a 43.69 acre spray field area on the site. Mad Hatter's permit application does not specify any spray irrigation schedule or identify non-application days when spraying of effluent would not be possible due to adverse climatic conditions, harvesting conditions, maintenance of irrigation equipment, or other conditions which preclude irrigation. Mad Hatter intends to grow as a cover crop on the irrigation site either bahia hay or other similar grass. Mad Hatter's permit application does not specify what soil-plant system Mad Hatter proposes to employ on the site for nutrient uptake. Mad Hatter plans to install a series of several hundred adjustable sprinkler heads for the distribution of effluent throughout the site. Each head is expected to have a reach of between 50 and 75 feet. Smaller sprinkler heads (18" high) were selected to reduce potential aerosol dispersion of mist during irrigation. Mad Hatter's proposed disposal system design incorporates a total of 1.5 million gallons of effluent storage capacity in two lined holding tanks to be constructed on site. Each tank is designed to be 150' square, with a design depth of three feet plus one foot of freeboard. The bottom and banks will comprise a vinyl liner placed on grade and lapping up onto the sides (above grade) which will consist of earthen berms reinforced by, steel angle irons and support rods. No emergency overflow discharge or "pop-off" device is incorporated for either tank. In the event the tanks become full when no irrigation is possible, tank contents may be routed back to the head of the treatment plant if it is not already overloaded. The capacity of a particular parcel of land to safely and adequately dispose of wastewater by spray irrigation depends on several factors: (1) design and construction of the system, including storage capacity; (2) rainfall; (3) water table; (4) soil composition; (5) permeability or hydraulic conductivity of the soils; (6) evapotranspiration; (7) treatment level of the wastewater; (8) nutrient uptake capability of the ground cover; (9) flow of water on and off the site; (10) classification of area waters, especially downstream; and (II) other characteristics of the immediate vicinity. The parcel of land Mad Hatter has selected for its proposed spray irrigation effluent disposal system is near Land O'Lakes, Pasco County, Florida. It is approximately 1300 feet south of Lake Thomas which is at a higher elevation than the site. The site consists of Zolfo series fine sand to depths of about 35 to 40 feet, below which is a layer of primarily clay to a depth of about 120 feet. The clay is thick enough to protect the Floridan aquifer, which lies still deeper below the surface. The soils found on the proposed disposal site are denominated as Zolfo fine sands under the classification system of the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (SCS). The SCS Soils Atlas for Pasco County describes Zolfo fine sands as follows: The Zolfo series is a member of the sandy, siliceous hyperthermic family of Grossarenic Entic Haplohumods. It consists of somewhat poorly drained, moderately permeable soils that formed in thick deposits of marine sand. These nearly level soils are on the uplands. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of 24 to 40 inches for 2 to 6 months during most years. It is at a depth of 10 to 24 inches for as long as 2 weeks in some years. Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent. The Mad Hatter site displays the fluctuating seasonal high water table level characteristic of Zolfo soils. During soils testing associated with the permit application process, the water table on site was observed at varying levels ranging from six feet below the surface (in October) to at or near the surface (in July), with average levels from two to three feet below surface observed in September, December, and February. The Lake Thomas area, as is the case with the Land O'Lakes region in general, has poor drainage. This area, including the proposed site, which formerly had been an orange grove like others still located in the area, historically has experienced periods of persistent standing water and saturated soil conditions during the rainy season. The area receives more than half of its annual rainfall (35.46") during the rainy season, the period from June through September. Ground penetrating radar tests and soils analysis indicated no significant paleosinks on the site. There were no indications of karst formations at the site. The site, as it presently exists, does not handle stormwater runoff efficiently. Runoff flows onto the site from upstream properties north and east of the site. The furrows on the site which remain from its use as a citrus grove allow stormwater to sheet flow onto the site and sit in numerous depressions until it leaves the site by percolation. However, Mad Hatter will grade the site to eliminate the depressions. In addition, Mad Hatter proposes to reestablish the former swale or ditch along Lake Thomas Road to facilitate proper drainage for the properties east of the site. This swale would tie into the existing ditch along the pipe beneath Drexel Road. The swales will divert runoff water originating at higher elevations off-site from the site and direct the runoff to a drainage ditch and culvert leading off the parcel near the midpoint of the western boundary. In extremely wet conditions, runoff might back up in the culvert, the swales and an existing drainage ditch running east from the culvert towards the middle of the site. The grading and drainage improvements to which Mad Hatter has committed would transmit stormwater in a more efficient and direct manner and will be easy to maintain. These improvements would reduce the quantity of water that occurs on the site by diverting runoff from adjacent properties so that it no longer flows onto the site. This would enhance the capability of the site to treat or dispose of effluent, Even under existing or natural conditions, the possibility of surface runoff from the site flowing into Lake Thomas is remote. The natural flow of groundwater across the site is west-southwest. Therefore, the likelihood of groundwater flowing to the north to Lake Thomas is very remote. As an extra assurance against surface runoff into Lake Thomas, Mad