The Issue The issues in this case are whether International Paper Company (IP) is entitled to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. FL0002526 issued by Department of Environmental Protection (Department) and whether the Department should approve Consent Order No. 08-0358, for the operation of IP’s paper mill in Cantonment, Escambia County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency authorized under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (2008), to regulate discharges of industrial wastewater to waters of the state. Under a delegation from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Department administers the NPDES permitting program in Florida. IP owns and operates the integrated bleached kraft paper mill in Cantonment. FOPB is a non-profit Alabama corporation established in 1988 whose members are interested in protecting the water quality and natural resources of Perdido Bay. FOPB has approximately 450 members. About 90 percent of the members own property adjacent to Perdido Bay. James Lane is the president of FOPB. Jacqueline Lane and James Lane live on property adjacent to Perdido Bay. The mill's wastewater effluent is discharged into Elevenmile Creek, which is a tributary of Perdido Bay. Perdido Bay is approximately 28 square miles in area. U.S. Highway 90 crosses the Bay, going east and west, and forms the boundary between what is often referred to as the "Upper Bay" and "Lower Bay." The Bay is relatively shallow, especially in the Upper Bay, ranging in depth between five and ten feet. At the north end of Perdido Bay is a large tract of land owned by IP, known as the Rainwater Tract. The northern part of the tract is primarily fresh water wetlands. The southern part is a tidally-affected marsh. The natural features and hydrology of the fresh water wetlands have been substantially altered by agriculture, silviculture, clearing, ditching, and draining. Tee Lake and Wicker Lake are small lakes (approximately 50 acres in total surface area) within the tidal marsh of the Rainwater Tract. Depending on the tides, the lakes can be as shallow as one foot, or several feet deep. A channel through the marsh allows boaters to gain access to the lakes from Perdido Bay. Florida Pulp and Paper Company first began operating the Cantonment paper mill in 1941. St. Regis Paper Company acquired the mill in 1946. In 1984, Champion International Corporation (Champion) acquired the mill. Champion changed the product mix in 1986 from unbleached packaging paper to bleached products such as printing and writing grades of paper. The mill is integrated, meaning that it brings in logs and wood chips, makes pulp, and produces paper. The wood is chemically treated in cookers called digesters to separate the cellulose from the lignin in the wood because only the cellulose is used to make paper. Then the "brown stock" from the digesters goes through the oxygen delignification process, is mixed with water, and is pumped to paper machines that make the paper products. In 1989, the Department and Champion signed a Consent Order to address water quality violations in Elevenmile Creek. Pursuant to the Consent Order, Champion commissioned a comprehensive study of the Perdido Bay system that was undertaken by a team of scientists led by Dr. Robert Livingston, an aquatic ecologist and professor at Florida State University. The initial three-year study by Dr. Livingston's team of scientists was followed by a series of related scientific studies (“the Livingston studies"). Champion was granted variances from the water quality standards in Elevenmile Creek for iron, specific conductance, zinc, biological integrity, un-ionized ammonia, and dissolved oxygen (DO). In 2001, IP and Champion merged and Champion’s industrial wastewater permit and related authorizations were transferred to IP. In 2002, IP submitted a permit application to upgrade its wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and relocate its discharge. The WWTP upgrades consist of converting to a modified activated sludge treatment process, increasing aeration, constructing storm surge ponds, and adding a process for pH adjustment. The new WWTP would have an average daily effluent discharge of 23.8 million gallons per day (mgd). IP proposes to convey the treated effluent by pipeline 10.7 miles to the Rainwater Tract, where the effluent would be distributed over the wetlands as it flows to lower Elevenmile Creek and upper Perdido Bay. IP's primary objective in upgrading the WWTP was to reduce the nitrogen and phosphorus in the mill's effluent discharge. The upgrades are designed to reduce un-ionized ammonia, total soluble nitrogen, and phosphorus. They are also expected to achieve a reduction of biological oxygen demand (BOD) and TSS. IP plans to obtain up to 5 mgd of treated municipal wastewater from a new treatment facility planned by the Emerald Coast Utility Authority (ECUA), which would be used in the paper production process and would reduce the need for groundwater withdrawals by IP for this purpose. The treated wastewater would enter the WWTP, along with other process wastewater and become part of the effluent conveyed through the pipeline to the wetland tract. The effluent limits required by the proposed permit include technology-based effluent limits (TBELs) that apply to the entire pulp and paper industry. TBELs are predominantly production-based, limiting the amount of pollutants that may be discharged for each ton of product that is produced. The proposed permit also imposes water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) that are specific to the Cantonment mill and the waters affected by its effluent discharge. The WQBELs for the mill are necessary for certain constituents of the mill's effluent because the TBELs, alone, would not be sufficient to prevent water quality criteria in the receiving waters from being violated. The Livingston studies represent perhaps the most complete scientific evaluation ever made of a coastal ecosystem. Dr. Livingston developed an extensive biological and chemical history of Perdido Bay and then evaluated the nutrient loadings from Elevenmile Creek over a 12-year period to correlate mill loadings with the biological health of the Bay. The Livingston studies confirmed that when nutrient loadings from the mill were high, they caused toxic algae blooms and reduced biological productivity in Perdido Bay. Some of the adverse effects attributable to the mill effluent were most acute in the area of the Bay near the Lanes' home on the northeastern shore of the Bay because the flow from the Perdido River tends to push the flow from Elevenmile Creek toward the northeastern shore. Because Dr. Livingston determined that the nutrient loadings from the mill that occurred in 1988 and 1989 did not adversely impact the food web of Perdido Bay, he recommended effluent limits for ammonia nitrogen, orthophosphate, and total phosphorous that were correlated with mill loadings of these nutrients in those years. The Department used Dr. Livingston’s data, and did its own analyses, to establish WQBELs for orthophosphate for drought conditions and for nitrate-nitrite. WQBELs were ultimately developed for total ammonia, orthophosphate, nitrate-nitrite, total phosphorus, BOD, color, and soluble inorganic nitrogen. The WQBELs in the proposed permit were developed to assure compliance with water quality standards under conditions of pollutant loadings at the daily limit (based on a monthly average) during low flow in the receiving waters. Petitioners did not dispute that the proposed WWTP is capable of achieving the TBELs and WQBELs. Their main complaint is that the WQBELs are not adequate to protect the receiving waters. A wetland pilot project was constructed in 1990 at the Cantonment mill into which effluent from the mill has been discharged. The flora and fauna of the pilot wetland project have been monitored to evaluate how they are affected by IP’s effluent. An effluent distribution system is proposed for the wetland tract to spread the effluent out over the full width of the wetlands. This would be accomplished by a system of berms running perpendicular to the flow of water through the wetlands, and gates and other structures in and along the berms to gather and redistribute the flow as it moves in a southerly direction toward Perdido Bay. The design incorporates four existing tram roads that were constructed on the wetland tract to serve the past and present silvicultural activities there. The tram roads, with modifications, would serve as the berms in the wetland distribution system. As the effluent is discharged from the pipeline, it would be re-aerated and distributed across Berm 1 through a series of adjustable, gated openings. Mixing with naturally occurring waters, the effluent would move by gravity to the next lower berm. The water will re-collect behind each of the vegetated berms and be distributed again through each berm. The distance between the berms varies from a quarter to a half mile. Approximately 70 percent of the effluent discharged into the wetland would flow a distance of approximately 2.3 miles to Perdido Bay. The remaining 30 percent of the effluent would flow a somewhat shorter distance to lower Elevenmile Creek. A computer simulation performed by Dr. Wade Nutter indicated that the effluent would move through the wetland tract at a velocity of approximately a quarter-of-a-foot per second and the depth of flow across the wetland tract will be 0.6 inches. It would take four or five days for the effluent to reach lower Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay. As the treated effluent flows through the wetland tract, there will be some removal of nutrients by plants and soil. Nitrogen and phosphorous are expected to be reduced approximately ten percent. BOD in the effluent is expected to be reduced approximately 90 percent. Construction activities associated with the effluent pipeline, berm, and control structures in the wetland tract, as originally proposed, were permitted by the Department through issuance of a Wetland Resource Permit to IP. The United States Army Corps of Engineers has also permitted this work. Petitioners did not challenge those permits. A wetland monitoring program is required by the proposed permit. The stated purpose of the monitoring program is to assure that there are no significant adverse impacts to the wetland tract, including Tee and Wicker Lakes. After the discharge to the wetland tract commences, the proposed permit requires IP to submit wetland monitoring reports annually to the Department. A monitoring program was also developed by Dr. Livingston and other IP consultants to monitor the impacts of the proposed discharge on Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay. It was made a part of the proposed permit. The proposed Consent Order establishes a schedule for the construction activities associated with the proposed WWTP upgrades and the effluent pipeline and for incremental relocation of the mill's discharge from Elevenmile Creek to the wetland tract. IP is given two years to complete construction activities and begin operation of the new facilities. At the end of the construction phase, least 25 percent of the effluent is to be diverted to the wetland tract. The volume of effluent diverted to the wetlands is to be increased another 25 percent every three months thereafter. Three years after issuance of the permit, 100 percent of the effluent would be discharged into the wetland tract and there would no longer be a discharge into Elevenmile Creek. The proposed Consent Order establishes interim effluent limits that would apply immediately upon the effective date of the Consent Order and continue during the two-year construction phase when the mill would continue to discharge into Elevenmile Creek. Other interim effluent limits would apply during the 12- month period following construction when the upgraded WWTP would be operating and the effluent would be incrementally diverted from Elevenmile Creek to the wetland tract. A third set of interim effluent limits would apply when 100 percent of the effluent is discharged into the wetland tract. IP is required by the Consent Order to submit quarterly reports of its progress toward compliance with the required corrective actions and deadlines. Project Changes After the issuance of the Final Order in 05-1609, IP modified its manufacturing process to eliminate the production of white paper. IP now produces brown paper for packaging material and “fluff” pulp used in such products as filters and diapers. IP’s new manufacturing processes uses substantially smaller amounts of bleach and other chemicals that must be treated and discharged. IP reduced its discharge of BOD components, salts that increase the specific conductance of the effluent, adsorbable organic halides, and ammonia. IP also reduced the odor associated with its discharge. In the findings that follow, the portion of the Rainwater Tract into which IP proposes to discharge and distribute its effluent will be referred to as the “effluent distribution system,” which is the term used by Dr. Nutter in his 2008 “White Paper” (IP Exhibit 23). The effluent distribution system includes the berms and other water control structures as well as all of the natural areas over which IP’s effluent will flow to Perdido Bay. Most of the existing ditches, sloughs, and depressions in the effluent distribution system are ephemeral, holding water only after heavy rainfall or during the wet season. Even the more frequently wetted features, other than Tee and Wicker Lakes, intermittently dry out. There is currently little connectivity among the small water bodies that would allow fish and other organisms to move across the site. Fish and other organisms within these water bodies are exposed to wide fluctuations in specific conductivity, pH, and DO. When the water bodies dry out, the minnows and other small fish die. New populations of fish enter these water bodies from Elevenmile Creek during high water conditions, or on the feet of water birds. IP's consultants conducted an extensive investigation and evaluation of animal and plant communities in the Rainwater Tract in coordination with scientists from the Department and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Among the habitats that were identified and mapped were some wet prairies, which are designated “S-2," or imperiled, in the Florida Natural Area Inventory. In these wet prairies are rare and endangered pitcher plants. IP modified the design of the proposed effluent distribution system to shorten the upper berms and remove 72.3 acres of S-2 habitat. The total area of the system was reduced from 1,484 acres to 1,381 acres. The proposed land management activities within the effluent distribution system are intended to achieve restoration of historic ecosystems, including the establishment and maintenance of tree species appropriate to the various water depths in the system, and the removal of exotic and invasive plant species. A functional assessment of the existing and projected habitats in the effluent distribution system was performed. The Department concluded that IP’s project would result in a six percent increase in overall wetland functional value within the system. That estimate accounts for the loss of some S-2 habitat, but does not include the benefits associated with IP’s conservation of S-2 habitat and other land forms outside of the effluent distribution system. IP proposes to place in protected conservation status 147 acres of wet prairie, 115 acres of seepage slope, and 72 acres of sand hill lands outside the effluent distribution system. The total area outside of the wetland distribution system that the Consent Order requires IP to perpetually protect and manage as conservation area is 1,188 acres. The Consent Order was modified to incorporate many of the wetland monitoring provisions that had previously been a part of the former experimental use of wetlands authorization. IP proposes to achieve compliance with all proposed water quality standards and permit limits by the end of the schedule established in the Consent Order, including the water quality standards for specific conductance, pH, turbidity, and DO, which IP had previously sought exceptions for pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-660.300(1). Limitation of Factual Issues As explained in the Conclusions of Law, the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars the parties in these consolidated cases from re-litigating factual issues that were previously litigated by them in DOAH Case No. 05-1609. The Department’s Final Order of August 8, 2007, determined that IP had provided reasonable assurance that the NPDES permit, Consent Order, exception for the experimental use of wetlands, and variance were in compliance with all applicable statutes and rules, except for the following area: the evidence presented by IP was insufficient to demonstrate that IP’s wastewater effluent would not cause significant adverse impact to the biological community of the wetland tract, including Tee and Wicker Lakes. Following a number of motions and extensive argument on the subject of what factual issues raised by Petitioners are proper for litigation in this new proceeding, an Order was issued on June 2, 2009, that limited the case to two general factual issues: Whether the revised Consent Order and proposed permit are valid with respect to the effects of the proposed discharge on the wetland system, including Tee and Wicker Lakes, and with respect to any modifications to the effluent distribution and treatment functions of the wetland system following the Final Order issued in DOAH Case No. 05- 1609; and Whether the December 2007 report of the Livingston team demonstrates that the WQBELS are inadequate to prevent water quality violations in Perdido Bay. Petitioners’ Disputes Petitioners’ proposed recommended orders include arguments that are barred by collateral estoppel. For example, Jacqueline Lane restates her opinions about physical and chemical processes that would occur if IP’s effluent is discharged into the wetlands, despite the fact that some of these opinions were rejected in DOAH Case No. 05-1609. Dr. Lane believes that IP’s effluent would cause adverse impacts from high water temperatures resulting from color in IP’s effluent. There is already color in the waters of the effluent distribution system under background conditions. The increased amount of shading from the trees that IP is planting in the effluent distribution system would tend to lower water temperatures. Peak summer water temperatures would probably be lowered by the effluent. Petitioners evidence was insufficient to show that the organisms that comprise the biological community of the effluent distribution system cannot tolerate the expected range of temperatures. Dr. Lane also contends that the BOD in IP's effluent would deplete DO in the wetlands and Tee and Wicker Lakes. Her contention, however, is not based on new data about the effluent or changes in the design of the effluent distribution system. There is a natural, wide fluctuation in DO in the wetlands of the effluent distribution system because DO is affected by numerous factors, including temperature, salinity, atmospheric pressure, turbulence, and surface water aeration. There are seasonal changes in DO levels, with higher levels in colder temperatures. There is also a daily cycle of DO, with higher levels occurring during the day and lower levels at night. It is typical for DO levels in wetlands to fall below the Class III water quality standard for DO, which is five milligrams per liter (mg/l). An anaerobic zone in the water column is beneficial for wetland functions. DO levels in the water