The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent Seanic Corporation's application for an operating permit for a domestic wastewater treatment facility should be granted.
Findings Of Fact On January 20, 1994, Respondent Seanic Corporation submitted to Respondent Department of Environmental Protection an application to construct a wastewater treatment and disposal facility. The application requested approval to construct a facility with a design capacity of 15,000 gallons per day and to discharge its treated effluent to G-III groundwater through two Class V injection wells. Although the Department had no rules with specific depth requirements for such wells, the plans that accompanied the application contemplated wells with a total depth of 90 feet below land surface, which would be cased down to a depth of 60 feet below land surface. On February 23, 1994, the Department gave notice of its intent to issue the requested construction permit. Petitioners did not challenge the issuance of the construction permit, and the Department issued the permit on April 22, 1994, with an expiration date of five years after the issuance of the permit. On February 17, 1999, Seanic began construction of the permitted facility, including the construction of the two Class V injection wells. At the time the wells were first drilled, there were no statutes or rules regarding the appropriate depth of underground injection wells at a facility like Seanic's. Construction of the Seanic facility was completed before April 12, 1999, as reflected by the Certificate of Completion of Construction for the permitted facility. On April 21, 1999, Seanic filed with the Department its application to operate the facility. Chapter 99-395, Laws of Florida, became effective on June 18, 1999, approximately two months after the facility was constructed and the operating permit application was submitted. Section 5 of Chapter 99-395 defines the term "existing" to mean "permitted by the Department of Environmental Protection or the Department of Health as of the effective date of this act." Chapter 99-395 imposes different effluent limitations for "existing sewage facilities" than those that are applied to new facilities. For facilities that have a design capacity of less than 100,000 gallons per day, new facilities must provide treatment that will produce an effluent that contains no more, on a permitted annual basis, than the following concentrations: Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD5) of 10 mg/L Suspended Solids of 10 mg/L Total Nitrogen of 10 mg/L Total Phosphorus of 1 mg/L These standards are frequently referred to as the "10-10-10-1 Standard." In accordance with Section 6(4) of Chapter 99-395, "existing sewage facilities" have until July 1, 2010, to comply with the 10-10-10-1 standard. Prior to that date, "existing sewage facilities" must meet effluent limitations of 20 mg/L for both CBOD5 and suspended solids and must monitor their effluent for concentrations of total nitrogen and total phosphorus. The Seanic facility is an "existing" facility, as that term is defined in Chapter 99-395, and, therefore, has until July 1, 2010, to comply with the 10-10-10-1 standard. Section 6(7)(a) of Chapter 99-395 requires Class V injection wells for facilities like Seanic's 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 Department of Environmental Protection rule." The Department has not promulgated any rules requiring Class V injection wells to be deeper than the depth prescribed in Chapter 99-395, Laws of Florida. As of January 26, 2000, the total depth of Seanic's injection wells measured 92 and 94.5 feet, respectively. On November 24, 1999, the Department entered its notice of intent to issue the operating permit applied for by Seanic and attached to the notice a "draft permit" with the conditions and effluent limitations that would be applied to the facility. In issuing the notice, the Department determined that Seanic had provided reasonable assurance that the facility will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution in contravention of applicable statutes or the Department's standards or rules. The draft permit included effluent limitations of 20 mg/L for both CBOD5 and suspended solids and required Seanic to monitor its effluent for total nitrogen and total phosphorus, in accordance with Chapter 99-395, Laws of Florida, and the Department's rules for existing sewage facilities. The draft permit notes that Seanic must comply with the 10-10-10-1 standard by July 1, 2010. Because Seanic's condominium development has not been completed and the wastewater treatment facility is not expected to go into operation for approximately one year, the draft permit also requires that the facility be re-inspected and re-certified immediately prior to going into operation. The Seanic facility was designed to create an effluent that is several times cleaner than required by Department rules. The facility uses an extended aeration process that is expected to reduce levels of both biological oxygen demand ("BOD") and total suspended solids ("TSS") to lower than 5 mg/L, concentrations that are 75 percent lower than the effluent limitations in the draft permit. Similar facilities in the Florida Keys have shown that they can achieve BOD and TSS concentrations of less than 5 mg/L. The Seanic facility has also been designed to provide a greater level of disinfection than required by law. While the draft permit requires only that the facility maintain a chlorine residual of 0.5 mg/L after fifteen minutes' contact time, the facility has been designed with larger chlorine contact tanks to provide a chlorine contact time of approximately one hour at anticipated flow rates. The facility operator can also increase residual chlorine concentrations. These facts, along with the reduced TSS levels at this facility, will provide considerably greater levels of disinfection than the law requires. Although the draft permit does not contain effluent limitations for total nitrogen or total phosphorus, the levels of these nutrients expected to be present in the Seanic facility's effluent are approximately 5 mg/L and 2-3 mg/L, respectively. Studies conducted on the rate of movement of phosphorus in the subsurface indicate that some of the phosphorus is rapidly immobilized through chemical reactions with the subsurface soil matrix. Specifically, studies conducted on injection wells in the Florida Keys report that 95 percent of the phosphorus is immobilized within a short time after entering the injection well. Studies conducted on the rate of movement of nitrates in the subsurface indicate that some nitrate migration is also retarded through chemical reactions with the subsurface soil matrix. More specifically, studies conducted with injection wells in the Florida Keys report that denitrification removes approximately 65 percent of the nitrates within a short time after the effluent enters the injection well. In addition to the chemical reduction of phosphorus and nitrogen levels in the groundwater, studies conducted on injection wells in the Florida Keys with a total depth of 90 feet and a cased depth of 60 feet have reported extremely high dilution rates by the time effluent injected into such wells would appear in surrounding surface waters. More specifically, studies using chemical and radioactive tracers have reported dilution rates on the range of seven orders of magnitude, i.e., 10 million times. After undergoing chemical reduction in the groundwater as well as extremely high dilution rates, the levels of nitrogen and phosphorus that would be expected to enter Captain's Cove and the adjacent canals will be infinitesimal, i.e., less than one part per trillion. Such levels would be several orders of magnitude below detection limits of currently available analytical methods. The surface waters in the artificial canals and in Captain's Cove surrounding the homes of Petitioners' members are classified by the Department as Class III waters that are predominantly marine. The permitted levels of fecal coliform bacteria in the facility's effluent (as restricted in the draft permit) are identical to the discharge limits for fecal coliform bacteria in Class III waters that are predominantly marine. The operation of Seanic's facility will not result in discharges of fecal coliform bacteria in excess of the applicable effluent limitations. Petitioners' expert witnesses agree that the facility, as designed, will comply with all of the conditions and effluent limitations in the draft permit. No Department rule or standard will be violated by this facility. The Department has not promulgated any effluent limitations or standards for viruses to be discharged to G-III groundwater or Class III surface waters that are predominantly marine. Petitioners' members use and enjoy the clear waters in their canals and in Captain's Cove. They have had the water quality tested four times a year since 1988. Captain's Cove, along with the adjacent canals, has remained a clear, oligotrophic water body with minimal algae growth. Petitioners' members fear that the introduction of viruses and other microorganisms through the facility's effluent will cause swimming in Captain's Cove and the adjacent canals to be harmful to their health. Their fear has been heightened by newspaper stories about viruses and a publicized study which erroneously claimed that Captain's Cove had high levels of harmful bacteria. Petitioner Port Antigua Property Owners Association ("PAPOA") received notice of the Department's intent to issue an operating permit to Seanic. The president discussed the permit with another resident, a microbiologist, who in turn discussed the facility with geologists and reviewed studies performed in the Florida Keys. Their serious concern over the depth of the injection wells and the possible release of viruses and bacteria harmful to the marine environment and to the public health was expressed throughout PAPOA's petition, and a copy of one of the tracer studies upon which they relied was attached to the petition. The president of Petitioner Port Antigua Townhouse Association, Inc. ("PATA"), who is also a member of PAPOA, discussed the Department's notice of intent with the president of PAPOA and the microbiologist. He also discussed the project with a member of PATA who oversees Broward County's wastewater treatment facility, which has the same effluent limitations as the Seanic facility. PATA members believed they should join with PAPOA and the Lower Matecumbe Key Association in requesting a hearing on Seanic's operating permit. PATA and others have also filed litigation in the Circuit Court against Seanic Corporation and others. That litigation is still pending. Petitioners were not able to cite any statute or rule that would be violated by the Seanic facility's discharge. They believe that since the facility is not yet operating, it should be required to adhere to the stricter effluent standards required for new facilities. They also believe that the Department should consider the harmful effects of viruses and bacteria on the marine environment and on the public health. Petitioners did not file their petitions for any improper purpose. They did not file their petitions for any frivolous purpose or to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or to increase Seanic's costs in obtaining an operating permit for its facility. They believed the language in the Department's notice of intent to issue the permit which advises substantially affected persons that they have a right to an administrative hearing and that the Department could change its preliminary agency action as an result of the administrative hearing process. They believe they are simply exercising a right that they have under the law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting Seanic's application for an operating permit for its domestic wastewater treatment facility but denying Seanic's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Francine Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Evan Goldenberg, Esquire White & Case, LLP First Union Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-5309 Lee R. Rohe, Esquire Post Office Box 500252 Marathon, Florida 33050 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Permit No. DO19-101251 issued to Mr. Vail on July 11, 1985 to construct and operate an on-site wastewater treatment and disposal system should be revoked?
Findings Of Fact Mr. Vail is the owner and operator of a business called the St. George Inn and Restaurant (hereinafter referred to as the "Inn"). The Inn is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Franklin Boulevard and Pine Avenue on St. George Island, Florida. In May of 1984 Mr. Vail spoke with an employee of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services about obtaining a permit to construct a septic tank on his property for use by the Inn for the treatment and disposal of wastewater. Mr. Vail was instructed to submit a design of the septic tank for approval. Mr. Vail contracted with McNeill Septic Tank Company for the design and construction of the septic tank. The evidence failed to prove when Mr. Vail applied with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for a permit. As of March, 1985, however, Mr. Vail had not received approval or disapproval of his application from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Mr. Vail, therefore, went to the Governor's office to seek help in getting a response. Shortly after contacting the Governor's office, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services informed Mr. Vail that he needed to obtain a permit from the Department and not from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. On or about March 18, 1985, Mr. Vail filed an Application to Operate/Construct Industrial Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems (hereinafter referred to as the "Application"), with the Department. The Application was prepared by Brown and Associates Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors, Inc., Mr. Vail's engineering consultant. The Application was certified by Benjamin E. Brown, Professional Engineer. Mr. Vail signed the Application as "owner" and indicated that he was aware of the contents of the Application. In the Application, "St. George Inn Restaurant" is listed as the "Source Name." Under Part II, A of the Application, the applicant is asked to "[d]escribe the nature and extent of the project." In response to this request, the following answer was given: This project will provide a sewage disposal system for a one hundred and fifty (150) seat restaurant on St. George Island. Sizing of the septic tank system is based on 50 GPD/seat and secondary treatment will be provided by the design proposed. Under Part III, A of the Application, the applicant is asked to provide the following information and the following answers were given: Type of Industry Restaurant . . . . 3. Raw Materials and Chemicals Used Food preparation only. Normal Operation 12 hrs/day 7 days/week . . . . If operation is seasonal, explain This restaurant will be used the most during the summer months which corresponds with ocean/beach recreation & the tourist trade. Nowhere in the Application is it indicated that the permit applied for involved anything other than a restaurant. The Application gives no information from which the Department could have known that the proposed wastewater treatment and disposal system would handle waste from guest rooms or an apartment. In the Application Mr. Vail sought approval of a permit to construct and operate a wastewater treatment and disposal system to serve a 150 seat restaurant. In the Application Mr. Vail sought a permit for a system which was to have a design flow of 7,500 gallons per day based on 50 gallons, per seat, per day water usage. An employee of the Department wrote a memorandum dated May 5, 1985, recommending approval of the Application. The Department determined, however, that the size of the property on which the Inn was to be located was not large enough for the drain field necessary to accommodate a 150 seat restaurant. Therefore, Mr. Brown modified the proposed system and resubmitted application data indicating that a 108 seat restaurant would be constructed. The design flow of the new proposal was 2,160 gallons per day based on 20 gallons per seat per day. Mr. Brown had requested that the Department approve a system based upon the newly submitted design flow. The Department and Mr. Brown both agreed that this design flow was adequate; that it was reasonable to anticipate and provide for the treatment and disposal of a maximum of 2,160 gallons per day design flow. The effect of reducing the design flow and the number of seats was to allow a shortened drain field which could be accommodated by the size of the property the Inn was to be located on. On June 27, 1985, Mr. Vail arranged for a notice to be published in the Apalachicola Times. That notice provided, in pertinent part, the following: State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Notice of Proposed Agency Action on Permit Application The department gives notice of its intent to issue a permit to Jack Vail to construct a restaurant and on-site wastewater treatment and disposal system [sic] at Franklin Boulevard and Pine Avenue, St. George Island. The treatment consists of grease trap, septic tank, and sand filter followed by disposal into a drainfield. The project meets applicable standards and will not impair the designated use of the underlying ground water. There is no anticipated impact on surface waters or air quality. . . . . This notice was sent to Mr. Vail by the Department and he made arrangements for it to be published. Nowhere in the notice is it indicated that the system to be approved by the Department is for anything other than a restaurant. On July 11, 1985, less than four months after the Application was filed with the Department, the Department issued Permit Number DO19-101251 (hereinafter referred to as the "Permit"). In the cover letter sent with the Permit the Department indicated that the Permit allowed Mr. Vail "to construct and operate a 2,160 gallon per day, on-site wastewater treatment and disposal system serving St. George Inn Restaurant. . . ." The Department also indicates in the Permit that it is for the "St. George Inn Restaurant." The Permit also provides, in pertinent part, the following with regard to the purpose of the Permit: The above named applicant, hereinafter called Permittee, is hereby authorized to perform the work or operate the facility shown on the application and approved drawing(s), plans, and other documents attached hereto or on file with the department and made a part hereof and specifically described as follows: Construct and operate a 108 seat restaurant with an on-site wastewater treatment and disposal system. Wastewater flows shall be a maximum of 2,160 gallons per day generated by domestic facilities and kitchen wastes . . . Construction shall be in accordance with application dated March 18, 1985 and additional information submitted April 29, 1985, specifications and other supporting documents prepared by Brown and Associates and certified by Benjamin E. Brown, P.E. and submitted to the Department on June 5, June 17, and June 20, 1985. The Permit also contains the following "General Condition" number 2 and "Specific Condition" number 15: . . . . 2. This permit is valid only for the specific processes and operations applied for and indicated in the approved drawings and exhibits. Any unauthorized deviation from the approved drawings, exhibits, specifications, or conditions of this permit may constitute grounds for revocation and enforcement action by the department. . . . . 15. The Department shall be notified and prior approval shall be obtained of any changes or revisions made during construction. . . . . The Permit provides the following with regard to the effect of the conditions of the Permit: The terms, conditions, requirements, limitations, and restrictions set forth herein are "Permit Conditions", and as such are binding upon the permittee and enforceable pursuant to the authority of sections 403.161, 403.727, or 403.859 through 403.861, Florida Statutes. The permittee is hereby placed on notice that the Department will review this permit periodically and may initiate enforcement action for any violation of the "Permit Conditions" by the permittee . . . . During the week after the Permit was issued, Mr. Vail obtained a building permit from Franklin County for the construction of the "inn." In February, 1986, after construction of the Inn had begun, Department inspectors went to the construction site of the Inn. The Permit authorized this inspection and other inspections carried out by the Department. The Department determined that the Inn being constructed by Mr. Vail included a restaurant, an apartment on the third floor of the Inn with two bathrooms, and eight guest rooms on the second floor, each containing a bathroom. This was the first time that the Department knew that Mr. Vail's facility was to include guest rooms and living quarters in addition to containing a 108 seat restaurant. In March of 1986, the Department sent a warning letter to Mr. Vail notifying him of the violation of the General Conditions of his Permit: the use of the approved system for the treatment and disposal of wastewater from the ten bathrooms in the guest rooms and the two bathrooms in the apartment in addition to the 108 seat restaurant. On April 1, 1986, Department personnel met with Mr. Vail and Mr. Brown. The Department reminded Mr. Vail and Mr. Brown that the Permit requested and approved by the Department was for a 108 seat restaurant only. The Department had not authorized a system which was to be used for a 108 seat restaurant and ten additional bathrooms. Pursuant to General Condition 14, the Department informed Mr. Vail that it needed an engineer's evaluation of the ability of the system which had been approved to handle the additional flow which could be expected from the additional ten bathrooms. By letter dated April 1, 1986, the Department memorialized the meeting and indicated that Mr. Vail could operate a 100 seat restaurant and the apartment during the interim. By letter dated May 8, 1986, Mr. Brown asked for additional time to submit the evaluation requested by the Department. The Department approved this request by letter dated May 14, 1986. By letter dated May 16, 1986, Mr. Brown submitted an engineering evaluation which proposed modifications to the approved system to handle the additional ten bathrooms. By letter dated June 13, 1986, the Department indicated that the evaluation was generally acceptable" but requested additional information. In January, 1987, before the additional information was submitted, Mr. Brown died in an airplane accident. No evidence was presented to explain why the information requested by the Department in June of 1986 had not been submitted before January, 1987. In March, 1987, the Department inspected Mr. Vail's facility again. In April, 1987, the Department informed Mr. Vail that the Department would take action to revoke the Permit. Before the Administrative Complaint was issued, the Department requested that certain information be provided on behalf of Mr. Vail by an engineer in an effort to resolve the dispute. Mr. Vail did not, however, obtain the services of an engineer. Instead, Mr. Vail sent the Department information purporting to show the amount of water which had been used at the Inn. That information failed to prove the ability of the system that the Department had approved to handle the maximum wastewater which could be expected from maximum use of the 108 seat restaurant and ten additional bathrooms. At best, the information submitted by Mr. Vail is partial proof that the system is capable of handling the wastewater that has been generated at the Inn for the period of time for which the information relates. No competent substantial proof has been submitted to indicate that the system is capable of handling the maximum wastewater flows which may be experienced or even that the system is adequately handling the current flow. All that has been proved is that there is no apparent problem with the system in handling the current flow. In September, 1987, the Department issued the Administrative Complaint. Pursuant to this Complaint, the Department has sought the revocation of the Permit and prescribed certain orders for corrective action. No application has been submitted by or on behalf of Mr. Vail to the Department to construct and operate a wastewater treatment facility designed to accommodate the sewage flows which may be generated by the Inn as it has been constructed. Although the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and other agencies were aware that the Inn includes a restaurant and guest rooms, the Department was never so informed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a Final Order requiring that Mr. Vail comply with all of the corrective orders, except Paragraph 18, contained in the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NUMBER 87-4242 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which Proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 Conclusion of law. 2 1. 3 6. 4 10. 5 12 and 13. 6 14. 7 15. 8 18. 9 19. 10 20. 11-12 16. 13 21. 14 23. 15 24. 16 25. 17 26. 18-19 27. 20 28. 21 29 22 Hereby accepted. Mr. Vail's Proposed Findings of Fact 1A 15. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. Hearsay and irrelevant. Although technically true, this is not the issue in this case. The evidence did not prove that the system "can in actuality handle three times the amount permitted." Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. 2A Not supported be the weight of the evidence. Exhibit 6 indicates that the Department was aware that the Inn included "hotel rooms" but not the number. Irrelevant. The evidence did not prove that the Department was aware of the scope of the project. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 3A Irrelevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. Even if this were true, the fact remains that the Department was unaware that the Inn included guest rooms or an apartment. Irrelevant. 4A-B Irrelevant. 5A-B Irrelevant. 6A 2-4. B 5. 6 and 11. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 12. 13 and 15. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 7A-C Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. 8A-D Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. 9A-B Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. 10-12 Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard L. Windsor, Esquire State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Mr. John Vail St. George Inn Post Office Box 222 St. George Island, Florida 32328 Dale Twachtmann, Secretary State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 64E-6.022(1)(b)2., 64E-6.022(1)(d), and 64E-6.022(1)(p) by repairing an onsite sewage disposal system without a permit, resulting in missed inspections, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with enforcing the statutory and regulatory provisions pertaining to the practice of septic tank installations and repairs in Florida. See § 381.0065(3), Fla. Stat. (2003). Repair of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems must be performed under the supervision and control of a registered septic tank contractor. Respondent is the qualifying registered septic tank contractor for All Florida Septic Tank Service, Inc., having been issued the registration number SR00011389. Respondent has 15 years of experience in the field of septic system construction and repair. The qualifying registered septic tank contractor for Simmons Septic and Tractor Service, Inc., is Joey Wayne Simmons. The qualifying registered septic tank contractor for AA Septic Tank Service, Inc., is Billy Wayne Joyner. However, Mr. Simmons, Mr. Joyner, and Respondent work closely together, sometimes working together on a job and/or acting as the qualifying registered septic tank contractor on each other's behalf. On September 2, 2003, the septic disposal system at the residence of Jack Young was not functioning properly. Mr. Young contracted with one of the above-referenced septic tank services to repair the system. On September 2, 2003, Respondent and another employee of All Florida Septic Tank Service, Inc., along with two employees from AA Septic Tank Service, Inc., went to Mr. Young's residence to repair Mr. Young's onsite sewage disposal system. No one applied for a permit to make any repairs to Mr. Young's system. With Respondent acting as the registered septic tank contractor, the men used a backhoe to dig up the septic tank, which was buried three feet in the ground. Respondent then repaired the pump and ran a new one and one-quarter force main line to the existing header because the old line had been compromised by roots. Respondent also cleaned roots from inside the distribution box. Respondent then sealed the tank and directed the men to cover it up. No one called Petitioner's local office, the Duval County Health Department, to request an inspection of the repair before covering the tank. The work on Mr. Young's septic system involved the replacement of an effluent transmission line. It required a permit because it constituted more than a minor repair to the pump and distribution box. Respondent should not have performed the work without a permit from the Duval County Health Department. Because there was no permit, there was no request for inspection by the Duval County Health Department. When the work was completed, Mr. Young gave Respondent a check in the amount of $1,000, payable to Mr. Simmons. The check reflected payment for repair to the filter bed, otherwise known as the drainfield. Respondent indicated his receipt of the check by signing the AA Septic Tank Service, Inc.'s Daily Truck Log and Maintenance Report. In February 2004, Mr. Young's septic system began to fail once again due to root blockage in the lines. Respondent advised Mr. Young that a permit would be required in order to make any further repairs. Mr. Young refused to pull a permit or to pay for any additional costs. On February 17, 2004, Mr. Young contacted Petitioner to report the failure of his system's drainfield. On February 18, 2004, Petitioner's inspector confirmed that Mr. Young's drainfield had failed and was causing a sanitary nuisance. During the hearing, Respondent admitted that there are no disputed issues of material facts in this case. He stated that he agreed with everything. However, he did not agree that the work he performed for Mr. Young required a permit from and inspections by Petitioner's Duval County Health Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order, finding that Respondent violated the standards of practice and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 6th day of December, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Catherine R. Berry, Esquire Department of Health 515 West Sixth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32206-4311 James L. Smith All Florida Septic Tank Service, Inc. 8300 West Beaver Street Jacksonville, Florida 32220 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Timothy M. Cerio, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. John A. Agwunobi, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
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
The Issue There are two issues in these cases: (1) whether Tampa Bay Desal, LLC ("TBD") provided reasonable assurances that its permit application to discharge wastewater from a proposed seawater desalination plant, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit Application No. FL0186813- 001-IWIS, meets all applicable state permitting standards for industrial wastewater facilities; and (2) whether Tampa Electric Company, Inc. (TEC) provided reasonable assurances that its proposed modification to an existing industrial wastewater facility permit, NPDES Permit Modification No. FL0000817-003-IWIS, meets all applicable state permitting standards.