Hatter proposes to construct a two- to three-foot high berm along the site's north property line as described in Mad Hatter Exhibit 2F, in evidence. (This proposal is not a part of the application, but Mad Hatter committed to it at final hearing.) This berm would further preclude surface runoff from flowing in the direction of Lake Thomas and would provide 24 acre-feet or 7.8 million gallons of storage under "worst case" circumstances until water could flow naturally. The proposed berms and drainage improvements will have the net effect of decreasing the amount of water added to the site during rainfall, will decrease sheet flow across the site, and will keep water from "sheeting" across Lake Thomas Road, which is directly to the north of the site, and mixing with the waters of Lake Thomas. A groundwater monitoring plan is a hydrological study of a site to describe the subsurface lithology of the site, identify the depth of the water table, or any confining layers, determine the direction of groundwater flow and determine the location of any public or private potable water supply wells in the area. The groundwater monitoring plan for the site proposes a background well in the northeast corner of the site to sample water upstream of the site and three wells to be placed on the south and west property lines to demonstrate any impacts of effluent on the groundwater before it leaves the property. The groundwater monitoring plan proposed by Mad Hatter is adequate. Using an extended aeration technique, a clarifier, more-than-adequate detention time for chlorination and a tertiary filter, Mad Hatter's treatment plant will treat wastewater to relatively advanced stages. The proposed bahia hay or similar grass ground cover will provide adequate nutrient uptake upon application of the wastewater to the land. Section 7.5 of the Land Application Of Domestic Wastewater Effluent In Florida manual, which is incorporated by reference into Chapter 17-6, Florida Administrative Code, requires that a detailed soil-vegetation management program be included in the engineering report in an application for a wastewater treatment plant permit. Under Section 7.1 of the Manual, this requirement can be waived in 0.1 MGD plant proposals but is mandatory for proposed plants as large as 0.5 MGD. There was no evidence as to exactly where between 0.1 and 0.5 MGD the Section 7.5 requirement becomes mandatory. It is not possible to predict with complete accuracy the capacity of a parcel of land to dispose of wastewater effluent, even taking as many factors into account as possible. Only actual operational experience will be able to pinpoint disposal capacity. The operating permit can and should be adjusted to actual experience, whether up or down. Mad Hatter presented evidence through the opinion testimony of a qualified expert that the disposal system has a capacity of 0.41 MGD. This opinion does not account for variations in nutrient uptake because they were not expected to make a significant difference in capacity. It assumes no drainage improvements on the site and assumes that sheet flow onto the site equals sheet flow off the site. In preparing the water balances that support the opinion, the annual rainfall in 1983 or 1984 (whichever represents the highest annual rainfall in the last ten years) was used, and water loss by evapotranspiration was conservatively estimated by assuming grasses at the site and making downward adjustments from data collected by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) at Lake Alfred. To estimate water loss by percolation, the lowest permeability results from double ring infiltration tests (46.5 minutes/per inch) were converted using a conservative factor of 1.4 percent, resulting in water loss through percolation of just 0.421 inches per day. In its document entitled "The Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters," the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends applying a 4-10 percent reduction factor to measured percolation values to estimate water loss by percolation. But it is not clear what kind of percolation tests are recommended by the EPA. Expert witnesses for the DER accepted the water balance methodology used and calculations made by Mad Hatter. But the DER witnesses stressed that the water balance is, as a matter of DER policy, only a guide and a starting point in assessing the capacity of a particular parcel of land to dispose of effluent. This is because unique characteristics of a particular site (such as soil composition, grade and vegetation) can result in Significantly different capacity than calculated by the water balance. Based on a site visit on July 22, 1987, and other eyewitness reports, the DER experts were of the opinion that only 0.1 MGD of effluent could be disposed of as proposed. On July 22, 1987, the sky was clear and temperatures were in the 90s. The last rain was less than one inch on July 20, 1987; yet, 30 percent of the site was covered by two inches of water, and the ground was saturated all over the site on July 22. The water table generally was less than 2 feet below the surface on July 22. Local residents told the DER experts and later testified at final hearing that similar or wetter conditions are prevalent generally throughout the months of May through August. When saturated conditions such as were observed on July 22, 1987, prevail at the site, spray irrigation of effluent cannot take place without causing surface water sheet flow runoff or ponding prohibited by the DER Land Application Manual. During periods when no spray irrigation is possible, it will be necessary for Mad Hatter to store treated wastewater for disposal at a later time when soil conditions permit. Primarily because Mad Hatter's application called for installation of a 0.1 MGD interim package plant during field erection of the proposed permanent plant and because 0.1 MGD was the threshold size for a mandatory groundwater monitoring plan, the DER conservatively and grossly estimated site capacity to be 0.1 MGD. Pasco County's expert witness also based his opinion on a water balance. Like the Mad Hatter expert, the County expert did not account for variations in nutrient uptake, assumed no drainage improvements, and assumed no net sheetflow on or off the site. The County