bodies of the effluent distribution system currently range from a high of 11 to 12 mg/l to a low approaching zero. The principal factor that determines DO concentrations within a wetland is sediment oxygen demand (SOD). SOD refers to the depletion of oxygen from biological responses (respiration) as well as oxidation-reduction reactions within the sediment. The naturally occurring BOD in a wetland is large because of the amount of organic material. The BOD associated with IP’s effluent would be a tiny fraction of the naturally occurring BOD in the effluent distribution system and would be masked by the effect of the SOD. It was estimated that the BOD associated with IP's effluent would represent only about .00000000001 percent of the background BOD, and would have an immeasurable effect. Dr. Pruitt’s testimony about oxygen dynamics in a wetland showed that IP’s effluent should not cause a measurable decrease in DO levels within the effluent distribution system, including Tee and Wicker Lakes. FOPB and James Lane assert that only 200 acres of the effluent distribution system would be inundated by IP’s effluent, so that the alleged assimilation or buffering of the chemical constituents of the effluent would not occur. That assertion misconstrues the record evidence. About 200 acres of the effluent distribution system would be permanently inundated behind the four berms. However, IP proposes to use the entire 1,381-acre system for effluent distribution. The modifications to the berms and the 72-acre reduction in the size of the effluent distribution system would not have a material effect on the assimilative capacity of system. The residence time and travel time of the effluent in the system, for example, would not be materially affected. Variability in topography within the effluent distribution system and in rainfall would affect water depths in the system. The variability in topography, including the creation of some deeper pools, would contribute to plant and animal diversity and overall biological productivity within the system. The pH of the effluent is not expected to change the pH in the effluent distribution system because of natural buffering in the soils. The specific conductance (saltiness) of IP’s effluent is not high enough to adversely affect the biological community in the fresh water wetlands of the effluent distribution system. IP is already close to maintaining compliance with the water quality standard for specific conductance and would be in full compliance by the end of the compliance schedule established in the proposed Consent Order. After the 2007 conversion to brown paper manufacturing, IP’s effluent has shown no toxicity. The effluent has passed the chronic toxicity test, which analyzes the potential for toxicity from the whole effluent, including any toxicity arising from additive or synergistic effects, on sensitive test organisms. Dr. Lane points out that the limits for BOD and TSS in the proposed NPDES permit exceed the limits established by Department rule for discharges of municipal wastewater into wetlands. However, paper mill BOD is more recalcitrant in the environment than municipal wastewater BOD and less “bio- available” in the processes that can lower DO. In addition, the regulatory limits for municipal wastewater are technology-based, representing “secondary treatment.” The secondary treatment technology is not applicable to IP’s wastewater. Sampling in the pilot wetland at the paper mill revealed a diversity of macroinvertebrates, including predator species, and other aquatic organisms. Macroinvertebrates are a good measure of the health of a water body because of their fundamental role in the food web and because they are generally sensitive to pollutants. Petitioners contend that the pilot wetland at the paper mill is not a good model for the effect of the IP’s effluent in the wetland distribution system, primarily because of the small amount of effluent that has been applied to the pilot wetland. Although the utility of the pilot wetland data is diminished in this respect, it is not eliminated. The health of the biological community in the pilot wetland contributes to IP’s demonstration of reasonable assurance that the biological community in the effluent distribution system would not be adversely affected. The effluent would not have a significant effect on the salinity of Tee and Wicker Lakes. Under current conditions, the lakes have a salinity of less than one part per thousand 25 percent of the time, less than 10 parts per thousand 53 percent of the time, and greater than 10 parts per thousand 22 percent of the time. In comparison, marine waters have a salinity of 2.7 parts per thousand. IP’s effluent would not affect the lower end of the salinity range for Tee and Wicker Lakes, and would cause only a minor decrease in the higher range. That minor decrease should not adversely affect the biota in Tee and Wicker Lakes or interfere with their nursery functions. The proposed hydrologic loading rate of the effluent amounts to an average of six-tenths of an inch over the area of effluent distribution system. The addition of IP’s effluent to the wetlands of the effluent distribution system and the creation of permanent pools would allow for permanent fish populations and would increase the opportunity for fish and other organisms to move across the effluent distribution system. Biological diversity and productivity is likely to be increased in the effluent distribution system. By improving fish habitat, the site would attract wading birds and other predatory birds. Although the site would not be open to public use (with the exception of Tee and Wicker Lakes), recreational opportunities could be provided by special permission for guided tours, educational programs, and university research. Even if public access were confined to Tee and Wicker Lakes, that would not be a reduction in public use as compared to the existing situation. IP’s discharge, including its discharges subject to the interim limits established in the Consent Order, would not interfere with the designated uses of the Class III receiving waters, which are the propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife. The wetlands of the effluent distribution system are the “receiving waters” for IP’s discharge. The proposed project would not be unreasonably destructive to the receiving waters, which would involve a substantial alteration in community structure and function, including the loss of sensitive taxa and their replacement with pollution-tolerant taxa. The proposed WQBELs would maintain the productivity in Tee and Wicker Lakes. There would be no loss of the habitat values or nursery functions of the lakes which are important to recreational and commercial fish species. IP has no reasonable, alternative means of disposing of its wastewater other than by discharging it into waters of the state. IP has demonstrated a need to meet interim limits for a period of time necessary to complete the construction of its alternative waste disposal system. The interim limits and schedule for coming into full compliance with all water quality standards, established in the proposed Consent Order, are reasonable. The proposed project is important and beneficial to the public health, safety, and welfare because (1) economic benefits would accrue to the local and regional economy from the operation of IP’s paper mill, (2) Elevenmile Creek would be set on a course of recovery, (3) the wetlands of the effluent distribution system would become a site of greater biological diversity and productivity, (4) the environmental health of Perdido Bay would be improved, (5) the Department’s decades-long enforcement action against IP would be concluded, (6) substantial areas of important habitat would be set aside for permanent protection, and (7) the effluent distribution system would yield important information on a multitude of scientific topics that were debated by these parties. The proposed project would not adversely affect the conservation of fish or wildlife or their habitats. The proposed project would not adversely affect fishing or water-based recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed discharge. There is no Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan applicable to IP’s proposed discharge. The preponderance of the record evidence establishes reasonable assurance that IP’s proposed project would comply with all applicable laws and that the Consent Order establishes reasonable terms and conditions to resolve the Department’s enforcement action against IP for past violations.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order granting NPDES Permit No. FL0002526 and approving Consent Order No. 08-0358. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 2010.
The Issue Whether the costs incurred by the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Emergency Response (Department) in connection with its response to Incident Number 95-SE-0371 may be recovered from Petitioner pursuant to Chapter 376, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is a state regulatory agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapters 376, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the instant case, Petitioner has been the owner of a fenced and gated parcel of land, approximately one acre in size, located at 960 Old South Dixie Highway in an industrial area of Jupiter, Florida (Petitioner's Property or Property). Before the incident which is the subject of the instant proceeding (Incident), Petitioner had used the Property to store equipment used in his asphalt paving business. Petitioner removed the equipment from the property in December of 1989, when he moved his business operations to a new location in west Jupiter. Underground tanks that Petitioner had installed on the Property to store diesel fuel used in his asphalt paving business were also removed when Petitioner's business relocated. Groundwater tests were conducted in May of 1990, after the tanks were removed. The results of these tests revealed the absence of any pollutants. Following the relocation of his business to west Jupiter, Petitioner began renting the Property to Schmidt's Auto Body (Schmidt's), an automobile repair business located next to the Property. The rental agreement (which was not in writing), at Petitioner's insistence, included the requirement that Schmidt's maintain the Property and keep it clean. Schmidt's used the Property to store vehicles that needed to be repaired or towed elsewhere. To allow it easier access to Petitioner's Property, Schmidt's built a gate in the fence separating its business from the Property. After Petitioner relinquished possession of the Property to Schmidt's, the Property was used by others, acting without Petitioner's approval or authorization, as a dumping ground for abandoned personal property. Petitioner is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, legally blind and in failing health. Due to his blindness and poor health, Petitioner had been, prior to the Incident (and he has remained), unable to personally inspect the Property to ascertain Schmidt's compliance with the rental agreement's requirement that it maintain the Property and keep it clean. Petitioner's wife passed by the Property each month when she visited Schmidt's to collect rent for Petitioner, but she did not closely inspect the Property on these visits. There is no evidence that Petitioner was made aware, by his wife or anyone else, that his Property (which was fenced) was being used as a dumping ground. On September 8, 1995, the day of the Incident, the Jupiter area experienced an unusually heavy rain event and resultant flooding and ponding of water in some spots, including locations on and around Petitioner's Property. Depressions in portions of Petitioner's Property contained standing water, although the entire property was not flooded. At approximately 10:30 a.m. on September 8, 1995, Ann Meador, an Emergency Response Coordinator with the Department, received a report (from Palm Beach County Risk Management) of two 55-gallon drums leaking asphalt sealant on Petitioner's Property. Meador was initially told that the "situation was being handled" by Palm Beach County Risk Management, but she was later advised otherwise. Meador arrived on the scene at approximately 3:00 p.m. that same day (September 8, 1995) and served as the Department's on-scene coordinator. Upon arriving on the scene, Meador observed two 55-gallon drums which had unsecured lids and were rusted and in otherwise poor condition. One of the drums was labelled "asphalt sealant.“ (Although Petitioner was in the asphalt paving business, he did not use asphalt sealant for any of the work he performed.) Petitioner was not in any way responsible for the drums being on the Property. In fact, at no time prior to the Incident, did he even know that the drums were there. The heavy rains had caused the contents of the drums (product) to overflow. Approximately 85 gallons of product, mixed with water, had spilled onto the ground. Stormwater runoff had carried some of the product to a depression in an unpaved road adjacent to the Property and near a storm drain. Meador reasonably believed that the drums and the spilled product should be removed immediately to avoid the possibility that, with additional rainfall, the product would spread to other areas. After having learned that Petitioner was the owner of the property on which the drums were located and having obtained his telephone number, Meador called the number to inform Petitioner of the leaking drums on his Property. The person to whom Meador spoke identified himself as Petitioner. He told Meador, upon being advised that the drums and product needed to be removed from the Property, that he was not "going to do anything." Following this telephone conversation, Meador hired OHM Remediation Services, Inc. (OHM), a qualified emergency response contractor with whom the Department had a contract, to remove the drums and product (as well as the water and soil the product had contaminated) from the Property and to properly dispose of these items. OHM, in turn, contracted with Magnum Environmental Services (Magnum) to perform these services (as a subcontractor). Magnum personnel responded to the scene and performed these removal and disposal services. To determine the most appropriate means of disposal, samples of the product were collected and analyzed. The analysis revealed that the product was a petroleum derivative. Magnum properly disposed of the drums based upon the results of its analysis. The Department paid OHM $12,033.03 from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund for the services Magnum performed (as OHM's subcontractor). In requesting that these services be performed and in paying $12,033.03 for the performance of these services, the Department acted reasonably and prudently. The Department reasonably incurred other expenses (also paid from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund) totaling $461.91 in connection with its response to the Incident. The total amount the Department paid from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund to have the leaking drums and product (as well as the water and soil the product had contaminated) properly removed from Petitioner's Property and disposed of was $12,497.94. 2/ The Department is requesting that Petitioner reimburse the Department for these costs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department finding that Petitioner is not liable for the costs the Department incurred in responding to Incident Number 95-SE-0371. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 28th day of August, 1998.
The Issue The issue in these consolidated cases is whether Respondent Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority ("FKAA") is entitled to issuance, by Respondent Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP"), of permit numbers 295404-018-DWC/CM ("Permit 18"), 295404-019-DWC/CM ("Permit 19"), 295404-025-DWC/CM ("Permit 25"), and 295404-027- DWC/CM ("Permit 27") (hereafter "Permits at Issue") authorizing the dryline construction of domestic wastewater collection and transmission systems in the lower Florida Keys.1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioners Petitioner Dump the Pumps, Inc. ("DTP") is a not-for- profit corporation incorporated under the laws of the state of Florida. DTP challenged the issuance of each of the Permits at Issue. Therefore, DTP is a Petitioner in each case in these consolidated proceedings. Petitioner Theresa Raven is a member of DTP and an individual petitioner in DOAH Case No. 14-2415, challenging the issuance of Permit 18. Petitioner Daniel Fitch is a member of DTP and an individual petitioner in DOAH Case No. 14-2415, challenging the issuance of Permit 18. Petitioner Jim Skura is a member of DTP and an individual petitioner in DOAH Case No. 14-2416, challenging the issuance of Permit 19. Petitioner Margaret Schwing is a member of DTP and an individual petitioner in DOAH Case No. 14-2417, challenging the issuance of Permit 27. Petitioner Gail Kulikowsky is a member of DTP and an individual petitioner in DOAH Case No. 14-2417, challenging the issuance of Permit 27. Petitioner Deborah Curlee is a member of DTP and an individual petitioner in DOAH Case No. 14-2420, challenging the issuance of Permit 25. Respondent Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority Respondent FKAA is a special district created by special act of the Florida Legislature. FKAA is charged with, among other things, providing wastewater service to the Florida Keys.4/ Ch. 98-519, Laws of Florida. Pursuant to this authority, FKAA is responsible for the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the CRWS. FKAA is the applicant for the Permits at Issue being sought to implement the CRWS. Respondent Department of Environmental Protection Respondent DEP is the state agency charged with administering the domestic wastewater program in Florida pursuant to chapter 403, Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Chapters 62-4, 62-604, and 62-555, and various industry standards manuals incorporated by reference into DEP rules. DEP's proposed agency actions to grant the Permits at Issue are the subject of these proceedings. The Projects Background and Overview The projects at issue are proposed to be located in the Florida Keys, in Monroe County, Florida. In recognition of, and to protect, the Florida Keys' unique, sensitive ecology, Congress enacted the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act, designating the Florida Keys, including the submerged lands and waters and living marine resources within those lands and waters, a National Marine Sanctuary. To further protect the Keys' unique habitat and environmental resources, Congress also enacted the National Key Deer Refuge, designating much of Big Pine Key and other areas within the lower Florida Keys as a refuge for the conservation and management of the Key Deer and other wildlife. 16 U.S.C. § 696. The State of Florida also has recognized the need to protect the Florida Keys' unique, sensitive environmental resources. To that end, portions of the Florida Keys are designated by DEP rule as Outstanding Florida Waters. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.700(9). Additionally, the Florida Legislature has designated the Florida Keys an Area of Critical State Concern ("ACSC"). § 380.0552, Fla Stat. A stated purpose of the ACSC designation is to protect and improve the Florida Keys nearshore water quality through construction and operation of wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of section 403.086(10), Florida Statutes. § 380.0552(2)(i), Fla. Stat. The June 2000 Monroe County Sanitary Master Wastewater Plan ("Master Plan"), which was prepared as directed in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, addressed elevated nutrient levels in Monroe County nearshore waters resulting from discharges of raw sewage and inadequately treated wastewater. A primary purpose of the Master Plan was to plan for a central wastewater collection and treatment system to serve portions of Monroe County. The Master Plan considered the potential use of a number of different types of wastewater systems, including gravity systems, vacuum systems, and low pressure systems. In 2003, Monroe County adopted Ordinance No. 027-2003, authorizing assessment of an annual wastewater fee on properties to be served by the wastewater facilities being installed to implement the Master Plan. In 2010, the Florida Legislature enacted section 403.086(10). In that statute, the Legislature found that the discharge of inadequately treated and managed domestic wastewater from small wastewater facilities and septic tanks and other onsite systems in the Florida Keys compromises the coastal environment, including the nearshore and offshore waters, and threatens the quality of life and local economies that depend on these resources. The statute further finds that the only practical and cost-effective way to improve wastewater management in the Florida Keys is for the local governments in Monroe County——which includes FKAA——to timely complete the wastewater and sewage treatment and disposal facilities pursuant to the Master Plan. To that end, the statute mandates that certain wastewater facilities identified in the Master Plan, including those at issue in these proceedings, be completed by December 31, 2015. To implement the Master Plan and this legislative mandate, Monroe County and FKAA entered into an interlocal agreement, which establishes and specifies FKAA's responsibilities to design, construct, operate, and maintain the central wastewater collection and treatment system. The CRWS is a component of this central wastewater collection and treatment system. It will serve the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Service Area, which covers portions of Lower Sugarloaf Key, Upper Sugarloaf Key, Cudjoe Key, Summerland Key, Ramrod Key, Little Torch Key, and Big Pine Key. The CRWS consists of three elements: a collection system, which collects wastewater from serviced properties; a transmission system, which transmits wastewater from the collection system to the treatment plant; and a wastewater treatment plant. These proceedings only involve challenges to certain components of the wastewater collection system. The transmission system permit previously was challenged, but that case was dismissed before the final hearing.5/ The wastewater treatment plant is not at issue in these proceedings. Project Planning and Design In furtherance of its responsibilities under the Monroe County interlocal agreement and the 2010 legislation, FKAA engaged Mathews Consulting, Inc. ("Mathews") to undertake planning, design analysis, and preliminary design for the CRWS wastewater collection systems. Mathews prepared the Central Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Collection System Analysis of Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems, dated February 2009 ("Mathews Report"), setting forth the planning and design analysis for implementing the wastewater collection systems portion of the CRWS. A key aim of this analysis was to identify a cost-effective wastewater collection system design, considering project magnitude, physical features of the islands being served, system reliability, operational costs, and socioeconomic factors.6/ In arriving at the proposed design for the CRWS wastewater collection system, Mathews engaged in an exhaustive analysis of the reliability, functional feasibility, physical features and impacts, and affordability of various types of collection systems, including gravity systems, vacuum systems, low pressure systems, septic tank effluent pump systems, and onsite nutrient reduction systems.7/ System reliability, which encompasses environmental considerations, was a fundamental threshold consideration in Mathews' analysis. As part of its analysis of various types of wastewater collection systems, Mathews concluded that low pressure systems are reliable. Based on the Mathews Report, FKAA concluded that, given system reliability, a hybrid system constituted the best alternative for the CRWS. A hybrid system was the most cost- effective system over the 20-year planning horizon and fit within Monroe County's budget of approximately $150 million allocated for the project.8/ Facilities Authorized by the Permits at Issue The CRWS wastewater collection system is a hybrid system because it does not consist of only one type of wastewater system, but instead consists of a combination of types of systems. Specifically, the CRWS consists both of a gravity system, which is being implemented in more densely populated service areas, and a low pressure system, which is being implemented in remote, less populated service areas. These proceedings involve challenges to certain components of the low pressure system portion of the wastewater collection system. The low pressure system at issue in these proceedings consists of multiple components: a residential grinder pump and wet well located on each serviced property; a service pipe lateral from each residential grinder pump wet well to a local force main, which runs beneath the public right of way and conveys the wastewater to the neighborhood lift station; neighborhood/area lift stations containing additional grinder pumps to pump wastewater from the serviced neighborhoods or areas; and transmission mains to convey wastewater from the neighborhood or area lift stations to the wastewater treatment plant. Of these components, all but the transmission mains have been challenged by Petitioners as not meeting the applicable permitting requirements and standards. Permit 19 authorizes the dryline construction of the Upper Sugarloaf Key wastewater collection system. The project consists of 9,300 linear feet ("LF") of eight-inch polyvinylchloride ("PVC") SDR 26 gravity sanitary sewer; 31 sanitary manholes; two neighborhood grinder pump stations; 121 E/One simplex grinder pump stations and 13 E/One duplex grinder pump stations; 27,253 LF of two-inch force main; 1,837 LF of three-inch force main; and 4,737 LF of four-inch force main. Permit 19 constitutes a modification of a previously issued permit, Permit 6, which originally permitted the wastewater collection system for Upper Sugarloaf Key.9/ Permit 19 was sought because after Permit 6 was issued, Monroe County opted to fund additional gravity components of the Upper Sugarloaf Key wastewater collection system. Accordingly, Permit 19 has the effect of increasing the number of gravity sanitary sewer components (which are not at issue in these proceedings) and decreasing the number of low pressure system components of the Upper Sugarloaf Key wastewater collection system. Permit No. 25 authorizes the dryline construction of a wastewater collection system on Cudjoe Key. The project consists of 58,825 LF of eight-inch PVC gravity sanitary sewer; 222 sanitary manholes; 20 neighborhood grinder pump stations; 63 residential E/One low pressure simplex grinder pump stations and 11 E/One duplex grinder pump stations for commercial areas; 28,815 LF of two-inch HDPE SDR 11 force main; 8,615 LF of three- inch HDPE SDR 11 force main; 1,488 LF of four-inch HDPE SDR 11 force main; 1,298 LF of six-inch HDPE SDR 11 force main; and 2,316 LF of eight-inch HDPE SDR 11 force main. Permit 25 constitutes a modification of a previously issued permit, Permit 8, which originally permitted the wastewater collection system for Cudjoe Key.10/ Permit 25 has the effect of increasing the number of gravity sanitary sewer components (which are not at issue) and decreasing the number of low pressure system components of the Cudjoe Key wastewater collection system. Permits 19 and 25 collectively comprise the "inner islands" portion of the CRWS. Permit 18 authorizes the dryline construction of the Big Pine Key North wastewater collection system, to be located in north Big Pine Key. The project consists of 28,375 LF of eight- inch PVC gravity sanitary sewer; 108 sanitary manholes; six neighborhood grinder pump stations; 1,053 residential E/One low pressure simplex grinder pump stations; 11 commercial low pressure lateral connections; 5,267 LF of two-inch HDPE SDR 11 force main; 3,942 LF of three-inch HDPE SDR 11 force main; 11,918 LF of four- inch HDPE SDR 11 force main; 1,588 LF of six-inch HDPE SDR 11 force main; 236 LF of eight-inch HDPE SDR 11 force main; 69,403 LF of two-inch low pressure HDPE SDR 11 force main; 31,065 LF of three-inch HD3PE SDR 11 force main; 5,228 LF of four-inch HDPE SDR 11 force main; and 3,977 LF of six-inch HDPE SDR 11 force main.11/ Permit 27 authorizes the dryline construction of the Big Pine Key South wastewater collection system, to be located on south Big Pine Key.12/ The project consists of 59,651 LF of eight- inch PVC gravity sanitary sewer; 222 sanitary manholes; 15 neighborhood grinder pump stations; 355 residential E/One low pressure simplex grinder pump stations; 101 commercial low pressure lateral connections; 10,521 LF of two-inch HDPE SDR 11 force main; 14,155 LF of three-inch HDPE SDR 11 force main; 14,207 LF of four-inch HDPE SDR 11 force main; 5,339 LF of six-inch HDPE SDR 11 force main; 43,771 LF of two-inch low pressure HDPE SDR 11 force main; 13,481 LF of 3-inch HDPE SDR 11 force main; and 317 LF of four-inch SDR 11 force main. Permits 18 and 27 collectively comprise the "outer islands" portion of the CRWS. The Permitting Process The Notification/Application for Constructing a Domestic Wastewater Collection/Transmission System, which has been adopted by DEP rule,13/ is the application form that must be completed and submitted to DEP to receive authorization to construct a domestic wastewater collection and transmission system. The overarching purpose of the dryline construction permitting process is to ensure that the collection/transmission system is designed in accordance with applicable DEP rule standards, which incorporate reasonable industry standards, so that once the system becomes operational, it functions as intended and does not harm the environment. The application form includes a list of 84 requirements, some——but not necessarily all——of which apply to a specific project. The form requires the applicant's certifying engineer to initial the space next to each applicable requirement, signifying that the requirement is met. The application form also requires the engineer responsible for preparing the engineering documents to sign and seal the application, signifying that the engineer is in responsible charge of the preparation and production of the engineering documents for the project; that the plans and specifications for the project have been completed; that the engineer has expertise in the design of wastewater collection/transmission systems; and that to the best of the engineer's knowledge and belief, the engineering design complies with the requirements of chapter 62-604.14/ Once the application form is submitted, DEP permitting staff reviews the application and determines whether items on the application form and any materials submitted to support those items are incomplete or need clarification. In that event, staff sends the applicant a request for additional information ("RAI"), requesting the applicant to provide additional information to address incomplete or unclear aspects of the application. Once the applicant has provided information sufficient to enable DEP to determine whether to issue or deny the permit, DEP determines the application complete and reviews the project for substantive compliance with all applicable statutory and rule permitting requirements. DEP is authorized to issue the permit, with such conditions as the Department may direct, only if the applicant affirmatively provides reasonable assurance, based on the information provided in the application, that the construction, expansion, modification, operation, or activity of the installation will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution in contravention of Department standards or rules proposed in the application. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-4.070(1). If the applicant fails to provide such reasonable assurance, the permit must be denied. Conversely, if the applicant provides such reasonable assurance, it is legally entitled to the permit and DEP must issue the permit. Once the dryline collection/transmission system has been constructed, the permittee must obtain certification from DEP to operate the system as a wetline that pumps wastewater to the treatment plant. To obtain certification, the permittee must provide DEP with an operation and maintenance ("O & M") manual establishing the operation and maintenance protocol for use of the system. Proposed Wastewater Collections Systems FKAA, as the applicant for the Permits at Issue, retained Mathews to design the wastewater collection systems for the "inner islands" and to prepare and submit the applications for these systems to DEP on FKAA's behalf.15/ In preparing the applications for these wastewater collection systems, David Mathews, a licensed professional engineer in Florida employed with Mathews Consulting, completed the application forms for each system. In doing so, Mathews initialed the application checklist, indicating that all applicable requirements were met; signed and sealed the application documents where and as required; and signed and sealed the certification that he is the engineer in responsible charge of the preparation and production of the engineering documents for the project. Initialing the checklist also indicates that the plans and specifications for the project were complete; that Mathews has expertise in the design of wastewater collection/transmission systems; and that to the best of Mathews' knowledge and belief, the engineering design for the application complies with the requirements of chapter 62-604. Mathews submitted the application for the Upper Sugarloaf wastewater collection system16/ to DEP on March 13, 2014, and submitted the application for the Cudjoe Key wastewater collection system17/ to DEP on April 3, 2014. FKAA retained Chen Moore and Associates ("Chen Moore") as the design engineer and Layne Heavy Civil as the contractor for the wastewater collection systems for the "outer islands." On behalf of FKAA as the applicant, Chen Moore prepared and submitted the applications for these systems.18/ Oscar Bello, a licensed professional engineer in Florida, previously employed by Chen Moore,19/ prepared and completed the application forms for each wastewater collection system for the outer islands. In doing so, Bello initialed the application checklist, indicating that all applicable requirements were met; signed and sealed the application documents where and as required; and signed and sealed the certification that he is the engineer in responsible charge of the preparation and production of the engineering documents for the project. Initialing the checklist also indicated that the plans and specifications for the project were complete; that Bello has expertise in the design of wastewater collection/transmission systems; and that to the best of Bello's knowledge and belief, the engineering design for the application complies with the requirements of chapter 62-604. Chen Moore submitted the application for the north Big Pine Key wastewater collection system20/ to DEP on February 12, 2014, and submitted the application for the south Big Pine Key wastewater collection system on April 21, 2014.21/ Each wastewater collection system proposed in the applications is comprised of a gravity system and a low pressure system. As previously noted, the gravity systems are proposed for use in the more densely populated portions of the areas to be serviced by the systems, and the low pressure systems are proposed for use in the less densely populated areas to be serviced by the system. The low pressure systems are comprised in part of progressive cavity pumps manufactured by Environment One Corporation referred to as "E/One" grinder pumps. Each residence served by a low pressure system will be served by an E/One grinder pump and wet well housing the grinder pump located on the serviced property.22/ The grinder pump and wet well are buried, with the top portion positioned slightly above ground to vent gases and prevent surface water flow into the wet well. The grinder pump contained within the wet well is continuously submerged. The pump is connected to an electrical panel inside or outside of the residence, so that the residence provides the electricity to power the pump. Wastewater from the residence flows through a service line into the wet well housing the grinder pump. Once the wastewater reaches a certain level in the wet well, the pump turns on and pumps the wastewater out of the wet well into the force main located under the neighborhood street. E/One grinder pumps are used in wastewater collection systems throughout the United States, including low pressure systems located in other parts of the Florida Keys. They are recognized in the Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems manual, a 1991 publication of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, as appropriate for use in low pressure wastewater collection systems. To prevent wastewater backflow into the residential wet wells, check or safety valves are located in the lines conveying the wastewater from the wet wells and at the street right-of-way where the service lines connect to the neighborhood force main. The low pressure systems also contain piping components consisting of service laterals, local force mains, and transmission mains, of various diameters comprised of extruded high density polyethylene ("HDPE"). HDPE pipes are flexible and are pieced together by welding section ends together. They do not have joints with rubber gaskets, which may shrink, deteriorate, or leak over time. Due to their flexibility, HPDE pipes can be horizontally drilled under roadways and wetlands, eliminating the need to disturb the surface and to dewater in order to lay the pipes. As such, these pipes are particularly suitable for projects in which the pipes will be placed in areas having roadways or surface development, or in areas that are environmentally sensitive or have a high water table, such as the Florida Keys. The low pressure systems also feature neighborhood/area lift stations. The residential grinder pumps generate sufficient force to pump the wastewater collected in the neighborhood force mains to neighborhood/area lift stations.23/ Each lift station contains a series of submersible grinder pumps that activate based on wastewater level in the lift station. The lift stations are designed and located to pump wastewater from the serviced neighborhoods or areas to transmission mains that ultimately convey the wastewater to the treatment plant. For each of the proposed wastewater collection systems, the system capacity exceeds 100 gallons per day per capita. Exceeding the 100 gallons per day flow quantity is permissible, per the application form, if the applicant is able to better estimate the flow using water use data or other justification. Here, FKAA estimated the stated system capacity for each application based on historic actual water use data, which provides a more accurate estimate of wastewater system capacity; accordingly, the proposed systems are not limited to a design capacity of 100 gallons per day per capita. Review and Proposed Issuance of the