Findings Of Fact Parties other than SOBAC Poseidon Resources, LLC wholly owns TBD as one of Poseidon Resources' subsidiaries. Poseidon Resources formed TBD, the successor to S&W Water, LLC, as a special purpose project company to properly staff and finance the desalination project. TBW entered into a 30-year purchase agreement with TBD (then known as S & W Water, LLC) in 1999 to build, own and operate the desalination facility. Poseidon Resources operates as a privately-held company and all stockholders are major corporations. Poseidon Resources opened for business in 1995 and has over $300 million in water processing assets under management. DEP is an agency of the State of Florida. The United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") delegated its NPDES permitting program to the State of Florida and is run by DEP. TEC is an investor-owned electric utility serving Hillsborough, Polk, Pasco, and Pinellas Counties. TEC owns and operates the Big Bend generating station, an electric plant consisting of four coal-fired steam units having a combined capacity of approximately 1800 megawatts. SWFWMD is a water management district in the State of Florida. SWFWMD reviews and acts upon water use permit applications and protects and manages the water and water- related resources within its boundaries. TBW and all of its Member Governments are within the geographical and legal jurisdiction of SWFWMD. Pasco County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, a member government of TBW, and is located within the jurisdiction of SWFWMD. Pasco County is a major source of the groundwater used by TBW. TBW is a regional public water supply authority. TBW is the sole and exclusive wholesale supplier of potable water for all its member governments of TBW, which are Hillsborough County, Pasco County, Pinellas County, the City of New Port Richey, the City of St. Petersburg, and the City of Tampa. TBW serves approximately 2 million customers. SOBAC SOBAC was incorporated as a Florida not-for-profit corporation in February 2000. The stated mission of SOBAC is to protect the environmental quality of the bays, canals, and waterways of the Tampa Bay area, and to ensure drinking water for SOBAC members in the Tampa Bay area. SOBAC was formed by a group of people residing primarily in the area of Apollo Beach. Apollo Beach is a waterfront residential community that was created by dredge and fill of wetlands, estuary, and bay bottom bordering the "Big Bend" area of Tampa Bay, where the community terminates in a "hammerhead" of fill over what was once a seagrass bed. Across the North Apollo Beach "Embayment," formed by the "hammerhead," is the discharge canal of TEC's Big Bend power plant. A corrugated metal barrier partially separates the embayment from the discharge canal. This discharge canal also will receive TBD's discharge after re-mixing with TEC's discharge. SOBAC initially was formed out of concern for the environment in the Big Bend area of Tampa Bay. However, there is no requirement that SOBAC members live in the Apollo Beach area, or even in the vicinity of Tampa Bay, and SOBAC's geographic area of concern has broadened somewhat beyond the Apollo Beach area. In order to become a member of SOBAC, one need only sign a card. Prospective members are asked to donate $5 on signing up. Most members donate $5 or more. However, the donation is not mandatory. There is no requirement that members attend any meetings, or participate in any SOBAC activities. Section 3.1 of SOBAC's Constitution and Corporate By-Laws makes "active" membership contingent on payment of "the prescribed [annual] dues." Section 3.2 of SOBAC's Constitution and Corporate By- Laws requires SOBAC to establish annual dues, but no annual dues have been paid because no annual dues structure has ever been established. As a result, no annual dues have been "prescribed," and "active" membership does not require payment of annual dues. SOBAC claims to have approximately 1,000 members. These include all those who have ever become members. Approximately 700 live in the Appollo Beach area; approximately 50-75 of these members form the "core" of active members. Approximately 50-100 members live outside the Tampa Bay area; some of these outsiders probably are among the approximately 100 who are members by virtue of SOBAC's reciprocity agreement with another association called "Friends of the River." SOBAC has never surveyed its membership to determine how its members actually use Tampa Bay. However, the evidence was sufficient to prove that a substantial number of its members, especially among those who reside in the Apollo Beach area, enjoy use of the waters and wetlands of the Big Bend area for recreational activities such as boating and fishing. For that reason, if the activities to be permitted by DEP in these proceedings were to cause environmental damage, a substantial number of SOBAC's members would be affected substantially and more than most residents of distant reaches of the Tampa Bay area. Background of Desalination Project In 1998, the predecessor agency to TBW (the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority), the six Member Governments and SWFWMD entered into an agreement specifically addressing impacts to natural systems through the development of new, non- groundwater sources, and the reduction of permitted groundwater withdrawal capacity from TBW's eleven existing wellfields from the then permitted capacity of 192 million gallons per day (mgd) to 121 mgd by December 31, 2002 (the "Partnership Agreement"). Pursuant to the Partnership Agreement, the existing water use permits for TBW's 11 specified wellfields were consolidated into a single permit under which TBW is the sole permittee. Prior to execution of the Partnership Agreement, the existing permits for these 11 wellfields allowed for cumulative withdrawals totaling approximately 192 mgd. Upon execution of the Partnership Agreement, the consolidated permit immediately reduced allowed withdrawals to no more than 158 mgd and required that wellfield pumping from the 11 wellfields be further reduced to no more than 121 mgd by December 31, 2002, and then to no more than 90 mgd by December 31, 2007. These withdrawal reductions are necessary to reduce the adverse environmental impacts caused by excessive withdrawals from the 11 wellfields, the majority of which are located in Pasco County. In order to replace the reduction of groundwater withdrawals, TBW adopted a Master Water Plan that provides for the development of specified new, alternative sources of potable water. The seawater desalination facility ("Desal Facility") is one of the cornerstone components of the Master Water Plan. This Facility will furnish 25 mgd of new water resources for the Tampa Bay area and must be in service by December 31, 2002, in order to meet the potable water needs of the residents of the Tampa Bay area. In exchange for the groundwater withdrawal reductions, SWFWMD agreed to contribute up to $183 million towards the development of new water sources that are diverse, reliable and cost-effective. SWFWMD has agreed to co-fund up to 90 percent of the capital cost of the Desal Facility. To comply with the terms and conditions of water use permits it has received from SWFWMD for other water withdrawals in the region, TBW must increase the water sources from which it withdraws water for distribution to its Member Governments in a timely manner. The Desal Facility is the essential means by which these permitting requirements can be met. For the past two years, the Tampa Bay area has been experiencing historic low rainfall and drought conditions. The Desal Facility is supported not only by TBW and its Member Governments, but also by SWFWMD since it is a drought-proof source of supply which has the greatest ability of any new water supply source to allow TBW to meet its members' potable water supply needs while also reducing pumpage from the existing 11 wellfields. In addition to its being a drought-proof source of potable water supply, the Facility will also provide diversity and reliability for TBW's sources of supply, and is a source that is easily expandable to provide additional potable supply that may be necessary in the future. Prior to deciding to proceed with a desalination project, TBW conducted four separate studies to look at the potential individual and cumulative impacts of a desalination facility on Tampa Bay and the surrounding areas, and in particular to evaluate the changes in baywide salinity due to the desalination discharge alone and in combination with the river withdrawals occasioned by other projects. Commencing in 1997, TBW conducted a procurement process that culminated in the award in July 1999 of a contract to S & W Water, LLC, now known as Tampa Bay Desal, LLC, to design, build, own, operate, and eventually transfer to TBW a seawater desalination plant to provide potable water to Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties and to the Cities of Tampa and St. Petersburg for 30 years. TBD's Desal Facility is co-located with the Big Bend Power Station owned and operated by TEC on the northeast side of Hillsborough Bay, in Hillsborough County, Florida. By discharging the concentrate from the Desal Facility to the power plant cooling water prior to its discharge to the power plant discharge canal, environmental impacts from the concentrate are minimized, and disturbance of the discharge canal is avoided. The costs avoided by utilizing the existing intake and outflow from the TEC power plant are reflected in the lower cost of the water to Tampa Bay Water, and ultimately its Member Governments. TBW is contractually bound to TBD to purchase all of the potable water that is produced by the Desal Facility for distribution to its Member Governments and to purchase the entire Facility in the future. With the exception of the NPDES permit at issue, TBD has obtained all of the over 20 other permits which are required for the construction and operation of the desalination facility. TBD has already invested approximately $20 million in this project. The total estimated capital cost of the desalination facility is $110 million. TBD has obtained financing of $42 million and expects to acquire permanent financing in the month of October 2001. SWFWMD agreed to subsidize up to 90 percent of the capital cost of the desalination facility payable to TBW over the term of agreement with TBD. TBD is contractually bound to TBW to complete and fully operate the desalination facility by December 2002. TBD Desalination Process Overview of Process In the instant case, desalination is performed through reverse osmosis ("RO"), a mechanical process wherein pretreated water under very high pressure is pressed against a very fine membrane such that only pure water can pass through it. The vast majority of salt molecules and other substance are eliminated from the water. The RO process is not heat or chemical driven. No additional heat load is being added as a result of the desalination discharge, and the desalination plant will actually result in a reduced heat load to the bay. The desalination facility will withdraw approximately 44.5 mgd of raw water from Units 3 and 4 of TEC's Big Bend cooling water system, produce approximately 25 mgd of product water for transmission to the regional water supply system, and discharge approximately 19.5 mgd of clarified backwash and concentrate water equally into each of the power plant cooling water tunnels for dilution and release into the discharge canal. During abnormal power plant operations including times when Units 3 or 4 are not in operation and during the summer months when the normal supply water intake temperature exceeds the operating temperature range of the RO membranes, a portion of the source water will be withdrawn from an auxiliary supply water system. The auxiliary supply water system consists of a supply pump and pipeline that withdraws water from a location downstream of the fine-mesh screens for Units 3 and 4. The total combined bay withdrawal flow for the power plant and the desalination facility cannot exceed 1.40 billion gallons per day ("bgd"). This limitation ensures that entrainment does not exceed the levels previously permitted for the site, and a new entrainment study pursuant to Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act is not required. Pretreatment Process The desalination intake water is pretreated in a two- stage gravity filtration process with chemical additives. During pretreatment, ferric sulfates will be added to the desalination intake water to coagulate and capture suspended solids, organic material, and metals that exist in the raw water supply. In this first stage of the pretreatment process, the intake water runs through an aerated course sand filter. Aeration enhances the coagulative process and assists in the capture of organics, suspended solids, and metals. Aeration also occurs in stage two, which uses a fine sand filter pretreatment process. The backwash water from stage two recirculates to the stage one treatment process. The pretreated waters exits through a five micron cartridge filtration prior to entering the RO process. The aerated pretreatment filter backwash water from the pretreatment stage one pretreatment will be sent to a discharge sump for initial settling and then to a clarifier and filter press to remove excess water. Approximately 14 wet tons a day which includes organics, suspended solids, and metals that are removed through the coagulative process and captured from the gravity filters are removed off-site to a landfill. The desal concentrate and clarified backwash water will be combined in a discharge sump or wet well prior to entering into a discharge line manifolded to equally distribute the concentrate discharge into all of the available cooling water outflow tunnels or conduits of the power plant discharge. Reverse Osmosis Membrane Treatment The RO desalination process consists of a two-stage pass of the pretreated water through the reverse osmosis membranes. The RO pumps will force the water through the RO membranes at pressures ranging from 600 to 1000 pounds per square inch (psi). As a result of the RO process, approximately 25 mgd of purified water, also known as permeate, will be produced for delivery to TBW. TBD anticipates cleaning its membranes twice per year, perhaps less, due to the high level of pretreatment. Periodic cleaning removes silt and scale from the membrane surface. Dilute solutions of citric acid, sodium hydroxide, sulfuric acid, sodium tripolyphosphate, or sodium dodecyclbenzene compromise the constituents of various cleaning solutions, with the actual cleaning solution used dependent upon the actual performance of the system once it is placed in operation. Once the cleaning cycle is complete, the spent cleaning solution will be purged from the feed tank, membrane vessels, and piping and diverted into a scavenger tank for off- site disposal. Clean product water (permeate) will be fed to the feed tank and pumped into the RO membrane vessels. This process will continue until the pH of the purge water meets the Class III marine water quality criteria. The membranes will be rinsed with brine concentrate and permeate, and the rinse water will be directed to the wet well for discharge, with the concentrate into the TEC cooling water stream. TBD determined the chemical characterization of the membrane cleaning solution discharge. Cleaning solutions are not discharged in detectable concentrations. As further assurance, the permit requires toxicity testing immediately after membrane cleaning. Dilution of Discharge Water Co-locating the desalination facility with TEC's Big Bend power station allows the desalination concentrate to be diluted with TEC's cooling water prior to discharge into Tampa Bay. The point of injection of the desalination discharge will be located approximately 72 feet upstream of the point of discharge to the discharge canal to ensure complete mixing of the desalination concentrate with TEC's cooling water. This provides reasonable assurance that the desalination discharge will be completely mixed within the cooling water conduits. If all four TEC units are in operation and TBD is producing 25 mgd of finished water, the approximate dilution ratio of the desalination concentrate with TEC cooling water is 70:1. Historical TEC data indicates that a dilution ration of greater than 20:1 will occur more than 99.6 percent of the time, and a dilution ration of greater than 28:1 will occur more than 95 percent of the time. The dilution limitations in the proposed permit are more stringent than those required in Rule 62-302.530(18). The permitted dilution ratio complies with Rule 62- 660.400(2)(d) because it takes into account the nature, volume, and frequency of the proposed discharge, including any possible synergistic effects with other pollutants which may be present in the receiving water body. Comparisons of the Antigua, Key West, and Cyprus facilities are not applicable because those desalination facilities lack the initial dilution that will exist at TEC's Big Bend site. The proposed permit requires a 20:1 minimum dilution ratio at any given time, which may occur for no more than 384 hours per calendar year, and with the further limitation that the discharge at the 20:1 minimum dilution ratio shall not exceed 384 hours in any given 60-day period. At all other times, a minimum dilution ratio of 28:1 must be maintained. To ensure proper dilution and system operation, computer instrumentation in the desal facility will interface with TEC to continuously monitor the operations of TEC's four cooling tower condenser units. If any of the pumps shut down, an alarm will sound at the desalination facility and the computer system will automatically shut down the concentrate discharge to that specific condenser unit discharge tunnel. Further, the desalination plant will employ approximately 12 employees, with a minimum of two employees on duty at all times. TEC Permit Modification Big Bend power station has four coal-fired steam electric generating units. The power station is cooled by water that is taken in from Tampa Bay through two intake structures which are located along TEC's intake canal. One intake structure feeds cooling water to electrical power units 1 and 2 and the other feeds units 3 and 4. After flowing through the condensers, the cooling flows are combined into four separate discharge tunnels which outfall into TEC's discharge canal. The intake structure for Units 3 and 4 is equipped with fine-mesh screens and an organismal collection and return system that has been approved for use by DEP. The purpose of TEC's permit modification is to alter the internal piping in the facility to accommodate the desalination plant at the Big Bend site. TEC's permit modification allows for placement of an intake pipe from TEC's cooling water pipes to the desalination plant and a return pipe downstream from the intake pipe for the return of the desalination concentrate to TEC's cooling water discharge tunnels prior to outfall in the discharge canal. TEC's permit modification also allows for the placement of an auxiliary intake line by TBD to take additional water from behind the intake of units 3 and 4 up to TEC's maximum permitted limit of 1.4 billion gallons a day. The TEC proposed permit is conditioned to require TEC to maintain the structural integrity of both the steel sheet pile wall on the discharge canal and the breakwater barrier North of the discharge canal. TEC's permit modification does not request any changes to the operations of the Big Bend Generating Station. SOBAC Issues and Concerns SOBAC raised numerous issues and concerns in its petitions in these cases and in the Pre-Hearing Stipulation. However, some issues were elimination by rulings adverse to SOBAC during prehearing proceedings and final hearing. Based on the evidence SOBAC sought to elicit at final hearing and issues raised in its Proposed Recommended Order, other, earlier SOBAC issues and concerns appear to have been dropped. Remaining are essentially the following: increased salinity due to TBD discharge; alleged decreased dissolved oxygen (DO) from higher salinity; impacts of higher salinity and alleged decreased DO on marine plants and animals; alleged release of metals from sediments due to higher salinity and alleged lower DO, and effects on marine plants and animals; alleged monitoring deficiencies; alleged failure to utilize available technologies to lower salinity and raise DO; alleged deficient financial assurances; and various alleged resulting DEP rule violations. Description of Tampa Bay: Physical Properties The portion of Tampa Bay and Hillsborough Bay near the Big Bend facility is classified a Class III water body. Tampa Bay is a naturally drowned river valley, meaning that a deep channel exists as a result of natural forces. However, the channel has been deepened to 45 feet or greater to allow large ships to navigate the bay. This deepening of the channel increases the water flow of the head of the bay with the open gulf waters and allows this residual circulation to move more new water from the open Gulf of Mexico up into the bay. Ordinarily, circulation moves salt water up Tampa Bay and spreads it out onto the flanks of the bay where it then mixes with the freshwater. To complete this circulation, the water then flows back out towards the mouth of the bay, primarily along its flanks and shallower parts in the upper part of the water column. The water in Tampa Bay tends to flow faster in its deeper parts, both coming in and going out, and relatively slower in the shallow areas. The majority of flow of freshwater inflow occurs at the bay's flanks as can be seen very clearly in the salinity distributions. Mixing and Stratification Since the development of Tampa Bay from the 1880 condition to the 1972 and 1985 conditions, there is more mixing and exchange of water. Due to shoreline fills for development, such as Apollo Beach, there is less water that now comes in the bay than in the predevelopment condition. Tampa Bay is a fairly well mixed system from top to bottom. This is because the action of the tides basically acts like a big mix master. The bay is fairly shallow, less than four meters in depth on average. The tidal velocities can be as strong as two knots or about a meter per second. When the strong velocity pushes through shallow water, there is extensive overturning, where the bottom water is churned to the top and gets mixed very efficiently. That is very well seen in the observations during dry periods. Over 100 points in Tampa Bay were measured for temperature and salinity top, middle and bottom, and showed that they were very uniform throughout the bay. During periods of large volumes of freshwater input into Tampa Bay, freshwater is pumping into the bay faster than the tidal mixing can mix it from top to bottom. Therefore, in parts of Tampa Bay significant stratification is seen during many times in the wet season. During those times when rainfall is not as prevalent, tidal mixing once again dominates and the bay returns to a more well mixed system. The average tidal fluctuation for Tampa Bay is a range of two to three feet. Salinity As the tide in Tampa Bay comes in, it brings saltier water from the mouth of the bay toward the head of the bay, causing salinities to rise. As the tide recedes, bringing out fresher water from farther up the bay, salinities decrease. Over an individual tidal cycle, particularly during the wet season, a four or five part per thousand ("ppt") change in salinity will occur between a rising tide and a falling tide. During the dry season, tidal flushing is not as significant to salinity levels because not much difference exists in salinity from the head of the bay to the mouth of the bay. Even during the dry season, there is a one to two ppt change over a six to twelve-hour period in any given day. During the dry periods in 1990, salinities elevated up to about 33 ppt, with very little stratification. During the rainy periods, in June and July, salinities dropped rather drastically. In some areas, salinity dropped as low as to 20 to 22 ppt. However, in spite of these drastic seasonal differences, significant variation in salinity occurs as a result of tidal exchange. The Big Bend area is split by the dividing line between Hillsborough Bay and what has been classified Middle Tampa Bay. The salinity for Hillsborough Bay from 1974 through June 2001 at the surface ranges from 0.4 ppt to 38.2 ppt. The middle portion of the same water column contained a range from 2.5 ppt to 39.2 ppt, and the bottom portion showed a range from 3.9 ppt to 37.2 ppt. The average salinities during this time frame were as follows: top 24.2 ppt, middle 24.3 ppt and bottom 25.3 ppt. In the portion of Tampa Bay called Middle Tampa Bay, the surface level salinity ranged from 6.8 ppt to 38.2 ppt. At middle depth, salinities ranged from 7.4 ppt to 38.8 ppt. The bottom level salinities ranged from 11.9 ppt to 39.6 ppt. This is a large range of salinities. Tampa Bay near the Big Bend Area In the area near the Big Bend facility, the Mote Marine Laboratory survey data reflects that the salinity during May and June 2000 reached 33.4 ppt. Further, Mote Marine Laboratory data showed that the North Apollo Embayment area salinities were well mixed vertically throughout the system. The total volume of water exchanged into the North Apollo Embayment and associated canals during a mean tide is approximately 35 percent of the total volume of all water contained in that area. This tidal exchange occurs twice per day. The double diffusion process does not create high salinity in the bottom of the water column in the North Apollo Embayment. The double diffusion process, without any external influence, would lead to both surface and bottom layers of the water column reaching salinity equilibrium. Further, the turbulent mixing that occurs due to tidal processes and wind- induced mixing dominates over the double diffusion process. The Mote Marine Laboratory study conducted between May and early June 2000 did not detect any significant salinity stratification in the area near the Big Bend facility. Vertical stratification of salinity does occur but typically only during the periods of significant freshwater inflow and not in extreme drought or dry conditions. None of the Mote Marine Laboratory data detected any pockets of high salinity water or significant density stratification in the North Apollo Embayment. Estuarine Characteristics Tampa Bay is an estuary. Estuaries are semi-enclosed bodies of saltwater that receive freshwater runoff from drainage or riverine inflow, which measurably dilutes the salinity levels in the estuary. As a result, salinity levels in estuaries typically are highly variable, ranging from 0 ppt where rivers flow into estuaries, to as high as 40 ppt under conditions of low freshwater input or at estuarine mouths where they connect to the sea. There are naturally occurring dissolved oxygen levels below 4.0 mg/l in parts of Tampa Bay, including at Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission ("EPC") monitoring stations 9, 80, and 81, which are the closest stations to the proposed discharge. Dissolved oxygen in the bay decreases at night because photosynthesis ceases and respiration exceeds production. Other environmental parameters are also highly variable in estuaries. Therefore, the organisms that inhabit estuaries have adapted to tolerate these highly variable conditions. Estuarine organisms have adaptive means for tolerating changing salinity levels, either by conforming their internal salinity levels to the ambient salinity levels, or by actively regulating their internal salinity levels by intake or excretion of salt. Organisms that are adapted to tolerate a wide range of salinities within the estuary are termed euryhaline organisms. Essentially