expert did not use the double ring infiltration method Mad Hatter's expert used or any other site specific data to measure hydraulic conductivity. He estimated hydraulic conductivity at eight feet per day based on regional data from the area of the Southwest Florida Water Management District. It is not understood how this measure of hydraulic conductivity relates to either the 46.5 minutes per inch infiltration rate observed in Mad Hatter's double ding infiltration test or the 0.421 inch per day percolation water loss rate used in Mad Hatter's water balance. But the County expert specifically testified that he does not agree with Mad Hatter's methodology for obtaining a percolation water loss rate. He testified that there is no relationship between the results of a double ring infiltration test and the hydraulic conductivity of soil. The former, he says, just measures the rate at which water can enter the "soil horizon" and is a function solely of the permeability of the top 6 inches or so of the soil; on the other hand, he says, the latter measures the rate at which water moves vertically through saturated soil and leaves the soil from below. Mad Hatter did not rebut this testimony. Using his method, the County expert opinion was that 0.1 MGD of effluent could be disposed of at the site with only three days (or, at that rate, 300,000 gallons) of storage for the average annual rainfall but that 16 days (or 1,600,000) of storage would be required to accommodate the 10-year recurrence interval, i.e., the heaviest rainfall experienced within the previous decade. The DER's Land Application Of Domestic Wastewater Effluent In Florida manual, at Section 1.10, provides in pertinent part: Since soil-plant relationships are complex, the initial design loading rate should be conservative; a maximum annual average of two inches per week is recommended. The department will consider a rate higher than the two inch per week average provided the rate is substantiated in the engineering report on the basis of the renovating and hydraulic capacity of the soil-plant system, the existing quality and use of surface or groundwater in the area, and other hydrogeologic conditions. A two inch per week loading rate equates to 341,900 gallons per day; 0.41 MGD equates to 2.40 inches per week; 0.1 MGD equates to just 0.59 inches per week. The DER's Land Application Manual requires a minimum effluent storage volume equal to three days maximum daily flow of the treatment plant. In addition, the manual recommends a storage volume equal to the plant's maximum daily flow multiplied by the number of non-application days necessary to accommodate the 10-year recurrence interval. If planned storage capacity were exceeded during continuing wet weather, Mad Hatter would attempt to return effluent overflow to the head of the plant, if possible. If there is no room at the head of the plant, approximately 24 acre-feet or 7.8 mullion gallons of effluent could accumulate on the site after the berms are constructed and swales improved, as proposed. If an emergency of such proportions developed that the emergency capacity of the site were exceeded, overflow from the site would be discharged, eventually, into the Anclote River but probably not into Lake Thomas. Mad Hatter failed to provide reasonable assurances that 0.41 MGD of treated wastewater cane be applied to the proposed disposal site without surface discharge or runoff in all weather conditions, including wet weather. Mad Hatter failed to provide reasonable assurances that effluent storage capacity proposed by Mad Hatter would be adequate to accommodate the total volume of effluent which would have to be stored on the site during wet weather saturated conditions if Mad Hatter were permitted to treat more than 100,000 gallons of sewage per day. There are reasonable assurances that 0.1 MGD of treated effluent can be applied to the proposed site without surface discharge or runoff in all weather conditions. The 1.5 million gallon effluent storage capacity proposed by Mad Hatter would be adequate to accommodate the volume of effluent which would have to be stored during wet weather saturated conditions if Mad Hatter were permitted to treat 0.1 MGD of sewage. Because the natural flow of groundwater and surface water is away from Lake Thomas, it is unlikely that groundwater or surface water contamination caused by the plant or spray field would impair water quality in Lake Thomas, particularly if only 0.1 MGD of treated effluent is disposed of on the site in the manner proposed. In the absence of a demonstration by Mad Hatter of additional effluent disposal capacity at alternative sites or through reuse agreements with local developers, it is not arbitrary for DER to require that the effective treatment capacity of the proposed Mad Hatter wastewater plant be limited to the demonstrated effluent disposal capacity of the proposed site by installation of a removable baffle in the extended aeration chamber of the plant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order granting the application of Mad Hatter Utilities, Inc., subject to the standard DER general permit conditions and subject to the following special permit conditions: A welded but removable steel "baffle," as described in Mad Hatter Exhibit 10, shall be incorporated in the proposed treatment plant reducing the size of the operable extended aeration chamber to one-fifth the original size and thereby reducing the operable capacity of the treatment plant to one-fifth, from 0.5 MGD to 0.1 MGD, until Mad Hatter can establish 0.5 MGD disposal capacity by reuse or by additional disposal acreage or both. Swales shall be improved and dug and berms constructed on the disposal site, as described in Mad Hatter Exhibit 2F. Bahia hay or, subject to DER approval, other similar grass shall be planted and maintained on the disposal site as the vegetative cover crop for nutrient uptake. Mad Hatter shall specify, subject to other permit conditions, its proposed spray irrigation schedule, including non-application days when spraying of effluent would not be possible due to adverse climatic conditions, harvesting conditions, maintenance of irrigation equipment, or other conditions which preclude irrigation. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 1988.