Permits at Issue Upon receiving the applications from Mathews Consulting and Chen Moore, DEP staff reviewed them for compliance with all applicable statutory and rule requirements and standards. DEP's review included a substantive design accuracy review by two licensed professional engineers in Florida, each having extensive wastewater systems design permitting experience. Ultimately, DEP determined that FKAA provided reasonable assurance that each wastewater collection system for which FKAA submitted an application met the applicable statutory and rule requirements and standards. Accordingly, DEP issued a Notice of Intent to Issue for each of Permits 18, 19, 25, and 27. At the final hearing, DEP's assistant director for the Southern District and a wastewater systems design expert, Al McLaurin, opined that FKAA had provided reasonable assurance to support the issuance of Permits 18, 19, 25, and 27. Mr. McLaurin persuasively testified that, based on results of the Little Venice Water Quality Monitoring Report showing a substantial improvement in water quality in canals of a subdivision as a result of installation of a central wastewater system, implementing the CRWS should result in a substantial improvement in water quality in the nearshore waters of the Florida Keys. Establishment of Prima Facie Entitlement to Permits at Issue The relevant portions of each of the permit files, including the permit application, supporting information, and Notice of Intent to Issue for each of the Permits at Issue were admitted into evidence at the final hearing. With the admission of these documents into evidence, FKAA established its prima facie case demonstrating entitlement to each of the Permits at Issue. See § 120.569(2)(p), Fla. Stat. The Challenges to the Permits at Issue Once FKAA demonstrated prima facie entitlement to the Permits at Issue, the burden shifted to Petitioners to present evidence proving their case in opposition to the Permits at Issue.24/ See id. To prevail in these proceedings, Petitioners bear the ultimate burden of persuasion to prove their case by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence. They have raised numerous bases that they contend mandate denial of the Permits at Issue. As an overarching matter, Petitioners argue that DEP's review of the applications for the Permits at Issue was not sufficiently rigorous, and that as a result, DEP did not accurately review the applications, did not catch errors or require the projects to adhere to the appropriate permitting standards and requirements, and incorrectly determined that FKAA provided reasonable assurance for issuance of the Permits at Issue. Petitioners base their argument in part on McLaurin's testimony that DEP's review is "cursory." However, following this characterization, McLaurin went on to describe the nature and depth of agency review to which the applications were subjected. DEP review staff reviewed the applications to ensure that the projects were accurately designed and will function without causing adverse environmental impact as required by the applicable permitting rules.25/ DEP's review process does not entail re- designing or re-engineering the project, or questioning the design engineer's judgment on design matters, as long as the projects are accurately designed and functional in accordance with the applicable permitting requirements and standards. When inaccuracies or incomplete items are discovered in the review process, they are addressed with the applicant through the RAI process.26/ If the deficiencies are not addressed in a manner sufficient to meet the applicable permitting requirements and standards, the permit is denied. As a matter of practice, DEP relies, to a large extent, on the design engineer's certification that the system is accurately designed according to the permitting standards and requirements——as is authorized and appropriate pursuant to the certification provisions on the application form, rules 62-604.300 and 62-4.050(3), chapter 471, and Florida Board of Engineering rules. Accordingly, the undersigned rejects the contention that DEP's review of the applications for the permits at issue was insufficient. Scouring Velocity Petitioners allege that the system, as designed, will not achieve a two-feet-per-second ("2 fps") minimum wastewater flow rate, such that it will experience insufficient velocity to scour and prevent accumulation of solids in the pipes. In support, Petitioners presented the testimony of Donald Maynard, who relied on the application form, Force Mains section, item no. 78, which references the Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities, dated 1997——the so-called "Ten States Standards." Maynard testified that portions of the proposed systems do not meet the Ten States Standards, which establishes a 2 fps minimum flow rate, the minimum he claimed is necessary to prevent sedimentation and plugging of the systems piping. On this basis, Petitioners contend that the systems do not meet the mandatory regulatory requirements regarding minimum flow rate. However, pursuant to DEP rules, the Ten States Standards manual does not mandatorily apply to this project. As previously noted, the CRWS is an "alternative collection/transmission system" under DEP rules because it is "not comprised of strictly conventional gravity sewers, pump stations, and force mains." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-604.200(1). Rule 62-604.400(4) states: "[t]he manuals referenced in rule 62-604.300(5)(b), (c), and (j), F.A.C., shall be used in the evaluation of the design and construction of alternative collection/transmission systems in Florida." The Ten States Standards manual is not among the list of technical manuals that mandatorily apply to alternative systems, so the standards established in those manuals are not mandatory regulatory standards, but may be used as guidance. Thus, the 2 fps minimum flow standard established in the Ten States Standards is not a requirement applicable to the Permits at Issue. As such, item no. 78 on the application form, requiring a 2 fps flow rate based on the Ten States Standards, is inapplicable to these systems. Rene Mathews, president of Mathews Consulting, acknowledged that in some extreme street ends and cul-de-sacs, the systems will not meet the 2 fps flow rate. However, she credibly testified that this rate is not a requirement but may be used as guidance——and, in fact, was used as guidance in designing the wastewater collection system. She explained that in areas where 2 fps velocity cannot be achieved, FKAA will be required to clean more frequently. Mathews' testimony is consistent with that of Al McLaurin, who also stated that the 2 fps flow rate is not a mandatory regulatory standard and that DEP's rules afford discretion to allow it to permit systems having lower flow rates where, as here, the permittee provides reasonable assurance that it will clean and maintain the system's pipes with sufficient frequency to prevent them from becoming plugged. Oscar Bello, formerly of Chen Moore and the responsible engineer for the applications for the outer islands wastewater collection systems for which Permits 18 and 27 are proposed to be issued, concurred with Ms. Mathews' testimony regarding the inapplicability of the 2 fps standard. He also concurred in the need for additional cleaning in areas where the 2 fps flow rate will not be achieved. Mr. Gary Maier, a professional engineer supervisor with DEP's South District who manages wastewater permitting groups and reviews wastewater systems permit applications, also confirmed that the 2 fps flow rate is not a mandatory DEP regulatory requirement on which permit denial can be based. Ms. Mathews is a licensed professional engineer in Florida and has been practicing as a civil engineer for over 14 years. Her firm has handled over 150 wastewater projects, including the wastewater collection systems for the inner islands at issue in these proceedings. Over the course of her career, she has designed between 30 and 40 wastewater pump stations. Although she is not the engineer whose seal and certification appear on the applications for the inner islands wastewater collection systems, her firm designed, prepared, and submitted the applications for these systems, and she worked on these projects. She is knowledgeable about and understands the systems at issue. Mr. McLaurin is a licensed professional engineer in Florida with many years of engineering and engineering-related experience that includes wastewater systems design in the private and public sectors and wastewater systems applications review with DEP. Through his experience, he has gained extensive understanding of the statutes and DEP rules applicable to wastewater permitting. Although McLaurin was not directly involved in DEP's review of the applications for the Permits at Issue, he is thoroughly familiar with, and possesses complete understanding of, the permit applications and supporting documentation. Mr. Bello is a licensed professional engineer in Florida. He has approximately ten years of experience in infrastructure permitting in the public and private sectors. Bello is the design engineer responsible for designing the outer islands wastewater collection systems and preparing and submitting the applications to DEP on FKAA's behalf. As such, he possesses extensive, in-depth understanding of the systems' design and functionality. Mr. Maier is a licensed professional engineer in Florida with over 20 years of environmental regulatory experience, including extensive experience in interpreting and applying DEP's wastewater rules and reviewing wastewater systems permit applications. Mr. Maynard is a professional engineer licensed in Maine and Vermont, and has many years of engineering experience. Although he is experienced in a wide range of engineering-related fields, his experience appears primarily concentrated in hydrogeologic design, environmental site assessment, and contaminated sites assessment and remediation. He has some experience with septic system design and indirect discharge experience; however, that experience appears to be largely limited to on-site septic systems. He lacks experience in designing or implementing low pressure wastewater collection systems like those at issue in these proceedings. Maynard has no significant understanding of, and lacks experience in, interpreting or implementing Florida's wastewater statutes and rules. He was contacted to testify approximately two weeks before his deposition. He acknowledged that he spent only a few days reviewing pertinent documents and that he had not reviewed all of the information prior to being deposed. His testimony evidences that while he has extensive knowledge of engineering principles regarding fluids, piping, and pumps, he is only superficially familiar with the projects at issue and possesses very little understanding of the wastewater permitting rules applicable to these projects. The undersigned finds persuasive the testimony of Mathews, McLaurin, Bello, and Maier that the 2 fps flow rate is not a mandatory standard applicable to the projects authorized by the Permits at Issue, and that in areas of the systems in which a 2 fps flow rate will not be achieved, requiring more frequent cleaning to ensure that the pipes do not become plugged is adequate to meet DEP's rule requirements. The undersigned finds Maynard's testimony on this issue unpersuasive due to his lack of experience with projects similar to the CRWS wastewater collection systems, his lack of knowledge of and experience with DEP's wastewater permitting rules and requirements, and his lack of anything more than superficial familiarity with the projects at issue. Petitioners did not show that the Permits at Issue should be denied due to inadequate scouring velocity in violation of DEP rules and applicable technical manual standards and requirements. FKAA demonstrated, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that the systems, as designed, will not experience wastewater backups or releases into the environment as a result of inadequate scouring velocity. FKAA has demonstrated that the systems, in compliance with DEP rules and applicable technical manual standards and requirements, will have wastewater flow of sufficient velocity to scour and prevent sedimentation in the piping, and that in the few remote areas where the velocity may be lower than recommended, more frequent cleaning of the piping will prevent sedimentation. Pipe Separation Petitioners allege that the Permits at Issue violate rule 62-604.400(2)(g), which requires a minimum ten-foot horizontal separation distance between wastewater collection/transmission pipes and public water system pipes.27/ Petitioners presented the testimony of Donald Maynard to support their position. Maynard identified several locations in the Upper Sugarloaf and north Big Pine Key wastewater collection systems where the rule's horizontal separation distances between the wastewater lines and public water system lines are not met. In Petitioners' view, this constitutes a fatal flaw warranting permit denial. In rebuttal, Mr. Maier testified that a six-foot horizontal separation between the wastewater and public water systems pipes meets DEP's wastewater permitting rules. This is because the ten-foot separation distance established in rule 62- 604.400(2)(g) applies "[e]xcept as provided in subsection 62- 604.400(3)." Rule 62-604.400(3) provides, in pertinent part, that if there are conflicts in the separation requirements between wastewater collection systems and drinking water facilities established in rule 62-604.400(2) and those established in Florida Administrative Code Rule chapter 62-555, the requirements in chapter 62-555 apply. Rule 62-555.314(1)(g) states that new or relocated underground water mains shall be laid to provide a horizontal distance of at least six feet, and preferably ten feet, between the outside of the water main and the outside of any existing or proposed wastewater force main. DEP interprets these rules as establishing a minimum six-foot separation distance between public water system lines and wastewater lines, regardless of whether a new water line is being laid in proximity to an existing wastewater line, or vice versa. Maier explained that the purpose of requiring minimum separation distances between water and wastewater lines is to separate the lines a safe distance from each other to enable work on one line to be done without inadvertently damaging the other line. In recognition that construction practices have improved over the years, so there is less chance for such damage than when the rule initially was adopted, DEP amended the separation distance in the public water systems rule to six feet, but inadvertently failed to amend the wastewater collection system rule to reflect the same distance. In an effort to clarify that the six-foot minimum is the standard applicable to construction of wastewater lines as well as drinking water lines, DEP amended rule 62-604.400 to add subsection (3), which states that in the event of a conflict between the rules, the drinking water rule provisions (which establish the six-foot separation minimum) control. Petitioners contend that this interpretation is incorrect because rule 62-604.400(2)(g) does not conflict with rule 62-555. Petitioners assert that there is a logical basis for interpreting these rules as establishing different, non- conflicting standards: specifically, that the construction of new sewer lines near old, potentially leaking drinking water lines raises the potential for sewage to contaminate drinking water, whereas installing new water lines near old, leaking sewage lines raises the potential for drinking water to infiltrate sewage lines. Maier disagreed, persuasively testifying that there is no rational basis for the different separation standards in the rules; thus, DEP treats them as conflicting and the six-foot separation standard in rule 62-655 controls. Maier testified, credibly, that under any circumstances, both the new and old water lines are pressurized so any leakage will force water out of the lines rather than allowing sewage to infiltrate the lines. Per the explanation provided by Mr. Maier, DEP's interpretation of its own rules is reasonable and therefore is accepted.28/ Mr. Maynard's testimony is not afforded weight due to his lack of experience with and understanding of DEP's wastewater collection/transmission systems permitting rules. Conversely, based on his experience with DEP wastewater regulation over many years, Mr. Maier's testimony is deemed persuasive on the pipe separation distance issue. Petitioners failed to show that the Permits at Issue should be denied for noncompliance with applicable pipe separation requirements. FKAA demonstrated, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that the wastewater collection systems proposed to be authorized by the Permits at Issue meet the applicable wastewater line and drinking water line horizontal distance requirements in DEP's wastewater collection system rules. Friction Coefficient Standard Petitioners allege that the friction coefficient of 140, also called the "C Factor,"29/ submitted as part of the wastewater systems design exceeds the maximum value of 120 established in the Ten States Standards, and, therefore, does not meet DEP's rule standard for this value. Petitioners assert that as a result of using too large a C Factor in the system design, head loss that occurs as the wastewater flows through the system pipes is underestimated, so the systems will not function as anticipated. As previously discussed, because the wastewater collection systems at issue in these proceedings are alternative systems, the Ten States Standards do not mandatorily apply. Accordingly, the C Factor of 120 in the Ten States Standards is inapplicable to the systems. The C Factor used in designing the systems was chosen based on the material that comprises the piping——here, HDPE, which has an industry standard C Factor of between 140 and 150. The systems were designed using the more conservative value in the allowed C Factor range for HDPE piping. Under any circumstances, the difference in system performance of using a 140 C Factor instead of a 120 C Factor in designing the system is negligible. Using HDPE piping for low pressure systems is standard, and the use of the 140 C Factor in the system design complies with the industry standard for such piping. Petitioners did not demonstrate that the use of a C Factor of 140 in the wastewater collection systems design violates DEP's applicable requirements and standards, or that the systems will malfunction due to underestimated head loss, causing environmental harm or property damage. FKAA demonstrated, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that using the 140 C Factor in the wastewater collection systems design complies with DEP rules and applicable technical manuals, and adequately addresses head loss due to friction. Thus, it is not anticipated that the systems will malfunction due to head loss and release sewage, causing environmental harm or property damage. System Design Capacity Petitioners allege that the wastewater collection systems, as designed, will have insufficient capacity to handle the volume of wastewater put into the system. The application form, item 1, requires the system to be designed based on an average daily flow of 100 gallons per capita plus wastewater flow for other specified uses, unless water use data or other justification is used to better estimate the flow. Rather than designing the system based on an assumed average daily flow of 100 gallons per capita, design engineers Chen Moore and Mathews Consulting instead used actual water consumption data from FKAA's