all of the common organisms in estuaries, including the Tampa Bay estuary, are euryhaline organisms, and therefore are capable of tolerating and living in a wide range of salinities and salinity changes that occur due to tidal, meteorological, and other natural forces in the estuarine environment. Extensive baseline biological studies performed on Tampa Bay reveal that the most common species in the Tampa Bay estuary tolerate salinity levels ranging from 5 ppt to 40 ppt. Seagrasses Five species of seagrass inhabit Tampa Bay. Seagrasses are photosynthetic underwater flowering plants that are typically limited in occurrence and distribution by the water clarity. This limits the depth at which seagrasses can grow. In Tampa Bay, seagrasses are limited to the fringes of the Bay, and are largely limited to depths of approximately three feet, although they can live in depths of up to six feet in clearer parts of the Bay. Seagrasses are very sensitive to increases in nutrients, like nitrogen and phosphorus. These nutrients encourage algae growth, resulting in competitive stress in seagrasses. Due to poor water quality caused by sewage discharge, dredging and filling, and other activities in the Bay, seagrass distribution in Tampa Bay decreased from an historic coverage of approximately 80,000 acres in 1950 to approximately 20,000 acres by 1982. Improvements in water quality, largely due to sewage treatment improvements, have allowed seagrasses to naturally recolonize to approximately 27,000 acres coverage, as of 1994. Wave energy affects seagrass distribution. Seagrasses cannot colonize and survive in areas subject to significant wave energy. For example, the portion of Tampa Bay dredged and filled to create the Apollo Beach "hammerhead" area was once comprised of a broad shallow-water shelf that diminished wave energy, allowing dense seagrass flats to cover the shelf area. Destruction of the broad shallow-water shelf with fill to create the Apollo Beach hammerhead has converted the area to a high wave energy system that is unsuitable for seagrass colonization and growth. Consequently, the only seagrasses inhabiting the Big Bend area are found approximately one kilometer north of the Big Bend power plant, in an area known as "The Kitchen," and approximately one kilometer south of the Apollo Beach hammerhead area. Additionally, there are ephemeral patches of seagrass inhabiting some limited areas of the North Apollo Embayment. Seagrasses are adapted to tolerate a wide range of salinities. They have specialized cells that enable them to deal with salt stress and with broad ranges of and fluctuations in salinity. These adaptations enable them to survive and thrive in estuarine environments. Of the seagrass species that live in Tampa Bay, one species, Ruppia maritima (widgeon grass), occurs in salinity ranges from zero to 40 ppt. Manatee grass, Syringodium filiforme, is most productive in salinities between 5 ppt and 45 ppt. The other three species, Halodule wrightii (shoal grass), Halophila engelmannii (star grass), and Thalassia testudinum (turtle grass), tolerate salinity ranges from approximately 5 ppt to 60 ppt. Seagrasses better tolerate higher salinity levels than lower salinity levels. Lower salinity levels are usually indicative of increased stream and land freshwater runoff, which usually is accompanied by increased turbidity and lower water clarity. Four of the five seagrass species that inhabit Tampa Bay typically reproduce asexually by producing rhizomes, rather than by flowering and producing seeds. It is not completely clear why seagrasses in Tampa Bay reproduce asexually rather than by flowering and seed production. However, recent research indicates that climatic temperature is the controlling factor for flower and seed production. In South Florida, where the climate is warmer, seagrasses reproduce by flowering and seed production. In Tampa Bay, the lower winter temperatures appear to be the limiting factor with respect to successful flower and seed production in seagrasses. Recent studies by the University of South Florida ("USF") marine laboratory indicate that naturally occurring fungal diseases may also limit successful flowering and seed production in seagrasses in Tampa Bay. Since most seagrass species that live in Tampa Bay tolerate and thrive in salinities of up to 60 ppt, the higher salinity levels in the estuary do not appear to adversely affect the ability of seagrasses to reproduce. In fact, the lower salinity levels, below 5 ppt, stress seagrasses and are more likely to adversely affect reproduction than do higher salinity levels. Mangroves Three major species of mangrove inhabit the Tampa Bay area: the red mangrove, black mangrove, and white mangrove. Mangroves inhabit the intertidal area, so they are subjected to daily tidal flooding and drying. Consequently, they must tolerate a wide range of variability in salinity levels and in water availability. Most mangroves tolerate soil salinity levels up to 60 ppt, close to twice the salinity of Tampa Bay. Mangrove mortality due to salinity does not occur until soil levels approach and exceed 70 ppt salinity. Mangroves are also adaptable to, and inhabit, freshwater environments. Phytoplankton and Zooplankton Plankton are life stages or forms of larger organisms, or organisms that have no ability for major locomotion, so they spend their entire life spans floating and drifting with the currents. Plankton are extremely productive in that they reproduce in very large numbers within very short life spans. Holoplankton are planktonic organisms that spend their entire lives in planktonic form. Examples include diatoms, which are a type of phytoplankton, and copepods, which are a type of zooplankton. Meroplankton are "temporary" plankton that drift with the currents in juvenile or larval stages, then either settle out of the water column and metamorphose into an attached form (such as barnacles) or metamorphose into mobile life forms (such as crabs, shrimp, and fish species). Phytoplankton are planktonic plant species and life forms. Zooplankton are planktonic animal species and life forms. Zooplankton feed on phytoplankton. There are approximately 300 species of phytoplankton, and numerous species and forms of zooplankton, found in Tampa Bay. Most phytoplanktonic and zooplanktonic species inhabiting Tampa Bay are euryhaline species capable of tolerating the wide range of salinity levels and abrupt salinity changes that occur naturally in the estuarine system. Most phytoplanktonic and zooplanktonic species and life forms in Tampa Bay tolerate salinity levels ranging from zero to 40 ppt. They appear to be more tolerant of the higher end than the lower end of this salinity range. Manatee The manatee is the only endangered or threatened species identified by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory as inhabiting the area where the desalination plant is proposed to be located. Manatees congregate at the Big Bend Power Station during colder months because they are attracted to the power plant's warmer water discharge. Manatees are considered to be estuarine species, but they have very broad salinity tolerance ranges. They migrate into and out of freshwater springs, through estuaries, into the Gulf of Mexico, and down to the Ten Thousand Islands, where hypersaline conditions frequently exist. Manatees routinely expose themselves to and tolerate salinities ranging from zero to more than 40 ppt. Fish The fish populations in Tampa Bay are comprised of a large number of marine euryhaline species. Due to their ability to osmoregulate their internal salinity levels, these fish species can inhabit salinity ranges from 5 ppt to as high as 40 ppt. Extremely extensive monitoring and sampling programs are currently being conducted in Tampa Bay and specifically in the vicinity of the Big Bend Power Station. The Hillsborough County EPC, SWFWMD, TBW, the United States Geological Survey ("USGS"), the Florida Marine Research Institute, USF, and Mote Marine Laboratory conduct separate biological monitoring programs that sample and monitor numerous biological parameters, including invertebrate infaunal and epifaunal species composition, abundance, and distribution; zooplankton and phytoplankton species composition, abundance, and distribution; emergent and submerged vegetation species composition, abundance, and distribution; and fish species composition, abundance, and distribution. These monitoring programs, which collect and analyze biological data from many areas in the Tampa Bay estuarine system, extensively monitor numerous biological parameters in the Big Bend area. Testing and Modeling Pilot Plant Although DEP's rules do not require the use of a pilot plant to demonstrate reasonable assurances, TBD installed a desalination pilot plant at the Big Bend site in November 1999. The pilot plant matched the hydraulics and configuration of the full-scale facility on a 1/1000 scale. The pilot plant used water from the Big Bend power plant discharge as its source water. The purpose of the pilot plant was to confirm design requirements for the desalination facility and to provide samples of intake water, filtered water, pretreated water, concentrate, and finished water to use for chemical characterization and analysis. Using a pilot plant is superior to using data from engineering projections or data from a different desalination facility because the pilot plant provides data specific to the Big Bend site. Data from the pilot plant were used to establish various effluent and other limits in the permit. Chemical Characterization Intake water, filtered water, pretreated water, concentrate, and finished water from the pilot plant were analyzed for over 350 parameters chosen by DEP to determine chemical characterizations and water quality. The pilot plant operation provides extensive chemical characterization of intake and discharge water composition and mass loading. This information was key in providing accurate information on the chemical composition and mass loading of the desalination discharge concentrate. With this accurate information on the components in the discharge water, DEP was provided more than sufficient reasonable assurance on the potential effect of the chemical components of the discharge. TBD tested the pilot plant discharge water for copper, nickel, other heavy metals, and those chemical constituents specified on the DEP chemical characterization form. The chemical characterization tested for concentrations of constituents based on a 12.8 to 1 dilution ratio, and even at that dilution ratio, did not exceed any of the state water quality parameters. However, to provide additional assurance that there will not be an exceedance of state water quality standards, the permit requires a minimum 20 to 1 dilution ratio. Dissolved Oxygen Saturation Testing Temperature and salinity affect the saturation point of dissolved oxygen ("DO") which is lowest when temperature and salinity are highest. DO saturation charts, which are typically used to determine DO saturation points, are not applicable because those charts do not contain the saturation point of DO at a temperature of 109 degrees Fahrenheit and a salinity of 79 ppt, which represents the worst case conditions for the proposed desalination facility. Bench-scale testing was performed on the undiluted desalination discharge from the pilot plant by heating discharge concentrate samples to 109 degrees Fahrenheit and aerating the samples until the DO stabilized and reached saturation point. The pilot plant bench-scale testing determined that the saturation point of DO in the worst case desalination concentrate using a temperature of 109 degrees Fahrenheit and salinity of 79 ppt was 5.7 mg/l. Toxicity Testing TBD conducted acute toxicity testing using a worst case scenario assuming a diluted effluent of one part desalination concentrate to 12.8 parts of power plant cooling water. Acute toxicity testing evidenced no mortalities, showing that the proposed discharge will not be a source of acute toxicity. TBD conducted chronic toxicity testing on raw concentrate from the pilot plant using a worst case scenario diluted effluent of one part desalination concentrate to 12.8 parts of power plant cooling water. The No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) for raw concentrate was determined to be 100 percent and the NOEC for diluted effluent was determined to be greater than 100 percent. The evidence did not explain these concepts, but it was clear from the tests that the proposed discharge will not be a source of chronic toxicity. TBD conducted its acute and chronic toxicity testing using protocols reviewed and approved by DEP. TBD's toxicity testing was also consistent with accepted EPA standards. Assessment of Potential Environmental Impacts TBD prepared an Assessment of Potential Environmental Impacts and Appendices ("Assessment") to analyze the potential biological impacts of the desalination plant discharge into the Tampa Bay estuary. The Assessment examined numerous physical parameters to determine the baseline environmental conditions in the portion of Tampa Bay proximate to the proposed desalination plant site. Among the physical parameters examined in determining the baseline environmental conditions were: salinity; sediment size and composition; metal content in sediments; and numerous water quality parameters such as transparency, biochemical oxygen demand, pesticides, dissolved metals, and pH. Consistency with SWIM Plan As part of the permitting process, TBD was required to demonstrate consistency of the proposed desalination discharge with the SWFWMD's Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) plan, pursuant to Rule 62-4.242. TBD submitted an extensive SWIM consistency analysis, which is sufficient to meet the consistency requirement. Water Quality Based Effluent Limitation Level II Study TBD performed a Water Quality Based Effluent Limitation (WQBEL) Level II study pursuant to Rule Chapter 62- 650 for the purpose of determining the effect of the desalination plant discharge on salinity levels in the vicinity of the desalination plant discharge. TBD had the Danish Hydrologic Institute ("DHI") use the data collected through the WQBEL Level II study in its near-field model of the Big Bend area. See Findings 105-117, infra. DEP also used the data and the DHI model results to establish the salinity and chloride effluent limitations in the permit. The USF Far-Field Model The far-field model was prepared utilizing the Princeton model code. The Princeton model is well recognized and is generally accepted in the scientific community. The goals of the TBD far-field model performed through USF by Dr. Luther and his team were to evaluate the change in bay-wide salinity due to the desalination plant discharge, both alone and in combination with changes in salinity due to enhanced surface water system withdrawals under new consumptive water use permits issued to TBW by SWFWMD to provide other, additional sources of needed potable water supply. The primary goal was to provide DEP with the best science possible of the potential real effects of this desalination discharge into Tampa Bay. The modeling system of Tampa Bay utilized in this analysis was developed beginning in 1989. Dr. Luther and his team have continued to make refinements to the model over the last 12 years. Dr. Luther took the modeling system he had developed over the years for Tampa Bay and did three primary model scenarios. The baseline case reproduced the observed conditions during the 1990 and 1991 years--a very dry period in 1990 and a fairly wet period for 1991--as accurately as possible with all the boundary conditions estimated from observations. This was to capture an entire range of conditions in Tampa Bay. The baseline was then compared with validation data and other observations to ensure it was approximating reality. The second simulated scenario included the same effects as the baseline with the added effect of the desalination intake and discharge at the Big Bend facility. The third case approximated cumulative effects from the TBW enhanced surface water system river withdrawals according to the proposed permit withdrawal schedules. For each test case, it was assumed that only two of the four cooling units at the TEC Big Bend plant were in operation for an entire two-year period, a worst-case scenario expected to occur less than four percent of the time in any given year. The model included data on water levels, temperature, and salinity throughout Tampa Bay. In addition, it takes into account wind blowing across the surface of Tampa Bay, rainfall, freshwater inflow from rivers, and other surface water and groundwater sources. The model was calibrated and validated against actual data to verify simulation of reality as closely as possible. The model was calibrated and validated utilizing Hillsborough County EPC and Tampa Oceanographic Project ("TOP") salinity data. Physical Oceanographic Real Time System ("PORTS") and TOP data on current flow velocity and water levels were utilized to calibrate and validate water levels and current. The acoustic doppler current profilers used in the model study are able to measure the speed at which the water is traveling and the direction at various levels above the bottom within the water column. The TBD far-field model very accurately reproduces the observed tidal residual velocities observed with the acoustic doppler current profilers. The far-field model reflects any stratification that would occur during the model simulations. The far-field model simulates recirculation that occurs between the discharge and intake water. Recirculation is small due to the model's use of the actual bathymetry of Tampa Bay. There are significant shoals and other features that separate the water from the discharge and the intake canal that preclude significant recirculation most of the time. After submitting the far-field model report to DEP, further study was performed on the far-field model that calculated residence time for Tampa Bay. One study dealt with "residence" or "flushing" time. The concept of "residence time" is not well-defined; put another way, there are many different accepted ways of defining it. It may be defined in a simplified manner as the time it takes a patch of dye to flush out of the bay. However, for purposes of the studies performed on the far-field model, theoretical "particles" in model grids were tracked, and "residence time" was defined as the time it would take for the number of particles initially in a grid cell to decrease to 34 percent of the initial number. Using this approach and definition, residence time in the vicinity of the Big Bend facility on the south side where the discharge canal is located was less than 30 days. Immediately offshore of the area of the discharge, the residence time reduced to less than 15 days. The study indicated that the area of the Big Bend facility has a relatively low residence time. In the model's baseline run (for the desalination plant impacts only), maximum differences in salinity occurred during the month of April 1991. Throughout the two-year time period, the maximum concentration of salinities did not increase from this point, and in fact decreased. The maximum average value for salinity difference is 1.3 ppt at the grid cell located directly at the mouth of the TEC Big Bend discharge canal. More than two grid boxes away in any direction and the value falls to less than 0.5 ppt increase in salinity. The maximum salinity of any given day for the far- field model was in the range of 2.1 to 2.2 ppt, which compares favorably with the DHI near-field model which showed an increase of 2.5 ppt. The salinity changes caused by the cumulative effects scenario are smaller than the natural variability during the wetter months in Hillsborough Bay in cells immediately adjacent to the concentrate discharge. Increases in salinity will occur in the vicinity of the discharge canal but will be very localized and small relative to the natural variability in salinity observed in Tampa Bay. At a distance of more than a few hundred meters from the mouth of the discharge canal, it would be difficult (if not impossible) to determine statistically that there would be any increase in salinity from the desalination concentrate discharge. Over the two years modeled, there is no trend of increasing salinity. No long-term accumulation of salt is evidenced within the model. Further, no physical mechanism exists within the real world that would allow for such a long- term accumulation of salinity in Tampa Bay. Dr. Blumberg's independent work verified the conclusions in the far-field model constructed by USF. Dr. Blumberg's estimated flushing times are consistent with those found in the far-field model. DHI Near-Field Model The TBD near-field model was prepared by DHI. DHI prepared a three-dimensional near-field model to describe the potential salinity impacts from the discharge of the proposed desalination plant. The DHI model is a state-of-the-art model whose physics are well documented. By model standards, the DHI near-field model is a high resolution model. The DHI model essentially "nests" within TBD's far-field model. The near-field area includes those areas that would be directly influenced by the combined power and desalination discharges, the North Apollo Embayment and the residential canal system adjacent to the discharge canal. The near-field model was designed to determine whether or not the desalination plant would cause continuous increases in salinity and to predict any increase in salinity in the North Apollo Embayment and the associated canal system. In addition, DHI evaluated the potential for saline recirculation between the discharge and the intake via short circuiting due to overtopping of the existing break water. In order to construct the near-field model, existing data on bathymetry, wind sources, meteorology and other parameters were examined and analyzed. In addition, the information from an intensive data collection effort by Mote Marine Laboratories on current velocities, temperatures, and salinities was incorporated into the model. TBD conducted bathymetric surveys in the residential canal areas, the North Apollo Embayment, and the area between the discharge canal and the intake canal. The model has a vertical structure of six grids and reflects vertical stratification that would occur in the system being modeled. The vertical grids in the model can detect a thermal plume one meter in depth (the size of the thermal plume from TEC's discharge). Information about the TEC thermal plume was incorporated into the model and utilized to calibrate the model's predictive capabilities. The model took into account interactions between the temperature plume and the salinity plume. The model predictions matched the measured temperature plume created by the TEC discharges quite well. The near-field model conservatively assumed a scenario in which only the two TEC units with the smallest total through-flow of 691.2 million gallons a day cooling water were active. DHI then assumed production of a maximum 29 mgd in product water. A salinity level of 32.3 ppt at the intake was utilized in the simulation. The model assumed a conservative wind condition which results in less mixing and dispersion of the plume. Further, wind direction tended to be from the southwest or west during the simulation, which tends to push the plume against the TEC break water which tends to reinforce recirculation. SOBAC witness Dr. Parsons agreed that these simulations for April and May 2000 constituted extreme conditions. DHI ran its model for a total time period of six weeks. The "warm up" for the simulation took place from April 15 to May 7, followed by the "calibration" simulation from May 8 to May 22. An additional validation sequence was run from May 25 to June 8. The production run was defined as the three weeks from May 8 to May 29, 2000. The intensity of the calculations performed in the near-field model due to its high spacial resolution and numeric restrictions make it computationally demanding. The calibration runs took approximately a week to 10 days to run on a state-of-the-art computer. From a computational standpoint, it is not practical to run the near-field model for a two-year time period. The model shows good agreement between its water levels and current velocity to observed data. The model reflects the recirculation of the discharge water that would occur in the system. The maximum salinity for the extreme case scenario in the near-field model is an increase in salinity of 2.5 ppt. With three condensers running, under the modeling scenario comparing the base condition to the desal discharge, there is a maximum difference of only 2.0 ppt. Further, there is no indication of any continuous build up of salinity in the near- field area due to the desalination plant discharge. DHI performed many sensitivity runs on the model, including one which examined rainfall conditions. The results of a two-inch rainfall analysis show that rainfall profoundly freshens the water in the near-field area. Since the modeling was done in a time period of extreme drought, with no freshwater inputs, the ambient or background salinity trended up over the time frame of May through June. As with any estuary, if freshwater inflow is removed, the estuary will get saltier until freshening occurs. Even with the model simulation period extended an additional 10 days beyond that reflected in TBD Ex. 1-O, the model results did not show any increase of salinity differences caused by the desal facility above 2.5 ppt. Based on data from field collections, the operation of the desal plant under worst case conditions did not exceed the assimilative capacity of the near-field environment. A 10 percent salinity change (3.23 ppt) was not reached in any grid cell. The Blumberg Study The "Environmental Impact Assessment for a Seawater Desalination Facility Proposed for Co-Location with the Tampa Electric Company Big Bend Power Generation Facility Located on Tampa Bay, Florida" authored by Norman Blake and Alan F. Blumberg ("Blumberg Study") is a hydrodynamic model study combined with an analysis of potential biological effects. The Blumberg Study was performed at the request of and presented to the Board of County Commissioners of Hillsborough County, Florida. Dr. Blumberg's model used 1998 and 1999 as its baseline, which consisted of an extremely wet year followed by an extremely dry year. The model assumed a scenario of two cooling units in operation pumping 656 mgd of discharge flow. The results of the Blumberg Study are very similar to the results of TBD's far-field model. In addition, the model ran for a 9-year period without any sign of ongoing build-up of salinity. After the two-year model run, the second year ran for an additional 7 simulated years for total model simulation period of 9 years. The Blumberg Study found salinity only increased by 1.4 ppt in the North Apollo Beach Embayment. In fact, the Blumberg Study showed no salinity build-up after the second year of the 7-year portion of the model simulation. The Blumberg Study found that the flushing time for the area near the Big Bend facility ranges from 4 to 10 days. The Blumberg Study applied a formula to predict potential DO saturation level changes. The analysis concluded a small change to DO saturation assuming full saturation on average of 7 mg/l. The Blumberg Study predicted that the desalination discharge would not lower actual DO levels below 5 mg/l. The Blumberg Study concluded that the marine ecology will not be affected by the desalination facility operation. Older Two-Dimensional Models of Tampa Bay Significant strides have been made in hydrodynamic modeling over the last 10 years, with the standard changing from two-dimensional models to three-dimensional models. Three-dimensional models provide more complete