historic water consumption records for the past four years on a bimonthly basis for each parcel that will be served by the systems. Overall calculations of daily flow were based on the assumption that every dwelling unit contributed to the flow. Water consumption was converted to gallons per day per equivalent dwelling unit ("EDU"), each house connected to the system was identified, and the average EDU per house was determined. Chen Moore and Mathews took a localized approach in determining flow rate per area contributing to the wastewater collection systems. Homes using water to irrigate landscaping were identified through aerial photographs and by on-the-ground surveys. The estimated amount of flow into the systems was reduced to address irrigation water consumption for landscaping that would not be returned to the wastewater flow from the dwelling unit. Petitioners' witness Donald Maynard testified that Census Bureau information provides a more accurate estimate of the actual population for purposes of system design capacity than relying on historic water use data. He opined that using historic water consumption data underestimates the amount of flow into the system because the data are based on historic population figures that are lower than the current population of the lower Keys. He also testified that considering landscape irrigation in estimating wastewater flow artificially reduced the estimate of wastewater volume that will flow into the systems. He concluded that these flow estimation methods were unreliable and resulted in undersized collection systems. Maynard acknowledged that he does not have any experience in designing low pressure sewer systems, that he did not perform any independent system design flow estimate calculations, that he did not independently research or investigate information relevant to determining system capacity, that he relied on information provided by others regarding Keys population trends, and that he had assumed, without verifying, that the Keys population has increased. In fact, the credible evidence showed that Monroe County's population, including certain areas of the lower Keys, decreased between 2000 and 2010. Rather than relying on general information, such as census data, to estimate system capacity, the CRWS system design engineers used years of parcel-specific data regarding actual water consumption to determine system capacity. This is a more precise and accurate method of determining system capacity than that suggested by Mr. Maynard. Petitioners have not shown that the systems' design capacity is insufficient to handle the volume of wastewater that will flow into them, in violation of DEP rules and applicable technical manual standards and requirements. FKAA demonstrated, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that the systems, as designed, have sufficient capacity to accommodate the amount of wastewater that will flow into and be conveyed by the systems, and therefore meet DEP rules and all applicable technical manual standards and requirements. Peaking Factor Petitioners also allege that the wastewater collection systems, as designed, are based on an incorrect peaking factor of 4.0, and, thus, are undersized to handle peak flow that occurs at certain times, such as seasonally when the Keys occupancy rate is greater than average or immediately following power outages. As a result, Petitioners contend, wastewater will back up into homes, onto the ground, and into groundwater, and will flow into surface and nearshore waters, causing environmental harm and endangering human health. Petitioners offered the testimony of Donald Maynard to support their position. Maynard testified that, based on a preliminary design study performed by Brown and Caldwell in 2008, the correct peaking factor for the collection systems is 4.5, rather than 4.0, as proposed. Oscar Bello, design engineer for the outer islands wastewater collection systems, explained that the 4.5 peaking factor recommended in the Brown and Caldwell study related to the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant,30/ not the collection systems. Bello testified, credibly, that using a peaking factor of 4.0 to design the wastewater collections systems is sufficient to address peak usage conditions and will not undermine the systems' performance under those conditions.31/ Mr. Bello's testimony was buttressed by testimony by Tom Walker, assistant executive director for FKAA. Walker explained that it is prudent to build in a larger safety margin for treatment plant capacity. This is to ensure that under extreme conditions, if all systems components are working at——or, in some places over——capacity, the flow into the plant does not exceed its capacity. As previously discussed, Mr. Bello has extensive experience in infrastructure permitting in the public and private sectors. As the design engineer responsible for the outer islands wastewater collection systems, he possesses great understanding of the design and function of these particular systems. Mr. Walker is a licensed professional engineer in Florida. He has been a practicing engineer since 1976 and has extensive experience with municipal wastewater systems in Florida, as well as in Texas and overseas. He has been employed by FKAA since 2006, and has been deeply involved in the design and implementation of the CRWS. The testimony of Bello and Walker was credible and persuasive regarding the adequacy of the peaking factor proposed for the systems. By contrast, Maynard is only superficially familiar with the systems at issue and lacks substantial experience with, and understanding of, the rules applicable to the systems. As such, his testimony on this issue was not persuasive. Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the peaking factor of 4.0 proposed for the wastewater collections systems at issue does not comply with any applicable regulatory standards or will result in undersized systems that will not function properly and will result in discharge of wastewater into homes and the environment. FKAA demonstrated, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that the systems are designed to accommodate peak wastewater flows without malfunctioning, and that the peaking factor to which the systems have been designed meets DEP rules and all applicable standards and requirements. Quick Connect for Emergency Pump Out Petitioners allege that the system, as designed, violates DEP rules because it does not provide rapid pump out connection for the individual residential "pump stations" to enable them to be quickly accessed and pumped out in emergency circumstances. Petitioners posit that each individual residential single grinder pump and wet well constitutes a "pump station" and that DEP rules require every "pump station" to have emergency pumping capability. The term "pump station" as used in DEP's wastewater rules means a station consisting of two or more pumps, not an individual residential pump and wet well. This is apparent from the context in which the term is used in the Notification/Application Domestic Wastewater Collection/ Transmission form section titled "Pump Stations" and in the rules and technical manuals applicable to alternative collection systems. Mr. McLaurin confirmed that DEP rules do not require individual residential grinder pumps and wet wells to have emergency pumping capability. The lift stations serving the neighborhoods and other areas contain two or more pumps and thus are "pump stations" subject to the emergency pumping capability requirement. Ms. Mathews credibly testified, and other credible evidence in the record shows, that each lift station is equipped with a system that allows a pump to be dropped into the lift station, where a hose is extended and the pump is connected to the pump quick connect, enabling the wastewater to be pumped out of the station through the system pipes. A hatch must be opened in order to access the lift station to use the quick connect pump out system, but there is no credible evidence showing that this constitutes an impediment to rapidly engaging the pump out system. Petitioners have not demonstrated that the pump stations lack emergency pumping capability in violation of applicable DEP rules. FKAA demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the neighborhood/area lift stations meet the DEP rule requirement to have emergency pump out capability. Explosion Potential of Pumps Petitioners allege that the residential grinder pumps and the neighborhood/area lift station grinder pumps are unsuitable for the conditions to which they will be exposed because they are not explosion-proof, and that including them in the systems design violates DEP rules, the Ten States Standards, the National Electrical Code ("NEC"), and the National Fire Protection Association ("NFPA") Standards. Specifically, Petitioners assert that methane will accumulate in the residential grinder pump wet wells and in the lift stations, and, as such, these areas are considered "Classified Hazardous Area, Class I, Division 2, Group 2" under NFPA Standards. Petitioners contend that the mechanics of the grinder pumps make them susceptible to explosion under such conditions, so they are not suitable for use as proposed in the systems. In support, Petitioners presented the testimony of Michael Boismenu, who opined that use of grinder pumps in this type of environment constitutes a violation of NEC section 501.125 for motors and generators. Boismenu testified that the grinder pumps have the potential to ignite if they are exposed to a hazardous environment, which includes areas in which combustible gases, such as methane, accumulate. As such, Boismenu opined that grinder pumps should be classified as "Class I, Division 1" under the NEC and NFPA Standards. Under this classification, grinder pump use in an environment in which combustible gases accumulate would violate the NEC. Contrary to Mr. Boismenu's position, the credible evidence, consisting of the testimony of Rene Mathews and supporting documentation, shows that the residential grinder pumps are "unclassified," per NEC section 820-11, table 4.2. This means that the risk of fire and explosion is so low that there is no requirement for any particular fire protection measures to be implemented in using the individual residential grinder pumps. Also contrary to Boismenu's position, Ms. Mathews' testimony and the supporting documents show that the neighborhood/area lift station grinder pumps and wet wells are classified as "Class I, Division 2" under the NEC and NFPA Standards. Under this classification, there is a potential for fire and explosion under abnormal circumstances, such as if the pumps were not operating properly.32/ To address this potential—— which is remote——the lift station grinder pumps' electrical components were specifically designed to meet the Class I, Division 2 standard and also will be continuously submerged, mitigating the risk of fire or explosion.33/ Mr. Boismenu is an engineer and previously was a licensed professional engineer in New York. He has extensive experience in the energy production field, but never has worked on a wastewater project similar to the CRWS and has no experience applying the NEC or NFPA standards to wastewater projects. He first received specific information from Petitioners on the projects at issue on or around September 9, 2014, so his familiarity with the projects is based on two weeks of review in preparation for his deposition. His testimony revealed that he lacks specific knowledge about, or understanding of, the electrical features of the individual residential or neighborhood/area lift station grinder pumps or their classifications under the NEC and NFPA Standards. By contrast, Ms. Mathews' testimony was specific, detailed, and accurate, and was buttressed by documentation addressing the NEC and NFPA Standards applicable to residential and neighborhood/area lift station grinder pumps. This evidence, which was credible and persuasive, demonstrates that the residential and neighborhood/area lift station grinder pumps do not pose a significant threat of fire or explosion, and, thus, meet DEP's rules and the NEC and NFPA Standards. As previously discussed, the Ten States Standards manual——which Petitioners contend imposes an "explosion proof" standard——does not mandatorily apply to these systems. DEP rules and technical manuals applicable to these systems do not impose such a standard. Accordingly, the fact that the grinder pumps are not completely "explosion-proof" is not a cognizable ground for denying the Permits at Issue. Petitioners did not demonstrate that the residential and neighborhood/area lift station grinder pumps violate DEP rules and applicable technical manuals, the NEC, or the NFPA Standards regarding potential for fire and explosion. FKAA demonstrated, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that using E/One grinder pumps in the wastewater collection systems does not present a substantial fire or explosion risk and does not violate DEP rules or applicable technical manual standards and requirements. Air Release Valves Petitioners allege that the wastewater collection systems, as designed, inadequately provide for the release of combustible gases from the collection lines. As a result, Petitioners contend, gases may become trapped in the lines, obstruct wastewater flow, create an explosion risk, and endanger the public health and safety. Petitioners presented Mr. Maynard's testimony to support this contention. Maynard testified that methane and hydrogen sulfide would be generated by the wastewater and would accumulate in pockets in the wastewater lines. According to Maynard, this is mostly a problem at high points in the lines, particularly if there is not enough velocity to purge the gas from the line. He stated that "normally, you would put in vents to allow that gas to escape." The evidence shows that wastewater collection systems design does, in fact, include measures for releasing air and gases from the system. Specifically, in compliance with DEP's Design and Specification Guidelines for Low Pressure Sewer Systems, the design provides for air release valves to be located at the high points in the lines and at dead ends in the system lines. It is standard practice to add air release valves to pipes as necessary during pipe installation because the best locations for the valves are more accurately determined during the installation process. FKAA provided specific protocol for ensuring the correct operation of these valves and will submit as-built drawings showing location and proper placement of air release valves when it requests certification to operate the CRWS. Petitioners did not prove that the wastewater collection systems, as designed, fail to adequately provide for the release of air and gases, in violation of DEP rules and applicable technical manuals. FKAA demonstrated, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that the systems, as designed, will include air release valves in compliance with DEP rules and applicable technical manuals. As such, gases will not accumulate and obstruct wastewater flow or explode. System Pressure Capacity Petitioners allege that E/One grinder pumps create pressure that exceeds the pressure capacity of the force main pipes, so that the pipes will burst and release sewage into the environment and onto property served by the pumps. In support, Petitioners presented the testimony of Donald Maynard and of Dr. Gunnar Hovstadius, both of whom testified that an E/One grinder pump34/ can generate pressures as high as 180 to 200 pounds per square inch ("psi"). According to both witnesses, if many grinder pumps are running simultaneously ——which they allege could occur as power is restored following a power outage——the pressure generated by the pumps could exceed the pressure capacity of the pipes, causing them to burst. Dr. Hovstadius relied on his experience with grinder pumps in Westport, Connecticut, following Hurricane Irene. There, sewage backed up into a home served by a grinder pump after power was restored following a lengthy outage. According to Hovstadius, numerous grinder pumps started up and simultaneously exerted substantial pressure on the wastewater system piping and other components, causing failure of the residence's grinder pump connection with the lateral pipe and allowing sewage accumulated in the force main to back up into the home. In rebuttal, Rene Mathews credibly testified that the normal operating pressure range for the E/One grinder pump is zero to 80 psi. Beyond 80 psi, the pump's performance falls into a non-typical operating range and the pump begins to heat up, causing thermal switches in the pump to shut the motor down at 100 to 120 psi. Thus, while it is remotely possible that the E/One grinder pumps could generate pressures in the range of 180 to 200 psi before failing, as a practical matter, operation of the pumps' thermal switches render this scenario highly unlikely. The system piping is certified for a working pressure of 160 psi, which exceeds the maximum 100 to 120 psi that may occur before pump shutdown; moreover, the piping must meet the American Water Works Association ("AWWA") standards C-901 and C-906, which means that the piping has a much higher pressure capacity——as high as 240 to 400 psi——specifically to withstand certain surge conditions. Additionally, even if many grinder pumps were simultaneously running when power is restored following an outage, the pumps would not exert a sudden maximum pressure surge on the system piping. This is because as each pump restarts and begins to run, the pressure in the pump gradually builds; if a pump reaches the 100 to 120 psi range——which, as previously noted, is outside the normal operating range——the thermal switch causes it to shut down. Also, as a practical matter, after a massive outage, power typically is restored to one neighborhood or area at a time rather than simultaneously to the entire power grid. Thus, any scenario involving all pumps simultaneously running at maximum pressure is highly unlikely. For these reasons, it is highly unlikely, under any reasonable circumstances, that pressure generated by the grinder pumps would cause the system piping to burst. Petitioners further assert that since the HDPE piping comprising the collection systems is only being tested to 150 psi, rather than to failure pressure of between 250 and 500 psi, it is not being adequately tested to ensure it can withstand higher pressure levels that may occur under extreme operating circumstances. Rene Mathews explained, and Al McLaurin confirmed, that pressure testing of the pipes, which takes place after construction is complete and before the systems are certified as operable by DEP, is performed to detect leaks that may have been created during the construction process——not to determine the failure pressure of the piping. The piping being used in the system is certified for a working pressure of 160 psi and meets the AWWA pressure capacity standards of 240 to 400 psi. Testing system pipes to failure pressure is neither necessary nor required under DEP rules or the applicable technical manuals, and is not desirable because it would damage or destroy system piping, unnecessarily adding to system cost. Dr. Hovstadius is a recognized expert in pumping systems, with worldwide experience in wastewater pump technology. He is knowledgeable about E/One grinder pumps and has experience with their use in one wastewater system in the northeastern U.S., where one grinder pump failed and flooded a home with sewage. However, he is not familiar with the specific details of the CRWS, having spent only a small amount of time before his deposition familiarizing himself with some of the documentation and information regarding the projects. He did not perform an independent engineering analysis of, or calculations regarding, the wastewater collection systems, and he was not aware of certain design features of the CRWS, such as check valves and the High Tide Technologies around-the-clock monitoring system,35/ which reduce the risk of a scenario as described in his testimony. By contrast, Ms. Mathews has extensive wastewater engineering experience, and the firm with which she is employed is the design engineer for the inner islands systems. She has previous experience designing systems with grinder pumps and possesses extensive knowledge and in-depth understanding of the CRWS and details specific to the wastewater collection systems. Mr. McLaurin has years of experience in wastewater systems engineering and extensive experience in regulatory review of wastewater water systems, so is very knowledgeable about DEP rule requirements and their application to wastewater systems. For these reasons, the testimony of Mathews and McLaurin is deemed more persuasive than that of Maynard and Hovstadius on the issue of system pressure capacity. Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the E/One grinder pumps will exert pressures exceeding the systems' piping pressure capacity, causing system piping bursting or failure. FKAA demonstrated, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that the E/One grinder pumps used in the systems design will function as anticipated, will not exert pressures that exceed the systems' piping capacity, and will not cause system piping to burst or fail. Wastewater Service During Power Outage Petitioners allege that because E/One grinder pumps require electric power to operate, they are inappropriate for use in the Florida Keys, due to the likelihood of power outages during significant weather events such as hurricanes. Petitioners allege that during power outages, sewer service to homes served by grinder pumps will be interrupted, in violation of DEP rules and technical manuals, including the Ten States Standards and the Design and Specification Guidelines for Low Pressure Sewer Systems. They further allege that continued use of residential wastewater systems during power outages will result in the release of sewage from grinder pumps wet wells into the environment and onto properties served by the pumps. The CRWS design and operating protocol contain measures specifically directed to these issues. Specifically, the neighborhood/area lift station design includes a quick connect riser pipe that will be used to periodically flush the systems and can be used in emergencies to pump water out of the lift stations into the force mains and to the treatment plant, thus preventing lift station overflow. Additionally, each residential grinder pump includes an outlet connection for a mobile generator. During a power outage, FKAA can pump out residential grinder pump wet wells using mobile generators, pump trucks, or vacuum trucks. As a practical matter, residential grinder pump wet wells can contain wastewater volumes of two days' normal use without pump out and, with conservative use, can go for longer periods without being pumped out before overflowing. If pump out becomes necessary, the pump design and FKAA's operating protocol provides for such service.36/ FKAA has over 150 trucks it can deploy to pump out residential pump wet wells and lift stations, and will purchase an adequate number (estimated at 30 to 40) of 10,000 kilowatt generators for emergency use. FKAA has determined that it will need thirty utility personnel crews working in two shifts to maintain the CRWS system, and has undertaken the planning and budgeting necessary to ensure adequate personnel availability during emergencies. Additionally, FKAA anticipates having volunteer assistance in such situations. In the event FKAA requires further assistance in addressing widespread pump out issues during emergencies, Layne Heavy Civil and Gianetti Contracting37/ are obligated by contract to provide generators to FKAA for use to pump out residential wet wells and lift stations. FKAA also is a member of FlaWARN, Florida's network for wastewater emergency response, through which wastewater utilities provide mutual assistance during emergencies. Through this membership, FKAA is ensured that it will receive assistance from other utilities as needed to address pump out and other wastewater related issues during emergencies. The wastewater collection systems also incorporate the Grinder Pump Guardian monitoring system by High Tide Technologies for each residential grinder pump and each neighborhood/area lift station. Under this monitoring system, each pump is continuously (24 hours a day, 7 days a week) wirelessly monitored. If a pump malfunctions, such as when wastewater inflow exceeds wet well capacity while the pump is running, alarm data is transmitted by satellite to a computer central server, which automatically notifies utility personnel of the specific type of malfunction by high water alarm, communication alarm indicating power failure, or alarm indicating excessive runtime or starts and stops. Notifications will include the street address location of the pump for which the alarm was sent, as well as the type of event triggering the alarm. This monitoring system will enable pump malfunctions to be immediately detected and rapidly addressed by maintenance personnel, significantly decreasing the likelihood of wastewater spill or release into homes or the environment. FKAA has undertaken extensive planning and activity to establish specific procedures and protocol for addressing collections systems operation, even though it is not required under DEP rules to provide this information until it submits a request to DEP for certification to place the CRWS into operation. By that time, FKAA will have fully prepared its operations and maintenance procedures and protocol addressing all aspects of CRWS operation, including operation during emergency circumstances. This information is required by DEP rule to be kept in a manual that is available for use by operation and maintenance personnel and for inspection by DEP personnel. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 604.500. Petitioners did not demonstrate that sewer service will be interrupted in violation of DEP rules. FKAA demonstrated, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that uninterrupted sewer service will be provided, including during extended power outages and other emergency circumstances, as required by DEP rules.38/ Shutoff Valves and Backflow Prevention Devices Petitioners allege that the systems design does not include backflow prevention devices, so that if lines become plugged, sewage will back up into residences and may, under certain circumstances, cause residential wastewater lines to burst. They presented Donald Maynard's testimony in support of this position. Maynard's testimony was contradicted by Mr. McLaurin's persuasive testimony and other credible evidence showing that the system design does contain backflow and shutoff valves to prevent wastewater from backing up from the force mains into the residential wet wells and into the residences served by the grinder pumps. FKAA demonstrated, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence that, in compliance with DEP rules and applicable technical manual requirements and standards, the systems design incorporates safety valves to prevent the backflow of wastewater into residences and spillage and release into the environment. Petitioners did not demonstrate that the systems, as designed, do not contain backflow and shutoff valves to prevent backflow of wastewater into residences, in violation of DEP rules and applicable technical manuals. Shaft Seal Leakage Petitioners allege that the grinder pumps' design violates DEP rules because the pumps do not contain shaft seal leakage device detectors. Petitioners' only evidence presented to substantiate this allegation is Hovstadius' testimony that he heard of an incident in which flushing dental floss into a sewage system resulted in the floss wrapping around the pump shaft, opening the seal, and allowing the pump motor to be flooded. However, Petitioners did not present any competent substantial evidence showing that not including shaft seal leakage devices on grinder pumps violates any applicable permitting requirements and standards. The competent, credible evidence establishes that shaft seal leakage devices are not required for the grinder pumps proposed to be used in the proposed collection systems, for two reasons: first, shaft seal leakage devices are not required for alternative wastewater collection systems; and second, the E/One grinder pumps that will be used in the systems are smaller than the five and ten horsepower pumps for which shaft seal leakage devices typically are required. Rather than including shaft seal leak detection devices, the systems instead incorporate the Grinder Pump Guardian monitoring system by High Tide Technologies for each residential grinder pump and each neighborhood/area lift station. As previously discussed, this monitoring system immediately notifies utility personnel of pump malfunction issues so that they can be rapidly addressed. Petitioners did not demonstrate that the lack of shaft seal detectors on the grinder pumps being used in the systems violates applicable DEP rules or requirements in the technical manuals applicable to alternative wastewater collection systems. Other System Design and Function Issues Petitioners allege other collection systems design flaws that they assert will cause system components to malfunction, resulting in environmental harm and property damage in violation of DEP rules. Dr. Hovstadius strongly criticized the use of E/One grinder pumps in wastewater collection systems to be located in the Florida Keys, due to the potential for flooding during storm surges. He contended that the pumps are not submersible for extended periods, so will leak and malfunction if submerged for long periods. Hovstadius opined that under such conditions, the pumps may short out and cease to function, causing sewage to back up onto the properties served by the pumps. In rebuttal, FKAA's witness Rudy Fernandez credibly testified that the E/One grinder pumps are submersible and will function properly while fully and continuously submerged. Mr. Fernandez is a licensed professional engineer in thirteen states, including Florida. He has approximately 40 years of public and private sector engineering experience in wastewater systems design, operation, and compliance. He is a member of the Water Environment Federation, having served on its technical practice committee at the time the committee published a revised version of the Manual of Practice No. FD-12, Alternative Sewer Systems (1986),39/ which applies to alternative collection/ transmissions systems pursuant to rule 62-604.400(4). As such, he is very knowledgeable about alternative wastewater collection systems, including the use of E/One grinder pumps in such systems. Although Dr. Hovstadius is an expert in pumping systems, his experience with E/One grinder pumps is relatively limited, particularly when compared to that of Mr. Fernandez. Further, Fernandez is very knowledgeable about the specific components of the CRWS, including the design and operation of the grinder pumps. By contrast, Hovstadius had only general knowledge about the CRWS, and was unaware of key details, such as the inclusion of safety check valves, to prevent sewage backflow into homes served by grinder pumps. Accordingly, Fernandez's testimony is deemed more persuasive than that of Hovstadius regarding E/One grinder pump submersibility. Petitioners have not shown that the E/One grinder pumps will malfunction as a result of being continuously submerged, thus releasing sewage into the environment and cause property damage. Petitioners also assert, through Hovstadius' testimony, that E/One grinder pumps are prone to malfunction from flushing common items such as baby wipes, dental floss, and tampons, or rinsing cooking grease down the kitchen drain. Rene Mathews credibly testified that such items are a problem for all types of wastewater system, not just low pressure systems or systems using E/One grinder pumps. To reduce the likelihood that such items are deposited into the wastewater collection system, FKAA will distribute flyers and host public education events to educate residents and the transient population regarding proper use of the wastewater collection systems. The O & M manual, which has been provided in draft form, includes a list of items that should not be introduced into any sewer system, and this list will be distributed to all properties served by the collection systems. Petitioners have not shown that E/One grinder pumps are any more susceptible to malfunction than other wastewater system components as a result of items being flushed or washed down drains. Additionally, FKAA has established that its systems operation protocol will include measures to reduce the likelihood of malfunction due to items being deposited in the systems. Petitioners also allege that E/One grinder pumps are inappropriate for use in the neighborhood/area lift stations. In support, they presented the testimony of Donald Maynard, who testified that having multiple grinder pumps in lift stations may be problematic during low occupancy periods in the Keys. The grinder pumps in each lift station function as a series, with a lead pump being activated at a particular wastewater level and each successive grinder pump thereafter activated by increasing wastewater levels in the lift station. Maynard contended that during low occupancy periods, the wastewater levels in the lift stations will be too low to activate the grinder pumps in the stations, causing sediments to accumulate and pipes to plug. Rene Mathews countered Maynard's position with credible testimony that grinder pumps are commonly used in designing lift stations in low pressure wastewater collection systems. She explained that the neighborhood/area lift stations have been designed so that the grinder pumps will be continuously submerged as required to meet the Class I, Division 2 NEC and NFPA Standards. Shop drawings submitted during construction will depict neighborhood/area lift station water levels sufficient to fully submerge the grinder pumps, in compliance with the lift stations' design. As additional support for their position that grinder pumps are inappropriate for use in the neighborhood/area lift stations, Petitioners cite a provision in the O & M manual stating that "grinder pumps are not designed to be small lift stations." This statement must be considered in context. The statement appears in the E/One grinder pump "Product Introduction" chapter in the Service Manual for the pumps, which is part of the O & M manual. The full discussion in which this statement appears reads: "Environment One Grinder Pumps are designed to grind and pump domestic sewage. The grinder pumps are not designed to be small lift stations. They are not capable of handling waters with high concentrations of mud, sand, silt, chemicals, abrasives, or machine waste." In context, it is apparent that this statement is directed at informing the user regarding the types of materials that should not be disposed of in a system using E/One grinder pumps; it does not state that E/One grinder pumps are inappropriate for use in lift stations. As previously discussed, FKAA's O & M manual contemplates public education and outreach efforts to help assure that materials and items that would damage the pumps, as well as other wastewater system components, are not discarded in the systems. To verify that the wastewater collections systems have been correctly designed for their intended use and will not cause environmental or property damage, FKAA retained Stephen Wallace to perform an independent analysis and evaluation of every aspect of the proposed systems. Mr. Wallace is a wastewater systems engineer having over 30 years of experience in hydraulic systems design. Over his career, Wallace has designed and constructed over 140 low pressure systems, including more than 100 systems using E/One grinder pumps. Although Wallace has not previously been involved with projects in the Florida Keys, while visiting the Keys, he personally observed physical and environmental conditions, such as high ground water levels, sandy soils, flat topography with threat of flooding, sensitive flora and fauna, and seasonal population fluctuations, that are comparable to those attendant to projects on which he has worked in Australia. Under Wallace's direction, a professional team consisting of engineering specialists in pumps and pump stations, low pressure wastewater systems design, and hydraulic modeling, and a mathematician independently analyzed and evaluated the CRWS low pressure systems design to determine whether they would provide long-term satisfactory performance. The team selected two representative project areas in Upper Sugarloaf Key and Ramrod Key and independently performed a hydraulic engineering analysis using a model specifically developed for modeling the performance of low pressure systems, then compared their results to the designs by FKAA's design engineers, Mathews Consulting and Chen Moore. Their results validated the designs prepared by Mathews and Chen Moore. Based on his team's analysis and evaluation, Wallace credibly and persuasively opined that the CRWS, as designed, will be successfully implemented and will not cause environmental pollution. FKAA witness Rudy Fernandez also testified, credibly, that the wastewater collection systems have been correctly designed and adequately cover all concerns that Petitioners have raised. Fernandez verified that the systems design includes safety valves to prevent backflow from the system into homes served by the systems. He concurred with Mathews and McLaurin that testing the transmission piping to 150 psi is sufficient to determine whether leakage points were created during construction, and confirmed that it is inappropriate to pressure test the pipes to failure because, as a practical matter, the system will not experience pressures high enough to cause pipe bursting or other failure. He agreed with Mathews' and Chen Moore's system design 4.0 peaking factor, and disagreed with Petitioners' witnesses' testimony that the pumps will exert pressure sufficient to cause system pipes to burst upon power restoration following an outage. Fernandez opined that there is a substantial likelihood that the systems, as designed, will function successfully, and that it is unforeseeable that the collections systems, as designed, will cause pollution. Petitioners failed to prove that including E/One grinder pumps in the wastewater collection systems is inappropriate and will result in systems' malfunction and consequent spillage and release of wastewater into the environment and onto the properties served by the systems. FKAA demonstrated, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that the E/One grinder pumps will function normally when fully submerged and are appropriate for use in lift stations. Accordingly, including them in the systems' design will not cause the systems to malfunction and release wastewater into the environment and onto the properties served by the pumps, in violation of DEP rules. Petitioners' Standing Respondents challenge the standing of DTP40/ and the individual petitioners in these proceedings. DTP is a not-for-profit corporation incorporated under the laws of the state of Florida. Its mailing address is Post Office Box 1956, Big Pine Key, Florida 33043. DTP's corporate purpose is to oppose the use of grinder pump systems proposed by FKAA and permitted by DEP as part of the implementation of the CRWS. In addition to challenging the Permits at Issue in these proceedings, DTP actively participated in hearings before the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC") in an effort to convince the BOCC to reduce or eliminate the use of grinder pumps as part of the CRWS. DTP has approximately 265 members, a substantial number of whom own and/or reside on property that may be serviced by a grinder pump as proposed by the Permits at Issue. The evidence also establishes that a substantial number of DTP's members own or reside on property proximate to properties that may be served by grinder pumps. DTP alleges that, for a variety of reasons, using grinder pumps as part of the CRWS will directly cause or indirectly result in the release of raw sewage and wastewater into the environment and onto properties served by the pumps. This, in turn, would harm groundwater, the nearshore environment, and DTP's members' properties. A substantial number of DTP's members may be requested to grant an easement to FKAA for the installation and maintenance of the grinder pumps that will serve their property. These members assert they will be injured by losing their ability to control who has access to their property. They also allege they will be injured due to the potential for collection systems malfunction alarms to interfere with their enjoyment of their property. As discussed above, grinder pumps require electricity to operate and therefore cannot operate during power outages unless alternative sources of electric power, such as generators, are used. Therefore, during extended periods of electrical outages, DTP members whose property is served by the grinder pumps may be asked to conserve water usage until electric power is restored. Continued use of residential systems served by grinder pumps during extended power outages, absent pump out according to operating protocol, could result in discharge of raw sewage from the wet wells. If not promptly and adequately cleaned up, this may create a human and environmental health risk and adversely affect nearshore waters. A substantial number of DTP's members use and enjoy the nearshore waters of the lower Florida Keys for various water-based recreational activities including fishing, kayaking, boating, canoeing, bird watching, swimming, and lobstering. Petitioner Theresa Raven is a resident and owner of property on Big Pine Key. Her address is 29462 Geraldine Street, Big Pine Key, Florida 33043. Her home is served by the CRWS. If Permit 18 is issued, Raven's property will be serviced by an E/One grinder pump. Accordingly, she will be asked to grant an easement over her property to FKAA for the installation and maintenance of the grinder pump, and during extended periods of electrical outages she may be asked to conserve water usage until electric power is restored. Raven uses and enjoys the nearshore waters of Big Pine Key for water-based recreational activities such as swimming, snorkeling, boating, and nature observation. She asserts that using grinder pumps as part of the CRWS will directly cause or indirectly result in the release of raw sewage and wastewater into the environment and onto properties served by the pumps, causing harm to groundwater, the nearshore environment, and her property. Petitioner Daniel Fitch is a member of DTP and an individual petitioner in DOAH Case No. 14-2415, challenging the issuance of Permit 18. Fitch is a resident and owner of property on Big Pine Key. His address is 29462 Geraldine Street, Big Pine Key, Florida 33043. His home is served by the CRWS. If Permit 18 is issued, Fitch's property will be serviced by an E/One grinder pump. Accordingly, he will be asked to grant an easement over his property to FKAA for the installation and maintenance of the grinder pump, and during extended periods of electrical outages he may be asked to conserve water usage until electric power is restored. Fitch uses and enjoys the nearshore waters of Big Pine Key for water-based recreational activities such as swimming, snorkeling, boating, and nature observation. He asserts that using grinder pumps as part of the CRWS will directly cause or indirectly result in the release of raw sewage and wastewater into the environment and onto properties served by the pumps, causing harm to groundwater, the nearshore environment, and his property. Petitioner Jim Skura is a member of DTP and an individual petitioner in Case No. 14-2416, challenging issuance of Permit 19. Skura is a resident and property owner on Sugarloaf Key. His address is 19860 Caloosa Street, Sugarloaf Key, Florida 33042. His home is served by the CRWS. If Permit 19 is issued, Skura's property will be serviced by an E-One grinder pump. Accordingly, he will be asked to grant an easement over his property to FKAA for the installation and maintenance of the grinder pump, and during extended periods of electrical outages he may be asked to conserve water usage until electric power is restored. Skura uses and enjoys the nearshore waters of Big Pine Key for water-based recreational activities such as swimming, snorkeling, boating, and nature observation. He asserts that using grinder pumps as part of the CRWS will directly cause or indirectly result in the release of raw sewage and wastewater into the environment and onto properties served by the pumps, causing harm to groundwater, the nearshore environment, and his property. Petitioner Margaret Schwing is a member of DTP and an individual petitioner in DOAH Case No. 14-2417, challenging the issuance of Permit 27. She is a resident and property owner on Big Pine Key South. Her address is 29756 Springtime Road, Big Pine Key, Florida 33043. Her home is served by the CRWS. If Permit 27 is issued, Schwing's property will be serviced by an E/One grinder pump. Accordingly, she will be asked to grant an easement over her property to FKAA for the installation and maintenance of the grinder pump, and during extended periods of electrical outages she may be asked to conserve water usage until electric power is restored. Schwing uses and enjoys the nearshore waters of Big Pine Key for water-based recreational activities such as swimming, snorkeling, boating, and nature observation. She asserts that using grinder pumps as part of the CRWS will directly cause or indirectly result in the release of raw sewage and wastewater into the environment and onto properties served by the pumps, causing harm to groundwater, the nearshore environment, and her property. Petitioner Gail Kulikowsky is a member of DTP and an individual petitioner in DOAH Case No. 14-2417, challenging the issuance of Permit 27. She is a resident and property owner on Big Pine Key. Her address is 30788 Pinewood Lane, Big Pine Key, Florida 33043. Her home is served by the CRWS. If Permit 27 is issued, Kulikowsky's property will be serviced by an E/One grinder pump. Accordingly, she will be asked to grant an easement over her property to FKAA for the installation and maintenance of the grinder pump, and during extended periods of electrical outages she may be asked to conserve water usage until electric power is restored. Kulikowsky uses and enjoys the nearshore waters of Big Pine Key for water-based recreational activities such as swimming, snorkeling, boating, and nature observation. She asserts that using grinder pumps as part of the CRWS will directly cause or indirectly result in the release of raw sewage and wastewater into the environment and onto properties served by the pumps, causing harm to groundwater, the nearshore environment, and her property. Petitioner Deborah Curlee41/ is a member of DTP and an individual petitioner in Case No. 14-2420, challenging the issuance of Permit 25. She is a resident and owner of property on Cudjoe Key. Her address is 1052 Spanish Main Drive, Cudjoe Key, Florida 33042. Her property will not be served by an E/One grinder pump; however, she lives less than a quarter-mile from a proposed lift station and less than a mile from two other proposed lift stations. She is concerned that if there is a pump failure at these lift stations resulting in a sewage spill, the area in which she lives, including her property, would be negatively impacted and the sewage would flow into the groundwater and nearshore waters. She uses and enjoys the nearshore waters of Big Pine Key for water-based and other recreational activities, including fishing, boating, kayaking, snorkeling, picnicking, and engaging in nature observation and enjoyment activities as a member of entities whose purpose is to protect the environment. Entitlement to Permits at Issue As discussed above, FKAA met its burden under section 120.569(2)(p) to present a prima facie case demonstrating entitlement to the Permits at Issue by entering into evidence the applications and supporting materials for the wastewater collection systems and the notices of intent for each of the Permits at Issue. In addition, FKAA presented persuasive, competent, and substantial evidence far beyond that necessary to meet its burden under section 120.569(2)(p) to demonstrate entitlement to the Permits at Issue. As discussed above, Petitioners failed to prove, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that the wastewater collection systems at issue, as designed, do not comply with DEP rules and applicable technical standards and requirements, resulting in environmental harm and property damage. On rebuttal, FKAA and DEP thoroughly addressed and rebutted each of the grounds that Petitioners allege justify denial of the Permits at Issue. Accordingly, Petitioners did not meet their burden of persuasion under section 120.569(2)(p) in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order: Approving the issuance of Permit No. 295404-018-DWC/CM (Permit 18), at issue in Case No. 14-2415; Approving the issuance of Permit No. 295404-019-DWC/CM (Permit 19), at issue in Case No. 14-2416; Approving the issuance of Permit No. 295404-027-DWC/CM (Permit 27), at issue in Case No. 14-2417; and Approving the issuance of Permit No. 295404-025-DWC/CM (Permit 25), at issue in Case No. 14-2420. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 2015.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the applicant, Craig Watson, has provided reasonable assurances in justification of the grant of an Industrial Waste Water Facility permit for a rotational grazing dairy to be located in Gilchrist County, Florida, in accordance with Section 403.087, Florida Statutes, and the applicable rules and policies of the Department of Environmental Protection. Specifically, it must be determined whether the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the operation of the industrial waste water facility at issue will comply with the Department's ground water quality standards and minimum criteria embodied in its rules and relevant policy, including draft permit conditions governing the proposed zone of discharge for the project. It must be determined whether the ground water beyond the proposed zone of discharge will be contaminated in excess of relevant state standards and criteria and whether the water quality of the G-II aquifer beneath the site will be degraded. Concomitantly it must be decided whether the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project will comply with the Department's effluent guidelines and policy for dairy operations as industrial waste water facilities, pursuant to the Department's policy enacted and implemented pursuant to its rules for granting and implementing industrial waste water facility permits, as they relate to dairy operations.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Craig Watson has applied for an Industrial Waste Water Facility permit to authorize the construction and operation of an 850-cow, rotational grazing dairy, with accompanying dairy waste management system, to be located in Gilchrist County, Florida. The system would be characterized by ultimate spray application of waste effluent to pastures or "paddocks" located on a portion of the 511-acre farm owned by Mr. Watson. The rotational grazing method of dairy operation is designed to prevent the ground water quality violations frequently associated with traditional dairy operations. Traditional dairy operations are often characterized by intensive livestock use areas, which result in denuding of vegetation and consequent compacting of the soil, which prevents the effective plant root zone uptake method of treating dairy waste and waste water for prevention of ground water quality violations. Such intensive use areas are typically areas around central milking barns, central feeding and watering troughs, and other aspects of such operations which tend to concentrate cows in relatively small areas. The rotational grazing dairy attempts to avoid such problems by dividing a dairy farm's surface area into numerous pastures which cows can graze upon with constant and frequent rotation of cows between such pastures. This avoids overgrazing or denuding of the cover crop upon which cows graze, which is so necessary to proper treatment of wastes through root zone uptake. A rotational grazing dairy is designed to re-cycle cow manure for use as fertilizer to grow and re-grow the forage established on the site in the paddocks or pastures. The rotational grazing method is based on the theory that nutrients from cow manure can be captured in the root zone and uptaken as fertilizer for the plant upon which the cattle graze. The waste from the barn area is collected in a waste storage pond or lagoon and sprayed as liquid effluent on the grassy cover crops established in the various pastures, as is the sludge or more solid waste removed periodically from the waste storage lagoon. The applicant, the 511 acres and the project itself would use approximately 440 acres of that tract. The site is approximately 6 miles south of the Santa Fe River. The majority of the soil on the site consists of fine sand and clay-sand type soils. The dairy would contain approximately 850 cows. Lactating cows (cows being milked) would be grazed in some 36 pastures divided by fencing. They would be grazed in the pastures approximately 85 percent of the time and lactating cows would be in the milk and feed barn located in the center of the lactating cow pastures approximately 15 percent of the time. The manure from the barn, approximately 15 percent of the total animal waste, would be collected and placed in the collection lagoon for spray irrigation on the forage crops grown in the pastures. The remaining 85 percent of the waste would result from direct deposition on the pastures by the cows. The rotational grazing dairy would contain permanent watering troughs in each of the 36 pastures. This creates the possibility of numerous "high intensity areas" or areas characterized by a high level of cattle traffic. This circumstance can result in denuding the cover crop or grasses around such water trough areas which would result in a failure, for that area, of the root-zone-uptake means of waste treatment of nitrates. In order to minimize that eventuality, the cattle would be rotated on a frequent basis from paddock to paddock in an effort to maintain nitrate balance and maintain the sanctity of the cover crop, as would the option of employing movable watering troughs so that areas of denudment of the grass or forage cover can be avoided. Manure would be flushed from the milking and feeding barn with approximately 2,000 to 5,000 gallons of water after each milking and at the end of each shift. Wastewater would then flow into a sand trap or filter and thence through an underground pipeline into an 80 foot x 84 foot concrete-lined storage lagoon. The final site of the storage lagoon has not been firmly determined. The site proposed in the application is located in part over a depression which is a suspected karst feature or area that may be subject to sink hole formation. Therefore, consideration should be given locating the waste lagoon so as to avoid that depression and the permit should be conditioned on installation of the lagoon so as to avoid known karst features. Effluent from the storage lagoon would be applied to 245 acres of pasture with a movable spray gun. The settled sludge from the lagoon would be spread on the same land periodically. The primary grass crop on the site intended for cattle forage would be Coastal Bermuda grass. Coastal Bermuda grows through a large part of the year and is normally dormant, in the climate prevailing in the Gilchrist and Alachua County area, from mid-October until early March. There would thus be little nutrient uptake during that time but to off-set that dormant state rye, wheat, rye grass, sorghum and other small grains could be grown on the site during the winter months in order to continue the waste treatment function of the cover crops. MANAGEMENT PLAN The Department currently does not have in effect a specific rule requiring dairies in north Florida to obtain permits to construct and operate per se, although such a rule does prevail for dairies in the Okeechobee Basin in south Florida. Since 1990, however, the Department has, by policy, required permits for new dairy facilities in the Suwannee River Water Management District as industrial waste water facilities. This policy is derived from the general regulatory authority contained in Section 403.087, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 62-670, Florida Administrative Code.1 The Department policy is described in a letter in evidence from the Department to applicant Watson containing the required conditions on any grant of the permit, to which the applicant has agreed. Those requirements are as follows: Management Plan A site-specific plan, with design calculations, providing for collection, storage and disposal of all wastewater from milking parlor and of runoff from the 25-year 24-hour storm event from all "high intensity" areas within the dairy farm. The calculations should include stormwater computer model SCS TR-55 or similar. Supporting documentation for the plan shall include but not be limited to the following: Water budget and balance, detailed and itemized. Nutrient budget, including wastewater and solids management. Crop management plan with projected crop nutrient uptake rates. Herd management plan, including locations of barns, travel lanes, feed areas, pastures, and management of dry cows and heifers. Treatment and disposal system details, construction details and methods, pumping systems and capacities, irrigation system details, lagoon design and capacity, and site plans. Ground Water Monitoring Plan Determination of ground water depth, variability and direction(s) of flow. Topographic site plan which includes the location of facility property boundaries, sinkholes and cooling ponds. Ground penetrating radar (GPR) if located within Suwannee River Water Management District. Site borings for determination of soil properties, depth and extent of low permeability zones, and confirmation of GPR results. Proposed locations, construction, and development criteria for monitor wells. Inventory of potable wells within 1/2 mile of site. Determination of current ground water quality and compliance. Such plan shall be prepared in accordance with the standards of the USDA NRCS, at a minimum, and shall include detailed instructions for construction, operation, and maintenance of wastewater/runoff collection, storage and disposal systems. DEP Exhibit 1. The various expert and fact witnesses for the Respondents described in their testimony the constituency of that Management Plan and the reasons, within their various scientific discipline areas and their personal factual knowledge concerning why it should be required for the site and project at issue. The 850-cow herd which would be contained on the proposed dairy consists of 550 lactating cows which are milked on a daily basis but also contains 80 dry cows and 220 heifers. Thus some 300 cattle on the dairy will not be milked at any given time and consequently will not contribute to use of the high intensity barn area and the waste collected in the anaerobic lagoon to the extent that those non-milking cattle are not fed and watered in the central barn area. Their waste would more typically be deposited directly on the pastures by those cattle themselves. 