results than two-dimensional models. In the late 1970's through the late 1980's, modeling was constrained by the computing limitations of the time and could not examine the difference in water layers in a bay and potentials for currents going in different directions or speeds in different layers of the bay, as now done by state-of-the-art three-dimensional models. A two-dimensional model cannot accurately represent the tidal residual circulation in an estuary such as Tampa Bay, because it omits some of the critical physical forces that drive this type of flow. As the acoustic doppler current profiler showed, water flows in the top of the water column in one direction and flows in the bottom of the water column in a different direction. A two-dimensional model would average these flows over the entire vertical water column. In doing so, it would show much slower residual flow (and, therefore, longer residence time and a longer time to flush the system). SOBAC offered the testimony of Dr. Carl Goodwin, a civil engineer with the USGS. Dr. Goodwin provided testimony on two-dimensional model studies he did for the USGS in the late 1980's to assess the effects of dredging the shipping channel in Tampa Bay. Dr. Goodwin's studies, contained in SOBAC Exs. 69 and 70, suggested the existence of "gyres" in Tampa Bay. But no "gyres" have been observed, and it now appears that these gyres actually do not exist but are two- dimensional modeling artifacts, as shown by state-of-the-art three-dimensional modeling of Tampa Bay. In an earlier version of Dr. Luther's Tampa Bay model, an experiment was performed running the model in a vertically average mode to mimic the two-dimensional model. In this mode, the model was able to reproduce the "gyres" that Dr. Goodwin observed in his two- dimensional model. When the physical equations that related to pressure forces (baroclines) were reactivated in the three- dimensional model, the "gyres" disappeared. In addition, this experiment showed that the two- dimensional model simulation showed residence times an order of magnitude longer as compared to the full three-dimensional simulation. This means that residence time would be 10 times longer in the two-dimensional model than in the three- dimensional model, which takes into account baroclinic forces. Subsequent to the publication of his modeling studies (SOBAC Exs. 69 and 70), Dr. Goodwin found that it would take approximately 110 days for water to travel from the mouth of the Hillsborough Bay to the mouth of Tampa Bay in 1985. This calculation by Dr. Goodwin was not subjected to peer review or the USGS process. However, dividing the 110-day time period with correction factor of 10 discussed above, Dr. Goodwin's corrected estimate would predict an 11-day period for transport of water from Hillsborough Bay to the mouth of Tampa Bay--similar to the Blumberg Study and far-field model results. Opinions of Other SOBAC Experts Besides Dr. Goodwin, SOBAC also elicited some general opinions regarding the combined thermal and salinity plume from Dr. Mike Champ, called as an expert in the areas of environmental biology and chemistry, and from Dr. Wayne Isphording, called as an expert in sedimentology and geochemistry. In part, Dr. Champ based his opinion on a misunderstanding that Tampa Bay is not well-mixed or well- circulated at the location of the Big Bend power plant. In this respect, Dr. Champ's testimony was contrary to all the evidence. Even the "gyres" suggested by Dr. Goodwin's two- dimensional model studies would suggest a great deal of mixing in Middle Tampa Bay in the vicinity of the Big Bend plant. To the extent that the opinions of Dr. Champ and Dr. Isphording differed from the modeling results, they are rejected as being far less persuasive than the expert opinions of the modelers called by TBD, who spent far more time and effort studying the issue. Compliance with Dissolved Oxygen Standard Oxygen is a gas which can dissolve in water to some degree. There are two measurements of DO in water: saturation point and actual level. The saturation point of DO in water equates to the maximum amount of DO that water will hold. The actual level of DO is a measurement of the oxygen in the water. Since the saturation point is the maximum amount of DO that water will hold in equilibrium, the actual level of DO in water is typically equal to or lower than the saturation point. Desalination will affect the saturation point of DO to the extent that it increases salinity. Increased salinity decreases the saturation point of DO because it lowers the potential for water to hold oxygen. But desalination would not affect the actual level of DO in the water if the saturation point remains above the actual level of DO in the water. TBD determined that in the worst case scenario using undiluted desalination discharge, the lowest possible saturation point of DO would be 5.7 mg/l. If the actual level of DO is above 5.7 mg/l, desalination may lower that actual level of DO to 5.7 mg/l. If the actual level of DO is below 5.7 mg/l, desalination will not lower the DO. Since TBD will aerate the water in the pretreatment process, if the actual level of DO is below 5.7 mg/l, the actual level of DO in the discharge water will be increased. The permit DEP proposes to issue to TBD requires that DO at the point of discharge from the RO plant meet the following: that instantaneous DO readings not depress the intake DO when intake DO is at or below 4.0 mg/l, and that they be greater than or equal to 4.0 mg/l when intake DO is greater than 4.0 mg/l; that 24-hour average readings not depress the 24-hour average intake DO when the 24-hour average intake DO is at or below 5.0 mg/l, and that they be greater than or equal to 5.0 mg/l when the 24-hour average intake DO is greater than 5.0 mg/l. The evidentiary basis for SOBAC's argument that the proposed permit's DO limitation allowed violations of state water quality standards was the testimony of Dr. Champ. But it was evident from his testimony that Dr. Champ was not even aware of the effluent limitations until they were pointed out to him at final hearing. Nonetheless, and although Dr. Champ barely had time to read the DO limitations, Dr. Champ immediately opined that the proposed DO limitations virtually invited water quality violations. He dismissed the permit language out-of-hand as being "loosey-goosey," "fuzzy-wuzzy," and "weasel-like." Actually, there is no conflict between the proposed permit's DO limitations and the water quality standards and water quality criteria in DEP's rules. Other witnesses, particularly Tim Parker of DEP, properly compared the language in the permit with DEP's rules containing water quality standards and water quality criteria. Mr. Parker pointed out that the rules must be read in harmony with each other. Rule 62-302.530(31) contains DO water quality criteria and requires that the "actual DO shall not average less than 5.0 in a 24 hour period and shall never be less than 4.0." Rule 62-302.300(15), a water quality standard, states: Pollution which causes or contributes to new violations of water quality standards or to continuation of existing violations is harmful to the waters of this State and shall not be allowed. Waters having a water quality below the criteria established for them shall be protected and enhanced. However, the Department shall not strive to abate natural conditions. Mr. Parker testified that the "natural conditions" referred to in Rule 62-302.300(15) are those found in the intake water to the desalination facility. TBD will not violate either the water quality criteria or the water quality standard for DO. If the actual level of DO in the intake water is less than 5.0 mg/l, TBD will not decrease the actual level of DO in the water below 5.0 mg/l because the actual level of DO is below the worst case saturation point of 5.7 mg/l. The water quality standard in Rule 62-302.300(15) does not prohibit discharges having DO levels below 4.0 mg/l when that discharge does not cause or contribute to existing DO violations. TBD will not cause or contribute to existing DO violations because if the level of DO in the intake water which is the natural condition is less than 4.0 mg/l, TBD will not decrease the actual level of DO in the water. To the contrary, the desalination process will increase the actual level of DO whenever it is below 5.0 mg/l. TBD has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed desalination discharge will not violate the DO water quality standards and criteria in Rules 62-302.530(31) and 62- 302.300(15) because the desalination process will not decrease the actual level of DO below 5.0 mg/l. SOBAC argued that DO levels will drop between intake and discharge as a result of desalination. Some of this argument was based on the testimony of Dr. Mike Champ, one of SOBAC's expert witnesses. But Dr. Champ's testimony on this point (and several others) is rejected as being far less persuasive than the testimony of the expert witnesses for TBD and the other parties. See Finding 196, infra. SOBAC's argument apparently also was based on a fundamental misapprehension of the results of the Blumberg Study, which SOBAC cited as additional support for its argument that desalination will decrease DO at the discharge point. The Blumberg Study only spoke to desalination's effect on DO saturation concentrations, not to its effect on actual DO levels. (In addition, contrary to SOBAC's assertions, the Blumberg Study did not model DO saturation concentrations but only inferred them.) pH The pilot plant measured and analyzed the potential for pH changes in the desalination process and demonstrated that the desalination process reduced pH by no more than a tenth of a pH unit. pH ranges in natural seawater from top to bottom change over one full pH unit; a tenth of a pH unit change would be well within the natural variation of the system. TBD has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed desalination discharge will not violate Rule 62- 302.530(52)(c), which requires that pH shall not vary more than one unit above or below natural background of coastal waters, provided that the pH is not lowered to less than 6.5 units or raised above 8.5 units. Limitations for pH in the permit ensure compliance with Rule 62-302.530(52)(c) at the point of discharge to waters of the state. Temperature Nothing in the desalination process adds heat to the discharged water. To the contrary, the desalination process may dissipate heat due to the interface of the intake water with the air surface in the pretreatment process. Further, the effect of removing 25 mgd of heated cooling water as desal product water reduces the heat load coming out of the TEC plant cooling water discharge by that same 25 mgd. Temperature readings taken as part of the pilot plant study confirm a slight decrease in temperature across the desalination process. Metals The pretreatment process employed by TBD will result in a reduction in metals in the treated water. Ferric sulfate is added to the intake water upstream of the sand filters in the pretreatment process to precipitate metals into solid material which can be captured by the sand filters. Adding ferric sulfate in the pretreatment process results in a net reduction in the total mass load of metals in the discharge water. Initial calculations in the permit application that 104 pounds of ferric sulfate were being discharged in the desalination concentrate were based on using 20 mg/l of ferric sulfate and a conservative estimate of 95 percent settling of solids, with 5 percent of the ferric sulfate being discharged in the desalination concentrate. Further testing through the pilot plant revealed that coagulation optimizes at 9 to 14 mg/l of ferric sulfate with 97.5 percent of the solids settling, resulting in only 2.5 percent (52 pounds) of the ferric sulfate being discharged per day. The desal facility discharge of iron is minute in comparison to naturally occurring metals within the surface water flowing into Tampa Bay from the Hillsborough and Alafia Rivers. Increases in iron due to ferric sulfate addition are predicted to result in a diluted discharge in which the iron level is still below Class III marine surface water limitation of 0.30 mg/l. Even SOBAC witness Dr. Isphording confirmed that there are no concerns caused by metals that TBD is adding during the process. Discharge Effect on Metal Absorption/Desorption Dr. Isphording limited his concerns to the reaction of higher salinity, DO, and redox to the sediments already contained within the area beyond the discharge point. Dr. Isphording admits that he cannot quantify what the potential release of heavy metals would be due to these factors. Absorption of metals occurs when an organic or clay particle attracts to its surface a metal. Biota do not obtain metals if the metal is held in sand or silt size particles. Biota, be they plant or animal, in most cases obtain the metals they receive from tiny particles that are suspended in the water called microparticulate material. Microparticulate material is generally referred to as colloidal phase. Typically, this phase is on the order of a tenth of a micron in size. Biota obtain metals only if they are present at clay- size particles. Only 10 percent of the quantity of metals that are theoretically available to the biota in a given environment is actually absorbed in tissues. Salinity Has Little Effect on Metals Salinity does not exert a controlling influence on absorption/desorption reactions except at very low salinities. If the salinity is zero, which is essentially a pure freshwater environment, and the salinity level then rises 3 ppt, there would be profound changes in the metal loads, for example, where rivers meet estuaries or seawater. When salinity levels in the water are on the order of 25 ppt, small salinity perturbations such as 2.5 ppt will have a very small effect on absorption/desorption reactions. In fact, the influence can be either positive or negative, but in general they are going to be quite small. Potential releases or gains of metal from salinity changes of 2.5 ppt, at the area of the discharge canal, would be difficult to predict, and it is uncertain whether the change would be positive or negative. pH Will Have Virtually No Effect on Metals Although SOBAC witness Dr. Isphording knew of no change to pH caused by the desalination process, he testified to the alleged effect of lowered pH on the metal in the sediments and water column. Only large pH differences can have a significant influence on absorption or desorption of metals. Any effect on absorption from a decrease in pH on the order of a tenth of a pH unit will be hidden within the natural variations of the estuarine system. See Finding 140, supra. Effect of Lower Oxygen Levels on Metals Redox is basically an oxidation-reduction phenomenon. In order for the low levels of oxygen to have a reducing effect resulting in a release of metals from sediments, virtually all of the oxygen would have to be removed from the water. Basically, the environment would have to reach anoxic conditions. Even then, some metals such as copper would remain within the sediments. In an oxygen-buffered system, redox perturbations will not significantly or measurably mobilize metals. Sediments can be oxidizing in the upper part and then generally become more reducing at depth. The area near the desal discharge does not have organic-rich deep sediment. Proposed Discharge Effect on Bioavailability of Metals The proposed desalination plant's discharge will not increase the bioavailability on metals above that of natural variations and any changes would be hard to discern or measure. Nor will there be any appreciable accumulation of metals in sediments in the receiving water resulting from the proposed desalination discharge. DEP has not established any sediment quality standard and monitoring of sediments is not a NPDES requirement. The desalination plant does not result in violations of Class III marine surface water criteria and standards. No Synergistic Effects Caused by Discharge There are no synergistic effects from the proposed discharge wherein the combination of two elements such as temperature and salinity together would create a new effect. Instead, pH, redox, salinity, and temperature may have small, immeasurable effects that may offset each other. No Adverse Impacts to Biota Comprehensive species lists of phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic macroinvertebrates, fish, aquatic flora (including seagrasses and mangrove species), and threatened or endangered species inhabiting the area were prepared based on extensive review of applicable scientific literature on Tampa Bay. The salinity tolerance ranges of these species were determined through extensive review of information on salinity ranges associated with species capture, laboratory studies, review of studies addressing species types and salinity tolerances in hypersaline estuaries, and species salinity tolerances determined for other desalination projects. When background salinity is above 10 ppt, changes in salinity of a few ppt have no effect on most organisms. Lower salinities are more detrimental than high salinities to most marine organisms, as long as the upper limit does not exceed a value of approximately 40 ppt salinity. Most planktonic species and life forms can tolerate salinities of up to 40 ppt. Mangrove and seagrass species living in the area can tolerate salinity levels as high as 60 ppt. Benthic macroinvertebrates in the area routinely experience, tolerate and survive in salinity levels ranging from approximately 6 ppt to over 39 ppt under natural environmental conditions. Fish species in the area routinely experience and tolerate salinity levels as high as 39 to 40 ppt under natural environmental conditions. Estuaries serve as fish nurseries because fish species lay their eggs in estuaries, and the larval and juvenile life stages live and mature in estuaries. Due to extreme range of conditions that naturally occur in estuaries, fish reproductive strategies have adapted to enable fish eggs and larval and juvenile life stages to tolerate the wide range of natural conditions, including ranges in salinity levels, that are endemic to estuaries. Egg, larval, and juvenile fish stages may be better able to tolerate extreme range of salinities than adults life stages. A 2.5 ppt increase in salinity and the permitted maximum increase of 10 percent above the intake chloride level is within the range of tolerance and variability that seagrasses, mangrove species, benthic macroinvertebrates, biota, fishes, manatees, zooplanktonic and phytoplanktonic species, and other organisms and life forms living in Tampa Bay routinely encounter and tolerate in the natural environment. A 2.5 ppt increase in salinity with the maximum permitted salinity discharge limit of 35.8 ppt of salinity and the permitted maximum increase of 10 percent above the intake chloride level will not adversely affect the survival or propagation of seagrasses, mangroves, benthic macroinvertebrates, biota, zooplankton, phytoplankton, fish, fish eggs, or juvenile life stages of fish species, or other organisms or life forms in Tampa Bay, and specifically the portion of Tampa Bay in the vicinity of the desalination plant discharge. The Shannon-Weiner Index, which is a biological integrity index codified at Rule 62-302.530(11), requires that the index for benthic macroinvertebrates not be reduced to less than 75 percent of established background levels. Since there will be no adverse impacts to benthic macroinvertebrates due to the desalination discharge and since the level of salinity increases anticipated will tend to benefit benthic macroinvertebrates population, TBD has met the criterion in Rule 62-302.530(11). The Mote Marine Laboratory data showed that Tampa Bay experienced a 2.0 ppt change in salinity over the course of one month. No fish kill or observable die-offs of species were observed or reported from this natural occurrence of elevated salinity. The desalination discharge will (1) not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered species, or their habitats, (2) not adversely affect fishing or water-based recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed discharge, (3) not violate any Class III marine water quality standards, and (4) maintain water quality for the propagation or wildlife, fish, and other aquatic life. The desalination discharge meets the antidegradation standards and policy set forth in Rules 62-4.242 and 62- 302.300. Discharge Disposal Options Analyzed As part of the permitting process, TBD demonstrated that the use of land application of the discharge, other discharge locations, or reuse of the discharge was not economically and technologically reasonable, pursuant to Rule 62-4.242. TBD submitted a sufficient analysis of these options as part of its Antidegradation Analysis. (TBD Ex. 1G; TBD Ex. 200, Fact Sheet, p. 16). Further Protection in the Permit The permit review of the desalination permit application is one of the most thorough ever conducted by DEP. The proposed permit has conditions which create and provide a wide margin of environmental protection. The permit sets effluent limitations of various constituents which are reasonably expected to be in the desal facility discharge and provides for monitoring programs to ensure compliance with those effluent limitations. The monitoring requirements of the proposed permit exceed the monitoring requirement imposed on other facilities in the Tampa Bay area. Effluent Limitations DEP established effluent limitations using the Class III marine state water quality standards, data provided from the pilot plant regarding the chemical characterization, the modeling conducted by DHI and the University of South Florida, and the water quality data collection by Mote Marine Laboratory in connection with the establishment of the WQBEL. The effluent limitations contained in the permit are consistent with DEP rules. The proposed permit restricts TBD to the lesser of either the chloride limit of 10 percent above intake or the salinity limit of 35.8 ppt. There is no state water quality standard for salinity. The permit limit for chlorides complies with Rule 62- 302.530(18). The permit's additional requirement of a minimum dilution ratio has the effect of limiting chlorides to 7 percent above intake for 384 hours per year and 5 percent above intake for the remainder of the year and thus provides extraordinary assurance that the state water quality standard for chlorides will be met. Dr. Champ was SOBAC's primary witness in support of its argument that the proposed permit allows a discharge with excessive salinity. But it was apparent from his testimony that Dr. Champ misinterpreted the permit limitations for salinity. See Finding 196, infra. Dr. Champ conceded that the chloride limit of 10 percent above intake was appropriate but focused on the 35.8 ppt maximum, as if it overrode the chloride limitation. As found, the opposite is true. TBD will be limited to 10 percent above intake for chlorides even if the result is salinity far less than the daily maximum of 35.8 ppt. Dr. Champ also had concerns about comparing the discharge to intake chloride levels as not being representative of "normal background." He argued (as does SOBAC) for comparing discharge to chloride levels somewhere else in Middle Tampa Bay, nearby but far enough away to insure no influence from the discharge. But the modeling evidence provided reasonable assurance that there will not be a great deal of recirculation of discharge to intake and that the recirculation expected will not cause salinity to build-up continuously over time. The modeling evidence is accepted as far more persuasive than Dr. Champ's testimony. See Finding 196, infra. The only metals for which effluent limitations were established in the permit are copper, nickel, and iron because these were the only metals determined to be close to the state water quality standard levels by the pilot plant studies. The actual levels of such metals in the desalination discharge will be less than those in the pilot plant testing because the dilution ratio (12.8 to 1) used in the pilot testing is much higher than the minimum dilution ratio required by the permit (20 to 1). The permit effluent limitations for copper, nickel, and iron are based on, and comply with, DEP Rules 62- 302.500(2)(d) and 62-302.530(24), (39) and (45). The permit effluent limitations for Gross Alpha are based on and comply with the requirements in Rule 62- 302.530(58). Biological treatment of the desalination plant discharge concentrate is not required because it consists of seawater. Monitoring for Effluent Limitations DEP is able to separately determine TEC's compliance with its permit from TBD's compliance with the effluent limitations in the proposed desalination permit because of how the facility is designed and the monitoring is constructed. Monitoring requirements in the proposed permit were determined with reference to the probability of desal facility discharge exceeding specific water quality standards. DEP rules do not require monitoring for each and every constituent detected above background concentrations, only those which would probably exceed state water quality standards. The permit requires monitoring of effluent limitations at the intake to and discharge from the desalination facility and the calculation of the diluted effluent levels in the co-mingled discharge water. In order to calculate the effluent components in the diluted discharge water, continuous monitoring is performed on the TEC cooling water discharge rate of flow. Parameters of DO, conductivity, salinity, chlorides, copper, iron, nickel, radium, gross alpha, and effluent toxicity are measured at both intake and discharge pursuant to proposed permit. Monitoring of Intake Monitoring of the intake will be located, after interception off TEC Units 3 and 4, prior to entering the desalination plant. Using a sampling location of the intake to the desalination facility prior to filtering or chemical addition for background samples is consistent with the definition of "background" in DEP Rule 62-302.200(3). EPC Stations 11, 80, 81, 13, and 14 are not proper locations for background samples because salinity varies with tides and depth and those stations are too distant from the actual intake point. EPC station 9 is not a good location because it is closer to the discharge than the permit sample point. Monitoring of Discharge Monitoring of the discharge will take place in the wet well prior to discharge into TEC's cooling water discharge tunnels. This monitoring location is in compliance with Rule 62-620.620(2)(i) which provides for monitoring of effluent limitations in internal waste streams. Monitoring of the desal facility discharge concentrate in each of the four cooling water discharge tunnels is impractical due to the high volume of dilution and addition of four potential discharge locations. Once the desal facility concentrate is diluted by the TEC cooling water discharge, it is much more difficult to obtain accurate water quality testing for constituents at such minute levels. Monitoring of the Combined Discharge Concentrations Calculations determine the mixing ratios of the desalination concentrate with TEC's cooling water. Using the flow data from TEC, the calculations will accurately determine the water quality of the co-mingled discharge water. Compliance with Permit Effluent Limitations The proposed permit requires TBD to monitor constituents for which there are effluent limitations on either a daily, weekly or monthly basis, depending on the constituent. The frequency of monitoring for each constituent is based on comparing the expected levels of the constituent to the water quality standard and analyzing the probability of the desal facility discharge exceeding that standard. The monitoring provides additional assurances beyond the pilot plant studies, testing and modeling that no water quality standard will be violated. Continuous monitoring is not necessary to successfully monitor discharges. Monthly measurements are sufficient to determine compliance even for a daily permit level because the chemical characterization studies provide reasonable assurances that the desalination concentrate will not exceed the effluent limitations. Monthly monitoring provides further checks and balances to assure that the desalination discharge is in conformance with the effluent limitations and DEP rules. The EPA only requires that monitoring occur at least once a year. Conductivity provides a direct correlation to salinity and chlorides. Measuring conductivity provides salinity and chloride levels by basis of calculations and is typically used as a surrogate for monitoring chloride and salinity continuously. Salinity and chloride cannot themselves be measured continuously because they are measured by lab tests. The permit requires conductivity to be monitored continuously, not because DEP believed the desalination discharge would be near the chloride limitation, but rather to be extremely conservative. The permit conditions treat an exceedance of salinity or chlorides based on conductivity readings to be a violation of the permit effluent limitations for salinity and chlorides. TBD provided reasonable assurance to DEP that the proposed desalination discharge would not violate the DO water quality standards and criteria in Rules 62-302.530(31) and 62- 302.300(15). The permit condition requiring monitoring of DO provides verification that desal facility discharge will meet the DO water quality standards. Even SOBAC's witness Dr. Champ admitted that a continuous measurement for DO is not as valuable as random weekly samples. External Monitoring Programs The proposed permit requires TBD to develop and submit to DEP a Biological Monitoring Program to monitor seagrasses, benthic macroninvertebrates and fish populations to be consistent with existing Tampa Bay monitoring programs. This program will provide an effective means of monitoring the potential impacts of the desalination discharge. The proposed permit also requires TBD to implement a Water Quality Monitoring Program for three monitoring stations located proximal to the intake, the discharge and the North Apollo Beach Embayment which will monitor conductivity, salinity, DO and temperature continuously. These monitoring programs will provide additional ambient data to DEP. If the data indicate an exceedance or reasonable potential for an exceedance of water quality standards, DEP may reopen the permit in accordance with the reopener clause contained in the permit. These monitoring programs go beyond the requirements in DEP rules. Additionally, DEP does independent monitoring of NPDES discharges without notice and on a purposely unpredictable basis. Proof of Financial Responsibility Rule 62-620.301(6) addresses when DEP may require a permit applicant to submit proof of financial responsibility to guarantee compliance with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. TBD's compliance history was taken into consideration during the permitting process. Adequate financial assurance were provided in the permit application. (TBD Ex. 1I). Further, the permit conditions added by the settlement agreement (TBD Ex. 470) provide for additional financial assurance beyond those that can be required by the NPDES program and DEP rules. Additional Comment on SOBAC's Evidence As already indicated, SOBAC elicited the testimony of several expert witnesses at final hearing to support its contentions. But none of SOBAC's experts spent a great deal of time studying TBD's desal project, especially compared to witnesses for the other parties. Mostly, SOBAC experts expressed general scientific principles that were not directly tied to specifics of the desal project or were very general expressions of concern. Often, SOBAC's experts were not familiar with all the efforts of experts offered by the other parties to address those very concerns. Except for Dr. Champ, no SOBAC expert opined that the proposed permits would result in violations of DEP statutes and rules. Some SOBAC experts expressed opinions that only would be relevant if there were insufficient assurances in proposed permits that DEP statutes and rules would not be violated. Statistical evidence presented was not particularly relevant. Dr. Goodwin As previously mentioned, Dr. Carl Goodwin was willing to provide testimony on work he did for the USGS, but he gave no expert opinions on the permits which are the subject of these proceedings. As also previously discussed, his two- dimensional model studies were constrained by computational limitations. Even so, his studies indicated that flushing in Tampa Bay was becoming more rapid in recent years. In addition, even if the "gyres" suggested by his two-dimensional studies actually existed, they would tend to promote mixing in Tampa Bay in area of the Big Bend power plant. Dr. Champ Dr. Champ's first opinion was that 35.8 ppt is too high a salinity limit and would result in "oceanic" conditions. He attempted to compare this result to results of diversion of substantial amounts of freshwater inputs to the Black Sea for agricultural purposes--a totally different situation not suitable for comparison to Tampa Bay. Initially, Dr. Champ suggested a limitation of a 10 percent increase above "background" or "ambient" conditions; it was apparent that initially Dr. Champ was not cognizant of the 10 percent over intake chloride limitation in the proposed permit. When he was made aware of the chloride limit, he misinterpreted the two limits, saying that TBD would not be limited to the lower of the two. When it was suggested that he might have misinterpreted the two salinity limits, Dr. Champ testified that chlorides should be compared to a "natural" or "environmental" control site somewhere nearby but outside the influence of the combined TEC/TBD discharge; he said it was a "farce" to compare chlorides to a control site "inside the plant." In so doing, he seemed not to recognize the purpose of the comparison made in the proposed permit--to isolate and identify the impacts of TBD's desal process. In addition, dismissing without much consideration the contrary results of extensive and sophisticated modeling, Dr. Champ opined off- handedly that DO would decrease due to higher salinity that would recirculate and build-up over time. In part, Dr. Champ based this opinion on his misunderstanding that Tampa Bay is not well-mixed or well-circulated at the location of the Big Bend power plant. This was contrary to all the evidence; even if the "gyres" predicted by Dr. Goodwin's two-dimensional model existed, they would suggest a great deal of mixing in Middle Tampa Bay in the vicinity of the Big Bend plant. Dr. Champ next misinterpreted the DO limits in the proposed permit. See Finding 133, supra. Dr. Champ then predicted a decrease in species diversity as a result of higher salinity and lower DO. (To the contrary, salinity increases in the amounts predicted by the far greater weight of the evidence probably would result in somewhat of an increase in species diversity.) Ultimately, Dr. Champ testified that consequences to marine organisms would be dire, even if salinity increased only by 2.5 ppt, because a "salinity barrier" would form across Middle Tampa Bay in contrast to more gradual natural changes in salinity. The far greater weight of the evidence was to the contrary. Dr. Champ made several suggestions to avoid the calamitous results he predicted: require use of a cooling tower to reduce the temperature of the combined TEC/TBD discharge; collect the desal brine concentrate and barge it to the Gulf of Mexico; require intake and discharge pipes extending into the shipping channel in Middle Tampa Bay. But Dr. Champ did not study or give a great deal of thought to implementation of these suggestions. Besides, the other parties proved that these measures were not needed for reasonable assurances. In an attempt to buttress his opinion testimony, Dr. Champ also testified (along with SOBAC's President, B.J. Lower) that the TEC intake canal is virtually devoid of life and that biodiversity in the discharge canal is very low. This testimony was conclusively refuted by the rebuttal testimony of Charles Courtney, who made a site visit after SOBAC's testimony and described in detail a significant number of healthy species in the intake canal, including oyster communities, xanthid crabs, porcellanid crabs, snook, anemones, bivalves, polychaete, and mangroves with seedlings. Of the one and one- half pounds of oysters that Mr. Courtney sampled, he estimated that approximately fifty percent of those oysters were living, which represents a very healthy community. Mr. Courtney further noted that some of the crabs were carrying eggs, which indicates an active life cycle for those species. As to the TEC permit modification, Dr. Champ testified that it was “in-house stuff” which would not affect the environment outside the TEC plant. No other SOBAC witness addressed the TEC permit modification. Dr. Isphording SOBAC called Dr. Wayne Isphording as an expert in sedimentology and geochemistry. Dr. Isphording expressed no concern that the desal process would add metals to Tampa Bay. Essentially, he gave opinion testimony concerning general principles of sedimentology and geochemistry. He testified that heavy metals bound in sediments are released naturally with increases in salinity, but that salinity levels would have to be extreme to result in the release of abnormal quantities of such metals. He admitted that he had performed no studies of sediments in Tampa Bay and declined to offer specific opinions that metals in fact would be released as a result of predicted salinity increases. Dr. Isphording admitted that he knew of no condition in the proposed Desal Facility permit which would cause or allow a violation of state water quality standards. He was aware of no statute or rule requiring more monitoring and testing than is required in the proposed permit. Dr. Parsons SOBAC offered the testimony of Dr. Arthur Rost Parsons, an assistant professor of oceanography at the Naval Postgraduate School, in an attempt to raise questions regarding the near-field and far-field modeling which were provided by TBD to DEP during the course of the permitting process. However, not only had Dr. Parsons not done any modeling in Tampa Bay himself, he was not provided numerous reports and clarifications relating to the studies he was called to critique. He only reviewed an interim report dated November 1, 2000, regarding the near-field model. Dr. Parsons testified that the DHI model used for the near-field study was an excellent shallow water model. He found nothing scientifically wrong with it and testified that the "physics and the model itself is . . . well–documented." Dr. Parsons also did not contradict the results of the DHI model. Instead, he noted that the modeling task was difficult and complex, he described some of the model's limitations, and he testified to things that could have been done to increase his confidence in the model results. One of Dr. Parson's suggestions was to run the model longer. But the evidence was that, due to the model's complexity and high computational demands, it would have been extremely expensive to run the model for longer periods of time. Another of Dr. Parson's suggestions was to use salinity data would be to use the information that the model itself generated with regard to salinity distributions instead of a homogeneous set of salinity data. Dr. Parsons was concerned that use of homogeneous salinity data would not reflect the effect of "double diffusion" of heat and salinity, which would result in sinking of the combined heat. But engineer Andrew Driscoll testified in rebuttal that the effects of "double diffusion" would cease once equilibrium was reached and would not result in a hypersaline plum sinking to the bottom. In addition, he testified that turbulent mixing from tide and wind would dominate over the effect of "double diffusion" at the molecular level so as to thoroughly mix the water, especially in the shallow North Apollo Beach Embayment. Dr. Parsons also suggested that the model be run for rainy season conditions to see if the effects of vertical stratification would increase. But even if vertical stratification increased as a result of rain, salinity also would be expected to decrease. The scenario modeled was "worst case." Dr. Parsons also suggested the use of a range of temperatures for the combined heat/salinity plume instead of an average temperature. However, he conceded that it was not inappropriate to use average temperature. Instead, he would have liked to have seen the model run for a range of temperatures to see if the model was sensitive to temperature differences so as to increase his confidence in the results. Dr. Parson's testimony focused on the near-field model. His only comment on the far-field model was that he thought it should have used the out-puts from the near-field model (as the near-field used the outputs). Scott Herber SOBAC offered no direct testimony on the impact of the Desal Facility discharge on seagrasses in Tampa Bay. The testimony of Steve Herber, a doctoral student at the Florida Institute of Technology, related to the vulnerability of seagrasses, in general, to changes in salinity. However, Mr. Herber had no specific knowledge of the seagrasses present in Tampa Bay and had not performed or reviewed any scientific studies upon which his opinion could be based. He reached no conclusions about the specific permits at issue in this proceeding, nor about the effect of the Desal Facility on seagrasses in Tampa Bay. In contrast to Mr. Herber, the testimony of TBD's expert, Robin Lewis, and SWFWMD's expert, Dr. David Tomasko, provided detailed information about the seagrasses located in Tampa Bay. Both have studied seagrasses in Tampa Bay for many years and have been involved in mapping seagrass distribution in a variety of bays and estuaries along the west coast of Florida. Dr. Tomasko criticized witnesses for SOBAC who attempted to draw conclusions about Tampa Bay based on studies of other bays and estuaries because each bay has unique characteristics that cannot be extrapolated from studies of other bays. Dr. Tomasko and Lewis testified that seagrasses in Tampa Bay are becoming more abundant, that dissolved oxygen levels are increasing, and that water clarity in Tampa Bay is also improving. Dr. Mishra Dr. Satya Mishra was called by SOBAC as an expert in statistics. He is not an expert in the discrete field of environmental statistics. He has never been involved in the development of a biological monitoring program and could not provide an opinion regarding what would be an adequate sample size for this permit. He essentially expressed the general opinions that for purposes of predictive statistical analysis: random sampling is preferred; statistical reliability increases with the number of samples; and 95 percent reliability is acceptable. Dr. Mishra performed no statistical analysis in this case and could not conclude that the sampling provided in the proposed permit would not be random. Ron Chandler Ron Chandler, a marketing representative for Yellow Springs Instrument Corporation (YSI), simply testified for SOBAC regarding the availability of certain types of continuous monitoring devices. He did not offer any opinions regarding whether or not reasonable assurance required continuous monitoring of any specific parameter or any monitoring different from or in addition to what is proposed in TBD's proposed permit. John Yoho SOBAC called John Yoho as a financial and insurance expert to criticize the terms of an agreement by TBD, TBW, and DEP to settle Hillsborough County's request for an administrative hearing (DOAH Case No. 01-1950). This agreement is contained in TBD Ex. 470. But Yoho admitted that he had no knowledge regarding what is required to obtain an NPDES permit in terms of financial assurances. He also indicated that none of his testimony should be understood as relating in any way to financial assurances required for such a permit to be issued. Alleged Improper Purpose The evidence did not prove that SOBAC participated in DOAH Case No. 01-2720 for an improper purpose--i.e., primarily to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or for frivolous purpose or to needlessly increase the cost of licensing or securing the approval of TEC's permit modification applications. To the contrary, the evidence was that SOBAC participated in this proceeding in an attempt to raise justifiable issues arising from the peculiarities of the relationship of TEC's permit modification application to TBD's permit application. Although SOBAC suffered adverse legal rulings that prevented it from pursuing many of the issues it sought to have adjudicated on TEC's permit modification application, it continued to pursue issues as to the TBD permit application which, if successful, could require action to be taken on property controlled by TEC and, arguably, could require further modification of TEC's permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order: (1) issuing the proposed permit number FL0186813-001-IWIS, as set forth in TBD Ex. 203 with the addition of the two permit conditions specified in TBD Ex. 470; (2) issuing proposed permit modification number FL0000817-003-IWIS, as set forth in TBD Ex. 225; and (3) denying TEC's request for attorney's fees and costs from SOBAC under Section 120.595(1). Jurisdiction is reserved to enter an order on TBD's Motion for Sanctions filed on August 13, 2001, regarding SOBAC expert Ralph Huddleston. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. __________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 17th day of October, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 William S. Bilenky, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604 Ralf G. Brookes, Esquire Morgan & Hendrick 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway Suite 107 Cape Coral, Florida 33904-9604 Donald D. Conn, General Counsel Tampa Bay Water 2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 211 Clearwater, Florida 33761-3930 Lawrence N. Curtin, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 Post Office Box 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0810 Douglas P. Manson, Esquire Carey, O'Malley, Whitaker & Manson, P.A. 712 South Oregon Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606-2543 E. A. Seth Mills, Jr., Esquire Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1700 Post Office Box 1438 Tampa, Florida 33601-1438 Joseph D. Richards, Esquire Pasco County Attorney's Office 7530 Little Road, Suite 340 New Port Richey, Florida 34654-5598 Cathy M. Sellers, Esquire Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Raymond & Sheehan, P.A. 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1508 Linda Loomis Shelley, Esquire Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A. Post Office Box 11240 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 David B. Struhs, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact During 1990, Respondent/Applicant, City of Lynn Haven, filed several applications with the Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, seeking the issuance of several permits to build a wastewater collection system and a two million gallon per day advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) plant. The proposed facility is intended to replace the wastewater treatment facility currently being used by the City of Lynn Haven. After a review of the applications the Department proposed several Intents to Issue covering the different aspects of the proposed projects. The Intents to Issue included: A) a variance and dredge and fill permit, pursuant to Sections 403.201, 403.918, 403.919, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-312, Florida Administrative Code, authorizing a subaqueous crossing of North Bay (Class II waters) and installation of a force main (permit #031716641), B) a collection system permit, pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Rules 17-4, 17-600 and 17-604, Florida Administrative Code, for the installation of approximately 11 miles of pipe from North Bay to the proposed treatment plant, C) a dredge and fill permit #031785181, pursuant to Sections 403.918, 403.919, Florida Statutes, and Rules 17-4, 17-312, Florida Administrative Code, authorizing 10 incidental wetland crossings associated with the collection system, and, D) a construction permit #DC03-178814, pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Rules 17-4, 17-302, 17-600 and 17-611, Florida Administrative Code, authorizing the construction of a 2.0 mgd wastewater treatment plant. Sand Hill Community Improvement Association challenged the Department's Intents to Issue. The Sand Hill Community Improvement Association (Sand Hill) is an association composed of 74 formal members plus numerous supporters. Both members and supporters are residents who live near the site of the proposed Lynn Haven sewage treatment plant. They are sufficiently close to the plant site that construction of the proposed project could impact their property. The members are very concerned about any threat of pollution to the aquifer from the proposed plant since all of the members are dependent on private wells for their drinking water. Additionally, members of the association use the proposed site, as well as the associated wetlands, Burnt Mill Creek and the nearby lakes, for a variety of recreational purposes, including hunting, fishing, hiking, bird-watching, boating and swimming. Given these facts, the Association has standing to challenge the Department's Intents to Issue involved in this case. The City of Lynn Haven is located on a peninsular section of the south shore of North Bay and, except for its connection to the land, is surrounded by environmentally sensitive Class II or Class I waters. Lynn Haven's existing wastewater treatment plant was poorly designed, has not worked properly, and is old and outdated. The plant is permitted to treat up to 950,000 gallons per day. However, the existing plant is currently exceeding its originally permitted treatment limits and is treating in excess of 1,200,000 gallons per day. The sewage only receives secondary treatment, Secondary treatment is the minimum state standard for wastewater treatment. The secondarily treated wastewater is pumped several miles to a spray irrigation site located in the eastern portion of the City. The sprayfield site has never worked properly due to a high groundwater table and a confining layer of soil, both of which prevent the effluent from percolating into the ground. Because the sewage effluent cannot percolate into the ground, the existing operation frequently results in direct runoff into a ditch which empties into North Bay, a Class II waterbody. Such discharge of wastewater effluent into Class II waters is prohibited by Department regulations. 1/ At this time, the existing wastewater treatment facility is in violation of both DER and EPA standards and is under enforcement action by both agencies. The existing facility is currently operating without a permit and the Department has advised Lynn Haven that the existing facility as it now operates can not be permitted. In fact, all the parties agree that the City is in serious need of a wastewater treatment facility which works and does not pollute the environment. However, the parties disagree over the method by which proper wastewater treatment could be accomplished by Lynn Haven. Since 1972, the City, through various consultants and with the aid of DER, has reviewed approximately 40 alternatives for wastewater disposal. After this review, the City of Lynn Haven selected the alternative which is the subject of this administrative hearing. The alternative selected by the City of Lynn Haven consists of the construction of a proposed advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) plant and distribution system. The new plant will be on a 640 acre parcel of property located approximately 12 miles north of Lynn Haven. The location of the new plant will necessitate the rerouting of the wastewater from the old plant to the new plant by construction of a new transmission line approximately 12 miles north of the City across North Bay and parallel along State Road 77. 2/ The treatment process proposed for use in the new AWT plant is known as the AO2 process. The process is patented. The AO2 treatment process primarily consists of biological treatment with settling and filtration. The treatment process also includes a chemical backup treatment to further reduce phosphorus if necessary. The evidence demonstrated that this type of facility has been permitted by the Department in at least five other wastewater facilities throughout the state. The treatment facility will have a two million gallon per day, lined holding pond on site for the purposes of holding improperly treated wastewater for recirculation through the proposed facility. Any excess sludge generated by this treatment process would be routed to lined, vacuum-assisted, sludge drying beds. The sludge would then be transported offsite to a permitted landfill for disposal. The evidence demonstrated that this treatment process would not produce any objectionable odors. Once the wastewater is treated, it will be disinfected by chlorination to eliminate pathogens. The chlorination process is expected to meet state standards. After chlorination, a dechlorination process would occur to remove any chlorine residuals which would have a harmful affect on the environment. The treated wastewater would then be re-aerated and discharged through the distribution system indirectly into a wetland located on the 640 acre parcel of property. The quality of the treated wastewater is expected to meet the advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) standards. These standards are five milligrams per liter total suspended solids (T.S.S.), five milligrams per liter BOD, three milligrams per liter nitrogen (N), one milligram per liter phophorus (P). Ph will be in the range of six to eight units on an average annual basis and can be adjusted up or down if necessary to meet the ph levels of the ecology into which the wastewater ultimately flows. This effluent quality is approximately five times cleaner than secondarily treated effluent. Additionally, as a condition of the draft permit, the proposed facility would be operated by a state-licensed operator and would be routinely monitored to insure that the treated wastewater effluent meets advanced wastewater treatment standards. Given these facts, the evidence demonstrated that the applicant has supplied reasonable assurances that the plant will perform as represented and that the effluent will meet the state standards for advanced wastewater treatment. As indicated earlier, the site for the proposed AWT plant contains approximately 640 acres and is located approximately 12 miles north of Lynn Haven in an area known locally as the Sand Hills. The City specifically purchased this parcel of property for the construction of the proposed wastewater treatment plant. The plant itself would be located in the northeast corner of the property. The 640 acre site was previously used for silviculture. The entire area is currently planted in pines except for a low area that is dominated by a pristine, woody wetland system of titi. The titi wetland is approximately 212 acres in size and generally runs through the center of the property from the northeast to the southwest. The wetland is low in acidity, with an estimated ph between 4 and 5. The site consists of hilly, mineralized soils. The soils within the forested wetland are organic in nature. Based on the evidence at the hearing, there does not appear to be any significant confining layers of soil which would prevent the treated wastewater from percolating in the soils and draining towards the wetland and ultimately into Burnt Mill Creek, a Class III waterbody. Once the effluent leaves the plant, it would go through a distribution system. The proposed distribution system will consist of six, 500 foot long, 12 inch diameter perforated pipes. Each 500 foot section of pipe has 100 one and one-half inch orifices which will discharge the treated effluent onto an eight foot wide concrete pad. This concrete pad will dissipate the effluent's energy, prevent erosion at the orifice site and insure that the effluent sheetflows onto and eventually into the sandy soils of the plant site and ultimately into the receiving wetland. The distribution pipes are located around the east, north and western portions of the receiving wetland and are variously set back from the receiving wetland approximately 80 to 200 feet. The distribution system is designed with valves to allow for routing of flow to different branches of the system if it is determined through long term monitoring that there is a need to allow for any of the receiving wetland to dry out. None of the distribution branches are located in any jurisdictional wetlands of the State of Florida. The receiving wetland will receive a hydraulic loading rate of approximately 1.8 inches per week once the new advanced wastewater treatment plant is operating at capacity. Both the surface waters and groundwaters on the 640 acre parcel flow from northeast to southwest across the property. The evidence clearly demonstrated that any treated wastewater discharged on the site would move down hill by surface or groundwater flows towards the wetlands in the central portion of the property and eventually discharge into Burnt Mill Creek located at the southwest corner of the parcel. The evidence demonstrated that it would be highly unlikely for the surface or groundwater to move in any other direction and would be unlikely for the surface or groundwater to move towards any residents located to the north or east of this parcel. Evidence of the topography and its relatively sharp gradient clearly demonstrated that the treated wastewater discharged in the northeast corner of this site would not result in any significant still water ponding and would exit the site at the southwest corner of the property in approximately 14 hours. The evidence did demonstrate that, depending on the wetness of the weather, there may likely be certain times of the year when a flowing type of ponding would occur. However, this wet weather ponding was not shown to be of a duration which would impact to a significant degree on the flora and fauna of the area or increase the number of disease bearing mosquitoes in the area. As indicated earlier the treated effluent from the proposed AWT plant will flow into Burnt Mill Creek. Burnt Mill Creek will ultimately carry the treated wastewater approximately 11 miles down stream to North Bay. The City can directly discharge up to two million gallons per day of AWT water into Burnt Mill Creek without violating state water quality standards. Therefore, the volume of wastewater discharged into Burnt Mill Creek should not have significant impacts on surface and ground water quality. Moreover, Chapter 17-611, Florida Administrative Code, authorizes the discharge of up to 2 inches per week to receiving wetlands provided wastewater is treated to AWT standards. The evidence demonstrated that this rule was developed as an experimental effort to determine if wetlands could be appropriate areas for wastewater effluent to be either discharged or treated. These state limits were intended to be very conservative limits and were designed to insure that the impacts to receiving wetlands would be minimal. The evidence and testimony demonstrated that the receiving wetland system involved in this case should not be adversely impacted beyond those limits set forth in Section 17-611.500, Florida Administrative Code, for flora, fauna, macroinvertebrates, fish or vegetation and will meet all standards set forth in Chapter 17-611, Florida Administrative Code. However, it should be noted that the wetland/wastewater program is highly experimental and very little is known about the actual impacts of wetland/wastewater systems since facilities similar to the one proposed by Lynn Haven have not yet been placed in service. The evidence did show that there would be some long term impacts to flora and fauna in the wetland area primarily due to ponding, changed ph and the introduction of nutrients and pollution in the form of the effluent. However, the regulation does allow for some change within a receiving wetland and the evidence did not demonstrate that these changes would be significant or detrimental. Petitioners' own witness concluded that other deep wetland treatment systems are doing a very good job in meeting state water quality standards. Although Petitioners' expert noted potentially adverse impacts to flora and fauna from other wastewater treatment systems, these other systems were slow moving, impoundment-type systems that are not similar to the wastewater/wetlands system proposed by the City of Lynn Haven. The Lynn Haven system is designed for percolation and sheetflow, not ponding. Though there should be some expected changes, no evidence was provided that the receiving wetlands for the Lynn Haven facility would be affected to the extent there would be violations of any standard as set forth in Chapter 17-611, Florida Administrative Code. In essence, the legislature has determined that such experimentation with wetland areas is appropriate, albeit, even with the conservative limits of DER's rule, may prove to be a mistake. This facility is designed to fit within that rule and in fact is probably the best technology available for use in a wetland/wastewater situation. Finally, in order to avoid any potential impacts on the area which may over time become significant an approved monitoring program for surface water quality and affects on flora and fauna, as well as a groundwater monitoring program are required as conditions of the permit. The groundwater monitoring program has been designed to monitor any potential long term impacts to groundwater. With these protections there should not be any significant adverse impacts to surface or groundwater quality and the applicant is entitled to a construction permit for the AWT plant and distribution system. Lynn Haven's sewage would reach the proposed AWT plant through a transmission line. The transmission line would run from Lynn Haven's existing wastewater treatment plant across North Bay and through the unincorporated area of South Port. The Southport area is not sewered and utilizes individual septic tanks for its sewage. The transmission line would be constructed entirely in state road right-of-way. The line would terminate at the 640 acre site described above. A new, variable speed pumping station would be constructed adjacent to the old wastewater treatment plant. From this pump station, a 24 inch line would be constructed on City right-of-way up to the south shore of North Bay. At this point, the transmission line would be reduced in size to 20 inches and would be embedded approximately three feet below the Bay bottom. An additional variable speed pumping station would be located approximately half way along the 12 mile route of the transmission line to insure adequate pressure to pump wastewater to the new wastewater treatment plant. The pumps are to be employed to insure that the wastewater is continuously pumped uphill to the new site so that waste does not set, become septic, and create odor problems. The pumps are equipped to provide for chemical control of odor if necessary. Also, as a condition of the permit, the pumping stations are required to have backup power supplies should power be lost to the stations. The pumping stations and backup power supplies are to be tested monthly and the pumps are required to be continuously monitored by radio telemetry to insure they are operating properly. Additionally, the City of Lynn Haven will be required, as a condition of the permit, to visually inspect the entire length of the wastewater transmission line three times per day. The portion of the transmission line which would cross North Bay is approximately 3000 feet in length and would be constructed of high density polyethylene pipe (HDPE) with a wall thickness of one and one-half inches. HDPE pipe is used to transport materials such as hazardous wastes where leakage is not permissible. This type of pipe is virtually inert in that it is highly resistant to corrosion and other chemical reactions. It is also impact resistant and has a very high tensile strength. The pipe comes in 40 foot segments and is heat welded (fused) together. This type of joint significantly reduces the chance of any leakage. In fact, leakage around pipe joints is more likely to occur with other types of pipe and pipe connections. HDPE pipe is currently carrying wastewater across Watson Bayou in Bay County, Florida. 3/ There have been no reported problems with leaks or breaks occurring in the pipe crossing Watson Bayou. Given these facts, the probability of the proposed HDPE pipe leaking or breaking is extremely low, albeit not impossible, and such pipe appears to be the best material available for constructing a wastewater treatment transmission line across protected waters of the State. As a condition of the construction permit, the portion of the transmission line crossing North Bay will be required to have isolation valves at each end so that the pipe may be completely isolated in the event that it needs repair. The underwater portion of the line would be visually inspected by a diver twice per year and the line would be pressure tested before being placed into service. Additionally, pressure tests would be performed once a year. The construction permit also requires Lynn Haven to periodically inject dye into the proposed transmission line to check for any small leaks that may not otherwise be detected. Finally, the HDPE pipe would also be equipped so that television cameras could be inserted into the pipe to routinely inspect the interior of the pipe. In the event the HDPE portion of the transmission line would need to be repaired, the line could be immediately, temporarily repaired by a dresser coupling. A permanent repair could then be made in less than 24 hours once the material and equipment were staged at the site. The City intends to locally stockpile all necessary parts and equipment to effect any required repair to prevent any delay beyond four days. Permanent repairs would be accomplished by floating the line to the surface. The area needing repair would be cut out and a new section would be put in place by heat fusion. The line would then be pressure tested to insure the absence of leaks and placed back into service. During this process, the line would be taken out of service by the isolation valves and flow would be diverted to the eight million gallon holding ponds at the City of Lynn Haven's existing facility. These holding ponds can hold four days worth of wastewater from the City of Lynn Haven. Lynn Haven is required, as a condition of the construction permit, to have this reserve capacity as well as have a contractor on standby to make any repairs in the event such repairs are necessary. All of the technical specifications for the transmission system and the operating conditions imposed on it are designed to insure that the system does not fail or develop any leaks which could impact receiving waters, including North Bay. Given the permit conditions, the required inspections for leaks, the sound engineering design and quick repair methods proposed, the evidence demonstrated that the probability of any leak occurring in the portion of the transmission line crossing North Bay is extremely low and that if such a leak does occur any potential harm to the environment will likely be limited and quickly eliminated. The evidence demonstrated that the design of the transmission line and permit conditions provide reasonable assurances that the transmission line will meet or exceed the Department standards set forth in Chapter 17-604, Florida Administrative Code. Therefore, the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the transmission line/collection system will not violate Department standards or rules and the applicant is entitled to a permit (permit #CS03-178910) for the proposed collection system. In addition to requiring a construction permit/collection system permit for the wastewater transmission line, the line will also require dredge and fill permits and a variance for crossing waters of the state. There are ten incidental crossings of state waters and one major crossing o f North Bay. Of the ten incidental crossings, two are over small creeks (Scurlock and Little Burnt Mill) These two incidental creek crossings will be accomplished by placing the transmission line (ductile iron pipe) on top of pilings placed in the water. Best management practices such as turbidity curtains and other erosion control practices are proposed and required by the permit to minimize construction impacts on water quality. The only impacts to wetland resources would be from the placement of the pilings. The evidence demonstrated that any impact would be minimal and not significant. The evidence did not demonstrate that the aerial crossings would have any long term water quality or environmental impacts. The remaining eight incidental crossings of waters of the state consist of small, seasonally wet ditches which would be traversed by trenching and burying the transmission line. Again, turbidity controls such as curtains and hay bales would be employed to protect water quality. The evidence did not demonstrate that any significant long term or short term impacts to resources of the state would occur. The evidence did demonstrate that the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that water quality standards would not be violated in regards to these 10 incidental water crossings. Likewise, the evidence demonstrated that the construction of these 10 incidental water crossings would not be contrary to the public interest. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to issuance of a dredge and fill permit (permit #031785181) for these 10 water crossing. However, a much harder question arises in relation to the dredge and fill permit and the variance required for the 3,000 foot segment of the wastewater transmission line which crosses North Bay. Pursuant to Rule 17- 312.080(7), Florida Administrative Code, permits for dredging and filling activity directly in Class II waters which are approved for shellfish harvesting by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) shall not be issued. The reason for the rule is that any pollution caused by dredging and filling and, as in this case, the permanent placement of a sewage pipe in food producing waters could potentially have catastrophic effects on more than just the environment but on local employment in the shellfish industry and the quality of food available to the State. Put simply, the Department has determined by enacting its Rule that the public interest in food producing waters far outweighs any other consideration or criteria under Sections 403.918 and 403.919, Florida Statutes, in determining whether dredging and filling should take place in Class II, shellfish waters. In other words, it is not in the best interest of the public to allow dredging and filling so that a pipe carrying raw sewage can be placed in shellfishing waters. However, irrespective of this determination, the Department believes that, pursuant to Section 403.201(1)(c), Florida Statutes, it may grant a variance from its rules to relieve a hardship. As indicated earlier, North Bay is a Class II waterbody, conditionally approved for shellfishing. North Bay, therefore, falls within the Rule's prohibition against dredging and filling in Class II waters and the City is required to demonstrate the presence of a hardship in order to vary the Rule prohibition and obtain a dredge and fill permit for the North Bay crossing. On issues involving variances, the Department employs a two step analysis. The first part of the analysis is whether a hardship is present and the second is whether, if the variance were granted, would it result in permanent closure of Class II shellfish waters. The Department correctly recognizes that the question of whether a hardship exists is a question of fact and is determined on a case-by-case basis. Surprisingly, in a kind of "what we don't know can't hurt" posture the Department reviews a request for a variance standing alone based on the application as it is presented and does not require analyses of other possible alternatives to the granting of a variance. However, the existence of any alternatives, costs of any alternatives, timeliness of any alternatives, problems with any alternatives, whether an alternative represents a short term or long term solution to a given problem and the implementability of any of the alternatives are all factors utilized by the Department in determining whether or not to grant a variance. The Department's policy of non- review makes no sense, either factually or statutorily, when the Department is faced with varying a prohibition it created in its own rules. Similarly, the Department's policy of not requiring other alternatives to be examined before granting a variance goes against the fact that an applicant has the burden to establish entitlement to a permit and, in the case of a hardship variance, that a hardship exists because reasonable alternatives to granting a variance are not available. 4/ Likewise, the second part of the Department's hardship analysis relating to the permanent closure of shellfishing waters makes no sense given the fact that a non-permanent closure of shellfishing waters may have the same or just as serious effect on employment in the shellfishing industry, the loss of income due to an inability to earn a living in that industry and health risks posed by contaminated seafood. Temporary loss of income or a livelihood can, for all practical purposes, have consequences to the persons directly affected by a temporary closure of shellfishing waters similar in nature those caused by the permanent closure of shellfishing waters. The same can be said for health risks posed by a contaminated food supply. Rule 17-312.080(7), Florida Administrative Code, does not contain any exceptions for the temporary closure of shellfish waters. Nor is the rule limited to instances of permanent closure. Permanent closure is simpy not required in order to support a hardship under Section 403.201, Florida Statutes. Moreover, neither step in the Department's two-step analysis is included in any Rule promulgated by the Department. 5/ Without such a Rule, it is incumbent upon the Department or the applicant to demonstrate the underpinnings for this non-rule policy. No such evidence was presented at the hearing. In fact, the evidence presented at the hearing affirmatively demonstrated that the Department's non-rule policy violated both its own rules and the statute under which it is trying to proceed. As indicated, the issue of hardship is a question of fact and involves a weighing of all the facts and cicumstances involved in this project. In this case, there are shellfishing areas located close to the proposed location of the transmission line. North Bay is sometimes closed to shellfish harvesting by the Department of Natural Resources. These closures generally occur during wet weather conditions and are due to stormwater runoff and the failure of septic tanks in Southport. 6/ Additionally the current Lynn Haven system also contributes to the closure of North Bay. No competent, substantial evidence was provided that issuance of the permit and variance would result in the permanent closure of shellfish waters. The location of the proposed transmission line would be several hundred feet west of the Bailey Bridge embedded in the Bay floor. 7/ The proposed alignment of the transmission line through North Bay is in an area which is relatively biologically unproductive. The proposed placement of the transmission line avoids the few grassbeds that exist in the nearshore shallow areas except for approximately 200 square feet of grass. During construction of the line, these grasses would be removed immediately before the line is placed in a trench and then would be promptly replanted in the same area. The evidence demonstrated that the affected areas of grass should be able to reestablish itself. The evidence further demonstrated that there would not be any long term adverse impacts to these aquatic resources and there should not be any significant long term impacts on the balance of any aquatic life which may exist on the bay bottom. Water quality during construction will be protected by use of turbidity controls to control sediments. Therefore, any short term impacts on aquatic resources are likely to be insignificant. Concerns about long term adverse impacts to Class II waters are greatly reduced by the type of pipe and conditions in the permit which require that the transmission line be routinely inspected and tested to insure that there is no leakage and that in the unlikely event the line should need to be repaired, the line could be easily isolated and quickly repaired. The evidence showed that, to completely avoid Class II waters, the line could be moved several miles to the west or east of the line's proposed location or be placed over or under the Bay. If the line was moved west to the extent that it was in Class III waters, it would be over 40 miles long and would more than double the cost of the project. If the line was moved several miles to the east, it would go through the Deer Point Lake Watershed. The watershed is a Class I water supply for Bay County. Clearly, moving the line either west or east is not practical nor realistically feasible. Tunneling under North Bay would be very risky and is not technically feasible. The length of the tunnel would require steel pipe to be used. If tunneling could be done at all steel pipe would not provide the level of protection afforded by the HDPE pipe proposed by Lynn Haven. Placing the transmission line on pilings for an aerial route over North Bay is uneconomical and would create a potential hazard to navigation. Moreover, an aerial crossing would not solve any pollution problems should the transmission line leak or break and would also still involve a variance request since it would be necessary to dredge and fill in Class II waters for the placement of pilings or supports. Put simply, the evidence, showed that there was no realistic way to avoid Class II waters in North Bay given the location of the proposed wastewater treatment facility. A location which the City knew would require a hardship variance from the rule prohibition of dredging and filling in Class II, shellfishing waters. A hardship which the City created by site selection and which it hoped to overcome by strenuous permit conditions and futuristic speculative benefits to unsewered areas of the County. The existing treatment facility is operating in violation of both EPA and DER requirements, has been issued a notice of violation, is nonpermitted and is destined to be operating under a consent order. The system is hydraulically overloaded, handling approximately 1.2 million gallons per day while its rated capacity is 950,000 gallons per day. Refurbishing Lynn Haven's existing wastewater treatment facility would not be viable since the plant has outlived its useful life, is of a very poor design and probably could not be made to function within Departmental standards and water quality standards. The existing sprayfield does not function and results in overland flow of effluent which discharges to Class II waters. The high water table and presence of a semiconfining layer on the Lynn Haven peninsula virtually guarantee such discharges. Further, the plant only provides secondary treatment. Put simply, Lynn Haven needs another method of handling its sewage. The only remaining alternative to a Bay crossing is to tie into the existing Bay County system and any AWT wastewater treatment plant Bay County may build in the future. 8/ The existing Bay County system provides at most only secondary treatment. The Cherry Street facility, which is part of that system, functions essentially as a lift station rather than a treatment facility. The Military Point Lagoon portion of the system is nonpermitted and is operating under a consent order and has been the subject of enforcement action. The Department has an extensive agreement with Bay County requiring a significant and long term series of actions to deal with their wastewater treatment system. The modifications or improvements to the Bay County system to provide advanced treatment are not imminent and the final system conditions cannot now be determined as they will depend in large measure upon data and analysis remaining to be collected. Currently, the existing Bay County system processes a significant amount of industrial discharge and has a problem with phenols most likely due to industrial waste from two discreet industrial facilities in the County. 9/ However, all of Bay County's wastewater system problems are reasonably solvable and will be corrected in the near future, if they have not already been corrected. Additionally, the amount of sewage Lynn Haven would be sending into the current Bay County system probably would not significantly impact that system and its problems or the County's ability to solve those problems. The County is willing to accept Lynn Haven's sewage into its system and future AWT system. The connection into Bay County's system is a viable alternative currently in existence. Moreover, as indicated, Bay County has a long range plan to build an advanced wastewater treatment plant. As yet the plan remains "just a twinkle in the County's eye" and has not progressed to the design stage. However, this plan, of necessity, will eventually become reality in the next 5 to 10 years. The estimated cost to a Lynn Haven user for the Bay County conceptual system will be $25.00 per month in lieu of $15.00 for the proposed Lynn Haven system. These estimates are at best speculative. However, this cost estimate is not excessive given the fact that a Lynn Haven user lives in an environmentally sensitive area and a Bay County hook-up would eliminate the need to run a sewer pipe through food producing, Class II waters. 10/ Based on these facts, the evidence demonstrated that it was feasible for Lynn Haven to hook into Bay County's wastewater system without creating any more environmental impacts than that system is already experiencing and must solve and which, to a significant degree, have already been solved by Bay County. Given the existence of this alternative to crossing food producing waters and the fact that any future benefits are just as likely to be provided just as quickly by the County through AWT facilities, the applicant has failed to demonstrate the necessity for crossing North Bay and failed to demonstrate entitlement to a hardship variance for that crossing. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to either a dredge and fill permit or variance for the proposed North Bay crossing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, recommended that the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order issuing permit applications CS03178910, DC03178814, and 031785181, and denying the variance and permit number 031716641. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of November, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of November, 1991.
The Issue Whether Respondent's permit for disposal of septic tank sludge should be revoked, as set forth in letter of the Volusia County Health Department, dated February 15, 1979. This case was originally set for hearing on June 21, 1979, pursuant to Notice of Hearing, dated March 30, 1979. On June 20, Respondent Philip G. Koan orally advised the Hearing Officer that he wished to withdraw his request for hearing. He was advised by the Hearing Officer to submit a written withdrawal of the petition and that the scheduled hearing would be cancelled pending receipt. On June 21, Respondent orally advised the Hearing Officer that he had changed his mind after reflection and now desired that the hearing be rescheduled. Since no written withdrawal of the petition or voluntary dismissal had been filed, the case was renoticed for hearing to be held on September 10, 1979. At the commencement of the hearing on that date, Petitioner moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction claiming that the petition had been dismissed by Respondent by his oral communication to the Hearing Officer on June The motion was denied because the proceeding had never been formally terminated by action of the Respondent or the Hearing Officer.
Findings Of Fact On October 5, 1978, Respondent Koan Septic Tank, Inc., Deland, Florida, submitted an application to the Volusia County Health Department for a permit to operate a septic tank cleaning service and temporary privy service. The application reflected the equipment which the applicant intended to use for the operation. Petitioner's application form contained a block entitled "Method and Place of Disposal." The applicant inserted the words "Smith Farm and Greens Dairy Grove" on the form. On November 7, 1978, Larry Herman, a sanitation aide for the County Health Department, performed an inspection of Respondent's facilities and equipment, and prepared a report on a mimeographed form headed "Septic Tanks and Privy Pump Truck Inspection." This form had a block entitled "Method and Place of Disposal." The inspector entered the words "Smith Farm - Greens Diary (sic), dumped & tilled." Although Herman testified that he had made no special inquiry at the time of his inspection as to the intended method of sludge disposal, he was aware that Respondent's customary method at its Smith Farm location was to "bury" the sludge into the ground by spreading and mechanical tilling. However, he recalled having conversations with Respondent's owner, Philip G. Koan, concerning disposal of sludge by the action of worms, prior to and after his inspection. On the other hand, both Koan and another officer of the corporation testified that Koan advised Herman at the time of the latter's inspection that the worm method of disposal would be used at the Greens Dairy location and that he expressed no objections. It is found that Herman was advised of Respondent's proposed method of disposal at the time of the inspection; however, he was not authorized to approve or issue permits. (Testimony of Herman, Gnann, Koan, Page, Petitioner's Exhibits 1-2) On November 7, 1978, the Volusia County Health Department issued a permit authorizing Respondent to operate its establishment. The permit reflected an expiration date of September 30, 1979, and provided that violation of any applicable health law would revoke the permit. No conditions were attached to the permit, nor did it indicate any required method of sludge disposal. (Testimony of Page, Petitioner's Exhibit 3) Respondent has been in the business of manufacturing, installing and servicing septic tanks for approximately eighteen years. In addition, Koan conducted a business involving the sale of worms. In the fall of 1978, he had approximately 12,000 pounds worms on hand. He had conducted various experiments at his business premises utilizing worms to dispose of manure and septic tank sludge. He found that the worms would eat the sludge material and excrete the same, resulting in worm "castings" or material which resembles potting soil with no residual odor. He had also placed worms in clogged septic tank drain fields and found that they later became unclogged, thus resulting in his conclusion that worms had disposed of the septic tank material in the tank. He further discovered that odors associated with septic tank sludge dissipated in a very short time when worms were present in the material, and observed that one pound of worms would "digest" or dispose of one pound of sludge in approximately twenty-four hours. Therefore, prior to receiving the county permit, he deposited the 12,000 pounds of worms in a trench located at the Greens Dairy location. After receiving the permit, Respondent dumped septic tank sludge in the trench approximately three times a week. The trench was about four feet wide, one foot deep, and 200 feet long. A screen was placed over the top of the ditch. However, it did not prevent access to files. (Testimony of Koan, Warnock, Petitioner's Exhibits 8-9) On December 12, 978, the owner of a skating rink adjacent to Respondent's Green Dairy property complained to the County Health Department concerning the presence of odors and flies at her establishment which had been the subject of customer complaints. A county sanitarian inspected the sludge operation on that date and found that there was some odor and a few flies in the immediate vicinity, but no fly larvae was observed. The ditch was full of sludge at the time. Some spillage has occurred in the driveway on the property. The location is approximately two to three hundred feet from the rear of the skating rink. A further inspection by the county Director of the Environmental Health Section was made on December 27. As a result, he wrote Respondent on December 28 that, although the inspection showed that flies and odors were minimal at the time, he could foresee an escalation of the same during certain periods, together with increased complaints from local businessmen. The letter further stated that the use of septic tank sludge for enriching a "worm bed" was in violation of Chapter 10D6.29, Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter 386 Florida Statutes, and was a sanitary nuisance which must be abated. A further complaint in January, 1979, followed by another county inspection revealed essentially the same conditions that existed at the time of the prior inspection, and prompted a second letter from the Environmental Health Section director to Respondent on January 31, 1979, wherein he was advised to cease dumping septic tank sludge at the Greens Dairy location within fourteen days and commence using the county sanitary landfill for such purposes. As a result of this letter, Respondent stopped dumping at the location on or about February 2. On February 15, another county letter was sent to Respondent which advised that its permit for disposal of septic tank sludge was revoked, subject to a request for hearing, as being in violation of Chapter 10D6.29(1) and (3)(c), Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter 386.041(1)(e), Florida Statutes. The stated grounds for proposed revocation were that Respondent was employing an unsatisfactory and unacceptable method and place for disposal of waste, and was maintaining a condition capable of breeding flies, mosquitoes and other insects capable of transmitting diseases. The letter further stated that Respondent was not tilling the sludge as had been stated on the permit application and that the potential for breeding flies was evident due to concentration and lack of covering with soil. (Testimony of Tyndall, Van Ulzer, Page, Camp, Koan, Petitioner's Exhibits 4-7) During the approximate three-month period from November 1978 through January 1979 when Respondent was dumping sludge, a strong and distinctive odor and an unusually large number of flies were experienced on the skating rink premises nearby. After the dumping stopped in early February, both problems disappeared. However, other odors incident to the presence of hogs and chickens at farms in the area also produced a noxious odor in and around the skating rink. The odor produced by the dumping of sludge dissipates rapidly after dumping. The absence of fly larvae in and around the ditch shows that flies were not breeding there during the period of dumping operations, but does not rule out the potential for such breeding in the future. (Testimony of Munshower, Tyndall, Coffin, Branton, Tontone, Warnock, Hunt, Stipulation) The Volusia County Health Department issues permits involving the disposal of sludge only when a treatment method of burial, incineration, or sanitary landfill is used in the operation, as prescribed by Respondent's Rule 10D-6.29, Florida Administrative Code. However, long-standing policy permits disposal by mechanical tilling of the sludge into soil as a "modified" method of burial. This method cuts the sludge with a disc and harrow and mixes it into the soil to a depth of approximately four inches. It also produces a temporary odor when the sludge is first spread on the soil. The county has no policies concerning the use of worms to dispose of sludge and does not consider it to be an acceptable method of disposal. The County Health Department has not conducted any scientific tests to determine the presence of pathogens in soil which has been mechanically tilled with sludge. (Testimony of Page) When sludge is placed over a "worm bed" and has settled, the material begins moving as the worms eat the sludge. The residue of the digestive process is sold as a soil conditioner which meets State Department of Agriculture requirements and which contains plant nutrients. Earth worms multiply rapidly when feeding on sludge. Respondent had approximately 50,000 pounds of worms in its trench when it ceased operations in February 1979. This method of sludge disposal has not been accepted generally by health authorities as a recognized and acceptable procedure. (Testimony of Koan, Warnock, Hunt, Tontone, Nemeyer, supplemented by Respondent's Exhibit 1)
Recommendation That Respondent's Permit No. 18362 be permitted to remain in effect until its expiration date provided that it disposes of sludge and/or contents from septic tanks in an acceptable method, as provided in Rule 10D-6.29, F.A.C. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of September, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Eisenberg, Esquire Department of HRS District IV Counsel 5920 Arlington Expressway Post Office Box 2050 Jacksonville, Florida Craig James, Esquire Post Office Drawer DD Deland, Florida 32720 Department of HRS Attn: Eric J. Haugdahl 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to credit for her answers to any of the questions she specifically challenged or for the four questions deleted by the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) on the February 1998 Class "B" Domestic Wastewater Operator Certification examination (wastewater examination)? Was the Department's administration or grading of Petitioner's examination arbitrary, capricious or otherwise unfair so as to entitle Petitioner to either additional points for a passing grade or an opportunity to retake the examination without cost?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the Class "B" wastewater operator certification examination given in February 1998 by the Department of Environmental Protection. Pilot questions are questions submitted by licensees and educators which do not yet have a "performance record" of testing validity. Petitioner alleged that pilot questions were used on her examination contrary to rules of the Department. Petitioner submitted no competent evidence to establish this allegation and it was credibly refuted. There are no pilot questions in the bank of potential questions from which the examination was composed. Petitioner conjectured that questions on her "B" level examination may have been drawn from a bank of questions for a higher level ("A") certification examination. In fact, the examination questions for the "B" level examination were selected from a bank of questions developed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation was the agency that had jurisdiction over the operator certification program before the Department of Environmental Protection assumed responsibility therefor. The selection of the examination questions was accomplished by selecting the percentage of questions from a range in a subject area already predetermined by rule and a computer program inserting the number of questions to fill that percentage. There is no way the computer program can select questions from another level of examination, for instance "A" level or "C" level. Prior to the examination, candidates for examination were advised they would have four hours to complete the examination. Examinees for the February 1998 examination in fact were provided four full hours after all preliminary matters and reading of instructions were completed. Prior to the examination, the Department provided candidates for examination with a list of subject areas that it intended to place on the examination, so that candidates could effectively prepare. All subject areas, except one, were in fact covered on the February 1998 examination. In some instances, a single question/answer satisfied two or more subject areas because of content equally applicable to each subject area. In other instances, the same subject area was covered by several questions/answers. Only one subject area that was listed in the pre-examination information did not appear on the February 1998 examination. That subject area was "energy." The reason that the subject area of "energy" was not included on the February 1998 examination was that there were no energy questions in the bank of questions which the Department of Environmental Protection had inherited from the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. The sole result of the absence of any energy question on the examination is that Petitioner and all other examinees in her group did not receive as thorough an examination in a single subject matter area as the licensure board had aspirationally intended. However, all examinees were equally treated. Originally, there were 87 questions on the February 1998 examination. After the examination was administered and a special analysis report on the grades was produced, the Department's examination review committee met with the examination consultants. The committee recommended to the Department, and the Department accepted the recommendation, that four questions should be deleted because they were misleading or for some other reason failed to adequately and reliably measure the examinees' ability to practice at a Class "B" license level. Removal of the four questions only lowered the mean score by one point, thereby creating a slightly easier examination while simultaneously slightly increasing its reliability. Examinees were instructed to select the best multiple choice answer for each question. Each of the questions was equally weighted. The Department interpreted Rule 61E12-41.005(5), Florida Administrative Code, as requiring that examinees achieve at least a 65% rounded score on the examination in order to pass the examination. In order to determine an examinee's success on the examination, the Department multiplied the initial 87 questions by 65% (.65) and so determined that an examinee would need at least 54 correct questions/answers to earn a passing grade. In determining a candidate's grade on an operator licensure examination, the Department determines the number of correct answers needed to reach the minimum rounded score of 65%. A special analysis report also indicates how many correct answers equal each percentage grade. If this number is not a whole number, the Department uses the rounding method to reach a whole number, based on 0.5 +/- percentage. By the foregoing grading interpretation, before deletion of the four questions, Petitioner's rounded score was 60%, with 52 correct answers. Petitioner's grade improved with the deletion of the four questions, because she had incorrectly answered each of the four questions which were later deleted. After the four questions were deleted, the same grading system resulted in a rounded score of 63% with 52 correct answers. By letter dated April 6, 1998, the Department notified Petitioner that she had failed the examination because she did not get a rounded 65% score based on 52 correct answers. After receiving the letter, Petitioner requested a review of the examination. Petitioner was allowed to review the questions and answers she had missed. Petitioner was also allowed to write comments on the question sheets which she reviewed. Petitioner's comments were submitted to the examination review committee of the Department for the committee's review. Upon review of Petitioner's comments and the examination, the committee determined that the questions and required answers were accurate and fair. It recommended no change to Petitioner's score. Petitioner was notified that no change would be made to her score. Petitioner then timely requested an administrative hearing. Although Petitioner's two letters/petitions (see Preliminary Statement supra.) initially raised issues concerning a number of examination questions, Petitioner only presented evidence concerning the contents of question 78 at formal hearing. Question 78 tested examinees' knowledge of appropriate emergency response activity and notification concerning the release of chlorine gas. Petitioner asserted that question 78 was vague, ambiguous, and misleading because it did not specifically state that a "reportable quantity" was to be considered in choosing the best answer from among multiple choice options of reporting a chlorine spill to one entity, two entities, three entities or no entities. For this reason, Petitioner alleged that her answer could have been an answer which was equally correct ("multi- keyed") with the answer selected as correct by the Department. Mr. Dawkins, who was accepted as an expert in emergency response and community right-to-know, testified that the question was not misleading. Mr. Dawkins is not associated with the Respondent Department, any of its committees, or the examination preparation process. He oversees actual reportage of dangerous chemical spills for the Department of Community Affairs. Although Mr. Dawkins indicated that he, personally, would not have written question 78 quite the way it was posed on the examination, he still felt that since it addressed reporting requirements, examinees should have assumed that a reportable quantity was involved and answered accordingly. All three of Respondent's experts testified that the answer chosen as correct by the Department was the most accurate of the multiple choice answers provided on the examination and that the subject matter and correct answer should have been understood by a qualified operator of a wastewater treatment plant at the "B" licensure level. The Department has under contract an expert in examination and psychometrics. The Evaluation Services Instructional Support Center Learning Systems Institute of Florida State University provides to the Department as part of the examination grading, a special analysis report for each examination. This report contains statistics about the scores, difficulty of each question, and how the spread of answers by the examinees compared to the four quadrants of grade results. The February 1998 examination was an extremely difficult examination, as evidenced by the fact that more examinees failed than passed. However, it was demonstrated that 77% of examinees who took the examination got question 78 correct. Question 78 also discriminated between high and low scoring examinees. The item analysis performed before the other four questions were deleted did not show that question 78 was misleading in any way, but did show that each of the four questions deleted were misleading or otherwise flawed. One of the proctors for the February 1998 examination personally observed that at the time the examination ended, only two examinees remained in the examination room and that neither of these examinees was Petitioner. It can be inferred therefrom that Petitioner had finished the examination, had time to spare, and had left the room. Finally, the inclusion of examination questions which were later deleted is not a concern as to the time allotted. This type of examination is a "power exam" and speed is not a factor.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order denying the Petitioner's challenge to the February 1998 Class "B" wastewater operator certification examination and assigning her a final percentage grade of 63% thereon. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerrit Vanthul, Qualified Representative 5279 Southeast 39th Street Trenton, Florida 32693 Cynthia Christen, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blairstone Road Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Whether the August 30, 1988 application of Petitioner James R. Regan for a permit to operate a wastewater (sewage) treatment facility should be granted in that Petitioner has provided reasonable assurances that the operation of the facility will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution in contravention of Department of Environmental Regulation standards or rules.
Findings Of Fact The sewage treatment plant that is the focus of this proceeding is "Weakley Bayou, Inc.," a corporation. The real property upon which it is located is owned by the wife of James R. Regan. Despite corporate status, Weakley Bayou, Inc. has been operated at the option and control of James R. Regan since its inception in the early 1970's. The permit application here at issue was made in Mr. Regan's name, and he has been treated as if he were the corporation throughout all stages of the permit process. Mr. Regan brought the Petition for Formal Hearing in his own name. He was also accepted as the qualified representative for himself and the corporation. "Weakley Bayou, Inc." is an aerobic gravity flow wastewater treatment plant located in Escambia County. In 1988 James R. Regan applied for a renewal of the operating permit for the facility. The Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) issued an Intent to Deny on December 16, 1988, based on agency perceptions derived from observations, monitoring of Petitioner- generated reports, and grab samples, that the facility did not meet the requirements set down in Rule 17-6 F.A.C. Specifically, the Intent to Deny focused on the following problems: A reclaimed water sample taken on December 6, 1988 revealed the facility was exceeding BOD5 (Biological Oxygen Demand) and TSS (Total Suspended Solids) limits in violation of specific condition number 17 of Permit Number D017-71682. The BOD5 was 232.8 mg/l and TSS was 1,430 mg/l. The same sampling showed the facility was exceeding 200/100 ml for fecal coliform in violation of specific condition number 17 of permit number D017-71682 and Rule 17- 6.180(1)(b)4.d., Florida Administrative Code. The fecal coliform was 79,000/100 ml. Ground water monitoring samples show the levels of nitrates in excess of 10 mg/l in well #l on two out of last four quarterly samples, which is in violation of Rule 17- 6.040(4)(q) paragraph 4.2, Florida Administrative Code. During the inspection on December 6, 1988, the sludge blanket in the clarifier was overflowing the weirs, solids had accumulated in the chlorine contact chamber and percolation ponds in violation of Rule 17- 6.110(3) and 17-6.180(2) (e) , Florida Administrative Code. Auxiliary electrical power is not provided as required by Rule 17-6.040(4) (c) and 17-6.110(3), Florida Administrative Code. The applicant was notified March 14, 1988, that emergency power would be required. During the period (1984-1988) that Petitioner's sewage treatment plant has been permitted by DER, it has been periodically inspected and the Petitioner's self-generated reports have been monitored. From time to time after inspections, Petitioner has been notified of pollution and contaminant hazards or violations pursuant to agency standards, which hazards or violations required corrections in order to retain his permit. Among these hazards and violations have been noted large sewage spills, overflows, poor equipment condition, and substandard plant operation. In most instances, Petitioner cooperated with DER and at least attempted to adjust the plant's operation to conform to the notifications. However, as of December 15, 1988, DER notified Petitioner of the following problems with the plant: sludge blanket in the clarifier overflowing the weir, solids accumulation in the chlorine contact chamber, solids accumulation in both percolation ponds, no auxiliary power on the site, and high levels of nitrates (6.9 ppm) in Monitoring well -1. DER's test of an effluent grab sample tested BOD at 232.8 mg/L and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) at 1430 mg/L. That is, samples taken by DER during an inspection indicated excessive levels of TSS, BOD, and fecal coliform, in violation of Chapter 403 F.S. and Chapter 17-6 F.A.C. Mr. Regan admitted that for approximately four years, broken and unrepaired pipes and fittings at his plant had caused sewage spills or overflows of approximately eight thousand gallons of sewage sludge. He contended that the surface enrichment around Monitoring Well #1 was caused by a separation of a two-inch PVC skimmer line which was corrected in March 1988. Although Mr. Regan established that the leak in the pipe had been repaired, the evidence does not permit a finding that this enrichment was solely from that source, that it will dissipate over a reasonable time, or that it has not polluted the ground water. 1/ Thus, there is no reasonable assurance that fixing the leak, by itself, protects the environment. Over a period of time, Petitioner's own groundwater monitoring reports showed excessive nitrate levels and these have worsened since late 1988, according to witness Ray Bradburn. Petitioner contended that a grab sample is not as accurate as a composite sampling. Although DER witnesses concur in this contention of Petitioner with regard to grab samples generally, and although one DER witness suggested that part of the December 1988 grab sample reading by itself would not cause him to deny the permit, no credible evidence disputes the accuracy of the December 6, 1988 grab sample as a grab sample.2/ Petitioner admitted that it was and continues to be his conscious management decision to keep the plant's auxiliary gasoline powered engine locked away from the plant site so as to discourage theft and vandalism, and so as to discourage childish curiosity which might expose Petitioner to liability. He was reluctant to secure the engine on the premises as a hedge against emergency shutdowns of the plant. Mr. Regan, upon advice of outside engineers, has attempted to correct many of the cited errors and omissions. However, notwithstanding the DER's express disapproval of such a method, Mr. Regan has instructed his plant operators to curtail the input of air from the plant's blower to the sewage at night so as to create a "belching" effect designed to clear out certain wastes and thereby attempt denitrification in the clarifier. DER witnesses did not explain in any detail why Regan's belching procedure was unacceptable except that addition of an expensive denitrification unit was preferable and constituted a "reasonable assurance," whereas Mr. Regan's method had not been demonstrated to be successful in the past. Mr. Regan, who bears the burden of proof in these proceedings, did not demonstrate that his "belching" system was a reasonable assurance of denitrification or offer expert witnesses to support such a theory. This sewage treatment plant is subject to a Notice of Violation which became final on September 21, 1989. 3/
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order denying the pending permit application. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of January, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1990.
The Issue Whether, under the facts and circumstances of this case, Respondent's license to practice engineering in the State of Florida, should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, L. Thomas Hubbard d/b/a The Hubbard Association, was licensed to practice professional engineering in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 006634 on August 17, 1962. Certificate of authorization number EB0003297 was issued to the firm, The Hubbard Association, Inc., on September 25, 1981. In March 1986, Respondent prepared a set of plans for the proposed City of Macclenny Wastewater Treatment Works Improvement Program, Sewage Treatment Facility ("Macclenny project"), and one volume of "Contract Documents and Specifications" ("specifications"), which were submitted to the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Bureau of Wastewater Management and Grants (Bureau) on or about April 24, 1986. All wastewater treatment plans designs must go to the DER for approval prior to construction, and if a public entity wants grant funding for its wastewater treatment facility, the project must be reviewed and approved by the Bureau (now called Bureau of Local Government and Waste Water Financial Assistance) which administers State grant programs for wastewater treatment facilities. The Bureau reviews grant project plans and specifications to ensure that they: (a) comply with administrative requirements of the grants programs; (b) comply with minimum Federal and/or State technical standards for wastewater facilities; (c) are suitable for bidding; and (d) present a constructible project. The plans for the Macclenny project depict an existing treatment facility, a new clarifier to improve the removal of solids (an expansion of about 130,000 gallons per day in treatment capacity), and a new effluent pumping station to pump to an overland flow field (field) through a force main pipeline to spray risers. The risers would spray the water laterally across the field. Water would collect in a central collection ditch, and run through a final chlorine contact chamber prior to discharge in Turkey Creek. A new agricultural building for equipment storage, and a new holding pond, which is an off-line pond for storage of inadequately treated water, are also depicted. The field in the Macclenny project is roughly 24 acres and is located in a large area between the chlorine contact chamber and the holding pond. The field in this system has 5 cells. A cell is an area of land that can be independently controlled to allow loading/resting cycles in the treatment process. Each cell in a given field should be as near equal in size as possible to provide for equal treatment of the wastewater during the loading/resting cycles. Loading/resting cycles allows a cell within the field to "rest" (no effluent being pumped on to that cell) so maintenance mowing or harvesting can be accomplished and to "load" the other cells to revitalize the bacteria that renews the treatment process. "Load" means to apply the effluent or treated wastewater from the existing facility to the field. Generally, forty percent of the field would be loaded with wastewater at any one time. On December 9, 1985, the Bureau had a predesign conference with Respondent in Macclenny to discuss design items. No plans or specifications for the Macclenny project had been submitted at that time, nor were they submitted at this conference. On February 18, 1986, an in-progress design review was held at Macclenny, with the Bureau staff available to answer Respondent's questions. On March 5, 1986, another in-progress design review meeting was held in Macclenny, with the Bureau staff present, at which time the plans were "fifty percent" (50%) complete. The unsigned and unsealed plans were given to the Bureau for a preliminary review. On March 25, 1986, the Bureau issued a few preliminary comments on the 50% completed plans and specifications. The purpose of the 50% complete review is to help the design engineer complete his plans and specifications. On March 31, 1986, Respondent transmitted to the Bureau a set of plans for the proposed Macclenny project. Respondent's transmittal letter, which the Bureau received with the plans on April 11, 1986, stated that "completed plans" were being transmitted. On April 21, 1986, Respondent transmitted to the bureau an additional set of the same plans for the Macclenny project, which Respondent again referred to as "completed plans" on his transmittal letter form which were received by Bureau on April 24, 1986. This transmittal also included specifications, a design data check list, design calculations, cost estimate, and plan of operation. The plans in this submittal are referred to as "the plans." It was Respondent's understanding that signing and sealing a set of engineering drawings signified a legal obligation that if someone takes the plans and builds a project it will work. Respondent's signature and seal are on the first sheet of the set of plans which was in the April 1986 submittal but not on the specifications. The plans were prepared, signed, sealed and submitted to the Bureau for review by Respondent. Respondent did not place any conditional language or qualification on the plans or write a letter advising the Bureau that the plans were not complete. It was Respondent's understanding that the Bureau would not review a set of plans unless they were signed and sealed, notwithstanding the completeness of the plans. Respondent did not consider the plans as completed, notwithstanding that he had signed, sealed and submitted them to Petitioner as "completed". It was Respondent's understanding that the plans were being submitted for review only, not complete for construction. An engineer may get answers from the Bureau without submitting plans that are signed and sealed as completed, such as the predesign conference or 50% review that occurred in this case. The Bureau considers plans that are signed, sealed and submitted as "completed" for review to be 100% complete and ready to bid. The Bureau considered the plans and specifications which Respondent submitted on April 24, 1986 as being final, complete plans and specifications for final review by the Bureau. The Bureau reviewed the plans assuming them to be complete and followed normal procedures for reviewing a complete set of plans and specifications. On June 19, 1989, the Bureau issued 52 written comments based on its review of the plans and specifications it had received in the April 24, 1986 submittal from Respondent. The plans and specifications were submitted to the Department of General Services (DGS) by the Bureau for a review and opinion because the Bureau was concerned about the structural design. DGS responded to this request through Jim Berkstresser, P.E. on June 25, 1986. By cover letter dated July 18, 1989, Respondent filed written responses to the Bureau's 52 comments. The Bureau did not approve Respondent's plans and specifications for the Macclenny project submitted on April 24, 1986. On September 5, 1986, Respondent resubmitted plans in response to the Bureau's 52 comments. These plans had the same configuration as the April submittal regarding the overland flow treatment. On September 29, 1986, Respondent met with David Wolfe to discuss the field configuration for the proposed overland flow system and other outstanding issues related to the revised contract documents. The principal concerns were non- uniform flow and significant erosion potential. Respondent's plans did not follow accepted design criteria. At this meeting field configurations were discussed, as well as guidelines to be followed in design of the overland flow field, and a general field layout were developed. Respondent submitted another set of plans which the Bureau received on October 30, 1986, and that set was approved and stamped accepted by DER-BWMG on December 22, 1986. All sheets in the approved set are dated August 20, 1986, with the exception of the cover sheet on which Respondent failed to date his seal and signature, and sheets G-6 and G-7 which are dated October 24, 1986. Respondent signed and sealed the cover sheet and sheet G-7 of the approved set of plans, but did not seal any other sheets in the approved set of plans. A signature and seal on a set of plans indicates that the plans were prepared by, or under the direct supervision of the person signing and sealing them, and that the plans are complete and depict a project that will perform its intended function. A signature and seal on a set of plans means the engineer assures that the design is his design and that the plans and specifications are ready to be bid for construction. The design should contain criteria and information significant to ensure the project will work. Sheet flow is the primary treatment mode in an overland flow system. Sheet flow is where a thin layer of water is induced to flow in a very controlled atmosphere across a length of land that is functioning very similarly to a trickling filter. The acceptable range of slope of an overland flow system is 2% to 8% with the best results obtained in the lower range because of a longer "residence time". "Residence time" is the amount time the wastewater is on the field for treatment. The slopes must be even and uniform to maintain a constant velocity so as to minimize the potential for erosion and to maintain a constant depth of water throughout the filed so as to maximize the treatment. Cross slopes should be minimized and topographic lines should be as close to parallel as possible on the field. The plans for the Macclenny project shows: (a) slopes ranging from less than 2% up to 6%; (b) multiple compound slopes across the field and; (c) topographic lines that are not parallel. The specifications for the field do not set out the acceptable tolerances on the slopes or the acceptable level of compaction of the field for the contractor who is to construct the field and; therefore, lacks control over the final product. Contours in an overland flow field are important, and while it is desirable for them to be on 1-foot intervals, contours at intervals of 2 feet are acceptable provided the plans and specifications address what happens between the contours. Respondent's plans and specifications show contours at intervals of 2 feet but do not address what happens between the contours. The plans of the facilities that were approved prior to the submittal of any plans by Respondent called for a 2- 3 week loading/resting cycle. The standard practice is to have all cells within an overland flow field to be of equal size so that the area to be loaded at any given period of time is the same size. The cells in the overland flow field in the Macclenny project as depicted by the plans are not of equal size, and if operated on a 2-3 week loading/resting cycle would not provide a consistent amount of treatment and thereby result in varying levels of treatment of the effluent. It is standard practice to provide performance specifications for seeding the field with the primary grass cover and for overseeding when necessary to prevent wind and water erosion. There were no performance specifications in the plans and specifications on the Macclenny project submitted by the Respondent. Agricultural equipment is an integral part of the overland flow field system and has a direct bearing on whether the system will function over the long run. Specifications for agricultural equipment are necessary to determine if the system will work properly. There were no specifications for agricultural equipment submitted by the Respondent in the plans. It is standard practice to furnish spray nozzle specifications, such as nozzle size, degree of fanning, characteristics under varying pressures and how much water will be discharged by the nozzle, in a set of plans and specifications for an overland flow field. Respondent's specifications for the Macclenny project did not contain the necessary specifications for the spray nozzles. Compacting is a standard practice, and it is standard practice to show compaction requirements on plans or specifications. The usual practice is to investigate the soil and specify compaction, usually based on a foundation report by a geo-technical engineer, showing the safe beading capacity of the soil in what condition, with recommendations for compaction. The Respondent's specifications do not call for compaction of the soil under the clarifier slab. However, the Respondent's specifications do call for compaction in the holding pond and situations where an area is over-excavated and backfilled. Should the area under the clarifier slab be over- excavated and backfilled, then compaction is covered in the specifications but compaction would not be covered unless this occurs. Therefore, since the weight of the slab is carried by the soil beneath it, specifications for compaction should have been included in Respondent's specifications for any situation. Changes in temperature causes concrete to expand or contract which may result in cracking. Placement of a concrete slab may result in the slab bending which may result in cracking. Therefore, reinforcing a concrete slab is required to maintain the slab's integrity. The thickness of a concrete slab will determine the distribution of the reinforcing so that cracking is minimized. The clarifier slab in the Macclenny project is depicted as being 12 inches thick and shows number 6 bar reinforcing on 6 inch centers in the top of the slab but no reinforcing in the bottom of the slab. Failure to require reinforcing in the bottom of the slab could result in the slab cracking due to significant changes in temperature and soft spots in the soil beneath the slab. Failure to place reinforcing in the bottom as well as in the top of the slab is not in accordance with standards of the code of the American Concrete Institute (ACI), revised in 1983, and is a structural weakness. The chlorine contact chamber as detailed on sheets 5-6 and 5-7 is like a rectangular concrete box beneath the earth where the earth is within a few inches of the top of the walls. The walls are vertically reinforced with number 4 bars on 12 inch centers placed in the center of the 8 inch thick wall. When the tank is empty the reinforcing bars will be approximately 160 per cent overstressed from the active pressure of the earth. Additional reinforcing is needed in the walls to meet ACI standards. There are deficiencies in the vertical wall reinforcing of the chlorine contact chamber as detailed on sheets 5-6 and 5-7 of the Plans. On sheets 5-3, 5-4 and 5-7 of the plans, reinforcement through the construction joints is incorrectly detailed to assure that cracking of the concrete will not occur. Construction joints occur between different pours of concrete, such as where the walls meet the top of the bottom slab. The concrete bottom of the holding pond as detailed in sheet 5-8 of the Plans is large enough to require expansion joints to prevent cracking as the slab expands and contracts due to changes in the weather, yet no expansion joints are shown for the slab as detailed on sheet 5-8 of the plans. Neither the collection ditches nor the spray riser bases as detailed on the plans show any reinforcing to maintain the integrity of the concrete. While this is not a major structural weakness, it indicates a failure to comply with standard structural engineering practices. Although the plans call for relocation of an existing drainage ditch, the Respondent failed to consult DER regarding the permitting of such drainage ditch. A detention time of 30 minutes is required to properly disinfect wastewater and is-basic knowledge for all civil engineers, yet the plans called for only a fifteen minute detention time. It is standard engineering practice to provide flood level elevations on the site plans. Respondent failed to provide flood level elevations for the Macclenny facility site plans. The plans failed to: (a) provide elevations for high water alarm and pump off settings; (b) provide specifications for flume liner on sheet M-4; (c) show how to close an existing outlet on the chlorine contact chamber; (d) show where an effluent pump station was to be located; (e) show pressure relief valve locations and; (f) indicate quantities for purpose of contract bidding. The specifications list equipment and work items, such as pumping equipment, grit storage tank, case-out assembly, telescoping valve, air diffusers, portable pump, hose and couplings, that are inapplicable to the Macclenny project. There are inconsistencies in the plans and specifications, such as: (a) the plans showing one clarifier while the specifications call for two clarifiers, (b) the plans showing a 150 pound chlorine cylinder as opposed to a 1-ton chlorine cylinder in the specifications and; (c) the plans showing the clarifier with a 38-foot diameter while the specifications calls for a clarifier with a 40-foot diameter. Respondent was negligent in submitting incomplete plans to the Bureau as "completed plans" and in failing to utilize due care and failing to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles, with regard to the content of those plans which he submitted as "completed plans".
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the circumstances surrounding this case, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent, L. Thomas Hubbard guilty of violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and for such violation impose an administrative fine of $1,000.00 and suspend from the practice of engineering for a period of thirty (30) days, stay the suspension and place the Respondent on probation for a period of one year under terms and conditions the Board deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearing this 20th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0096 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Petitioner in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Findings of Fact 1. Rejected as not being necessary to the conclusions reached in this Recommended Order. 3.-12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, respectively, but modified. 13. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 14.-19. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17, respectively, but modified. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or subordinate or unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17 and 18 but modified. 22.-33. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 27, respectively, but modified. 34. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17 and 18, but modified. 35-37. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 38. Adopted in Findings of Fact 28 and 29, but modified. 39.-40. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate, but see Findings of Fact 37 and 38. 41.-5O. Adopted in Findings of Fact 28, 32, 29 (28-31), 29, 29, 32, 30, 32 and 32, respectively, but modified. 51. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 52.-53. Adopted in Findings of Fact (28-33) and 32, respectively, but modified. 54.-55. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. Adapted in Finding of Fact 55. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 58.-62. Adopted generally in Findings of Fact 28-33. 63.-66. Adopted generally in Findings of Fact 34-36. 67.-72. Adopted generally in Finding of Fact 37. 73.-74. Adopted generally in Finding of Fact 38. 75.-76. Adopted generally in Finding of Fact 39. 77.-79. Adopted generally or covered in Findings of Fact 13-15 and 28-39. 80.-82 Adopted generally or covered in Findings of Fact 40- 41. 83.-90. Adopted generally or covered in Findings of Fact 42 and 43. 91.-96. Adopted generally or covered in Findings of Fact 44 and 45. 97.-104. Adopted generally or covered in Finding of Fact 46. 105.-107. Adopted generally or covered in Finding of Fact 47. 108.-109. Adopted in Finding of Fact 48. 110.-115. Adopted generally or covered in Finding of Fact 55. 116.-117. Adopted in Finding of Fact 49 and 50. 18. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 119. Adopted in Finding of Fact 51. 120.-124. Adopted in Finding of Fact 52. 125. Rejected as immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 126.-127. Adopted in Finding of Fact 52. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Adopted in Finding of Fact 54. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Adopted in Finding of Fact 55. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Findings of Fact 13-15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19 except last sentence that is rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant. Rejected as being a restatement of Administrative Complaint and not a Finding of Fact but see Findings of Fact 15 and 19. Rejected as being a restatement of John Sowerby's testimony and not a Finding of Fact, but see Findings of Fact 15, 17 and 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. 6. Restatement of David Wolfe's testimony COPIES FURNISHED: Rex Smith Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Wings S. Benton, Esquire 1020 D. Lafayette Street, Suite 205 Post Office Box 5676 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-5676 L. Thomas Hubbard, pro se THA Building 3110 Spring Glen Road Jacksonville, Florida 32207