10 The project is proposed to provide for on-site containment of all wastes generated by the dairy. There will be no discharge of effluent or other pollutants from the dairy to "waters of the state." The proposed permit requires that no surface water runoff be permitted from the dairy site. The anaerobic or waste collection lagoon is designed to contain all effluent from the milking barn and other high intensity cattle areas in the event of a 25-year, 24-hour storm occurrence. Additionally, a safety factor of one-foot of "free-board" or additional wall height on the anaerobic lagoon is to be provided as an additional safety factor over and above the level expected to be achieved by the above-referenced storm event. The adequacy of the design capacity of the lagoon system is not in dispute. The proposed project and design calls for four monitoring wells to be located along the northern boundary of the property, which is essentially co-extensive with the boundary of the discharge zone at issue. There would be three compliance wells and one background sampling well. The Department's expert geologist, Mr. Davis, was of the belief that an intermediate monitoring well would not be necessary since the four wells would in his view be sufficient to enforce water quality standards. Those wells are located down-gradient according to the known direction of the ground water flow underneath the site, as required by Rule 62-522.600(6), Florida Administrative Code. Although no intermediate wells are provided for by the plan, they have been required at the other two rotational grazing dairies already permitted by the Department in the Suwannee River Water Management Region at least one of which was within a mile of the outstanding Florida water of the Suwannee River. Intermediate monitoring wells at other dairies have shown increased levels of nitrate, although there is no evidence to show that nitrate levels have exceeded state standards at the boundaries of those dairies or their discharge zones. In any event, however, the totality of the expert testimony demonstrates that intermediate wells would provide an efficacious early warning system to predict increases in nitrate contamination. Thus adjustments in the waste and commercial fertilizer nitrate application could be made so that prevention of violation of nitrate standards, by the time waste water migrated to compliance wells around the boundary of the site, could be effected. This would have a substantial predictive value to avoid future nitrate contaminant violations before they occur and they should be installed as a condition on permitting. The proposed dairy design and operation involving rotational grazing is undisputed to be more beneficial to environmental water quality considerations than a traditional cattle confinement type of dairy. The rotational grazing dairy is characterized by cattle spending minimal time in high intensity milking, feeding, and watering areas. Additionally, there will be a significantly lower level of nutrient loading on the pastures with little accumulation of effluent on the land surface. In fact, the deposition of waste through spray irrigation and through the urination and defecation of the cattle directly will still result in a deficit in nitrates needed for adequate plant growth of the grass, and other crop, ground cover necessary for feeding the cattle and making the operation succeed in a waste treatment sense as well. Consequently, it will have to be supplemented by the addition of some commercial fertilizer, the costs of which will result in a natural incentive for the farmer/applicant to ensure that the nutrient loading on the pastures is at a low, environmentally acceptable level in terms of potential contamination of ground water. The proposed dairy has been demonstrated to be consistent with the Natural Resources Conservation Services' requirements and policies concerning dairies and rotational grazing dairies. It is also undisputed that phosphorus is not of an environmental concern with this application and project. There is sufficient iron and aluminum coating on the soils involved so that excess phosphorus will be retained on the site and it is undisputed that nitrogen is the only limiting factor in the design of the dairy. NITROGEN BALANCE The specific concern with regard to the application and the dairy operation is nitrate leaching below the root zone of the crops grown on the surface of the dairy. The dairy is designed to use nitrogen and nitrates by growing crops in the pastures which will then be eaten by the dairy cows, so that the nitrogen is re-cycled with the resulting animal wastes being used as fertilizer for the same grass or crops which the cattle continuously graze. It is anticipated that the amount of nitrogen produced by the dairy cows will be insufficient to optimize that plant growth. Therefore, additional fertilizer will be required to be applied to the land surface in the pastures at times. The additional nitrogen fertilizer will only be applied when testing of soil, and particularly plant tissue analysis, which will be done a regular basis, shows that application of commercial fertilizer is needed to supplement the natural cattle-waste nitrogen. Nitrogen is a concern because if too much of it is applied to the land surface, it may leach below the plant root zone and eventually migrate to ground water. Nitrogen in high concentrations can be potentially harmful to human health, so state drinking water standards have been established for nitrogen with regard to the issuance of industrial waste water permits. The state drinking water standard for nitrate is ten parts per million at the zone of discharge, that is, the zone of discharge into the ground water aquifer. The dairy is designed in such a way that nitrate levels will not exceed water quality standards. The design is determined by reviewing nitrogen balances and making sure that excess nitrogen will not leach past the root zone. The engineers evaluating and designing the project for the applicant, and testifying concerning it, arrived at a "mass balance" to estimate the nitrogen amounts on the site. This mass balancing is required by the Department in the required estimating of the pounds of nitrate leachate. Nitrogen can be removed from the dairy operating system through atmospheric losses or "volatilization" particularly from the urine component of nitrogen application. It can be removed through milk losses, whereby nitrogen is removed from the digestive system of the cattle through its being bound up to some extent in the milk produced by the cattle and sold off the dairy site, as well as some minimal leaching of nitrate through the soil. The nitrogen that is not removed by volatilization to the atmosphere (excluding the small amount re-deposited by rainfall) will be cycled through the cows and the crops along with any supplemental nitrogen applied from time to time in order ensure optimal plant growth. The mass balance, or amount of pounds of nitrate in the leachate, was determined by considering the amount of water flowing through the system. The re-charge rate was established by the applicant's engineer Mr. Holloway to be 17 inches. This means that there will be 17 inches of rainfall leaching below the root zone of the cover crops to reach ground water. The re-charge rate can be determined by computing the average of the evapo-transpiration and average rainfall and subtracting the difference. It can also be calculated by employing computer models such as the "GLEAMS" model. Mr. Holloway, the applicants engineer, used both sources or methods and reached the figure 17 inches. The GLEAMS model is a computer model that uses local data to determine water budgeting and recharge rates. Mr. Holloway also used a 50 percent volatilization rate for the nitrate losses when determining his mass balance. The applicant's experts also considered the plant uptake rates and concluded that the uptake rate would be between 500 and 700 pounds of nitrogen uptaken per year, per acre, by the plant cover. In order to be conservative and to install a sufficient safety factor in the system to avoid overloading it with nitrates and endangering ground water quality, they employed a lower uptake rate in their calculations and recommendations to the applicant, and thus to the Department, as to the amount of nitrogen applied per acre, per year, from all sources to only be 400 pounds. The conditions imposed by the Department in the "free-form" consideration process and draft permit thus limits the total pounds of nitrogen permissibly applied to this site to 400 pounds per acre, per year. Those 400 pounds of nitrogen are represented by 260 pounds applied from manure from the livestock and no more than 140 pounds applied from commercial fertilizers purchased by the farmer, Mr. Watson. The 400 pounds of nitrogen per acre, per year, as a condition on the permit is less than that allowed at the other rotational grazing dairies previously designed by Mr. Holloway and approved. Additionally, Mr. Cordova of the Department established that there are no rotational grazing dairies that have a higher nitrogen deficit than the Watson dairy. This further provides a significant safety factor not present in other approved dairies. Atmospheric losses of nitrogen up to 80 percent have been documented with similar dairy operations. Atmospheric losses can occur through both volatilization and de-nitrification. Volatilization is the process where nitrogen is removed from the system by the ammonia in the waste products, changing into a gaseous state and migrating into the atmosphere as a volatile gas. De-nitrification is the process where microbes, principally in the absence of oxygen (anaerobic) reduce nitrates to nitrogen gas and to possibly N2O, which is a volatile, and then allow it to escape into the atmosphere. The applicant has agreed, as a condition to the permit, to apply soil testing and crop tissue analysis as well as quarterly reviewing of the monitoring wells before he determines to supplement the natural fertilizer deposited from the animals with additional commercially purchased fertilizer. The commercially purchased fertilizer would represent a substantial investment in purchase costs and in labor costs for its application. This is an additional safety factor because the applicant clearly would not have an interest in applying any more fertilizer than was absolutely needed to secure optimum plant growth for grazing purposes and nitrogen uptake or waste treatment purposes. This is a further method which will prevent excessive nitrate nutrients from being deposited on the site and possibly into the ground water. Dr. Bottcher, an expert witness for the applicant, testified that he expected nitrate levels at the zone of discharge within the boundaries and beneath the surface of the dairy farm to be between 4 and 6 parts per million. Mr. Holloway expected within a reasonable degree of certainty that on a long term average, with about 4,000 pounds of nitrate leaching below the root zone system, that the concentration directly below the farm beneath the root zone would be between 2 and 3 parts per million. Indeed, the proposed operation would be similar to the existing condition at the Watson farm involving grazing beef cattle on a system of pastures, with row crop operations. Row crops typically have a higher impact of nitrates than the proposed dairy operation would have and beef cow grazing would have a similar impact, although it would be slightly less. Thus the proposed operation is similar in its nitrate impact to the existing conditions at the site. Moreover, the applicant is limited by the permit conditions already agreed to, to spray manure on the spray field area at the rate of less than one half of an inch. The spraying to that limitation would probably take from two to five hours per week. One of the important safety mechanisms in achieving a nutrient balance on the dairy site and in its operation, so as to ensure that ground water quality violations do not occur, is the application rate of nitrate to the land surface. As shown by Dr. Bottcher's testimony, the farmer may increase crop production by applying more fertilizer during seasons of heavy growth of the plant cover. The application rate can then be decreased when there is less growth and, therefore, less need for nutrients to grow the cover crops. A smaller application rate will increase the volatilization rate by avoidance of the infiltration of the nitrate bearing effluent into the soil through hydraulic action and through the saturation mechanism, since a smaller amount of application would tend to leave more of the effluent within less than one inch of the land surface, or on the land surface, thereby allowing it to be volatilized more readily. This circumstance will decrease the amount of nutrient leaching below the root zone and thus prevent the nitrates from being transmitted to the ground water. A number of crops can be grown successfully and appropriately on the site in order to provide the grazing forage needed for the operation of the dairy. Examples, depending upon the season of the year, are rye, wheat, grain sorghum, and various grasses, including Coastal Bermuda grass. Coastal Bermuda is a perennial grass, high in protein available for livestock and is already established on the site. The various other crops can be grown as well and some that grow in the winter months, such as rye, will be grown by Mr. Watson. The growing of the various cover forage crops are limited by the limitation in the permit which is conditioned on maintaining a cover crop growth situation where the average annual uptake is at least 400 pounds per acre (the evidence reveals that in reality it would be more on the order of 500 to 700 pounds per acre, per year). Dr. Pollman and Dr. Upchurch, expert witnesses for the Petitioners, question the nitrogen balancing and leachate predictions arrived at by the applicant's expert witnesses, as well as those of the Department. Neither Drs. Pollman nor Upchurch had any prior experience or expertise with testing for a nitrogen balancing on rotational grazing dairies. Instead they utilized various models to attempt to predict leachate amounts. Dr. Pollman's modeling utilized formulas prepared by the applicant's experts. His modeling showed a high percentage of the predicted outcomes to be actually within regulatory standards for nitrates, even though all of his estimates failed to take into account the variable inclusion or application rate for nitrogen through commercial fertilizer which will only be applied on an as needed basis after appropriate plant tissue and soil tests show that commercial fertilizer should be applied. Likewise, Dr. Upchurch's modeling results were also mostly within acceptable standards for nitrate concentrations unless one assumes that the nitrogen application rates exceed the amounts allowed under the permit, which will not be the case in reality because obviously the permit limits must be complied with. Dr. Upchurch also utilized a model, "NLEAP," which was neither designed nor calibrated to be used for predictive capabilities and is still considered experimental by the NRCS. WASTE LAGOON The applicant proposes to construct a waste storage lagoon designed to hold seven days' waste water generation capacity or 26,000 gallons per day. In addition to that required storage for a 25-year, 24-hour storm event, an additional safety factor of one foot of free board has been designed into the lagoon system. The lagoon will be constructed with 6 inch thick, fiber-reinforced concrete. No evidence was offered by the Petitioners that the lagoon design itself was faulty or inappropriate, rather the Petitioners contend that there is a chance that a surface failure beneath the lagoon, by the result of a sink hole developing, particularly in the present preliminary location proposed for the lagoon, could cause the lagoon to crack. The applicant will, however, in order to ensure that the area is suitable for the lagoon have the appropriate engineer "over-excavate" the site in order to minimize the change of a sink hole developing. Additionally, soil borings will be done beneath the surface to provide additional assurance that the lagoon will not fail due to voids or sink holes being present beneath it. Because the lagoon is presently preliminarily located in an area that appears to embody an old, inactive karst depression, consideration should be given to altering the site of the lagoon slightly so as to avoid this area, after soil borings and other investigation is done to ascertain whether the area poses a risk of lagoon failure. Additionally it must be pointed out that because the applicant would need to expend a substantial investment to rebuild the lagoon in the event of such a failure, he has a strong incentive to locate the most suitable geological placement for the lagoon in any event. GEOLOGIC SITE CHARACTERISTICS It is undisputed that the geology underlying the surface of the dairy site is karst in nature: that is, it is characterized by a sub-strate of limestone which can, through the dissolution process caused by percolating water, be susceptible to fissures, voids, underground conduits and sink holes. This, however, is true for essentially all areas used for agriculture in the Suwannee River Area Water Management District, the area to which the subject above- referenced policy concerning installation and permitting of dairies applies. Because of the karst nature of the area, sink holes and other potential surface openings to the ground water could occur at the site. It is most significant, however, that both Mr. Holloway's and Dr. Kwader's testimony established that the soil layer at the site was more than sufficient to protect the ground water. In fact, the soil layer averages from 45 to 50-feet thick over the underlying limestone sub-strate of the Ocala Formation. Further, the proposed permit and its conditions would require a management plan which, with the conditions already placed on the permit and recommended herein, will adequately deal with the possibility of sink holes, "pipes" or "chimneys" developing on the site. The dairy design success is derived essentially from the sufficient nutrient uptake in the root zone of the plant cover, balanced with careful control of the application rates of both the natural fertilizer from the cows and the commercial fertilizer which will supplement it from time to time. Any possibility that the treatment zone for nitrates associated with the plant root zone would be by-passed by the effluent as a result of sink holes or other types of fissures developing can be resolved by proper management practices, which the conditions proposed for the permit and those recommended herein will insure are implemented. For instance, if sink holes, other depressions or holes develop in the site, they will be filled with soil to a depth of five feet, with an impervious clay cap on top of that and then a layer of top soil to allow for re-establishment of the root zone on the surface. The permit should be so conditioned. Moreover, if sink holes or other voids develop that are too large to be so filled and pose a risk of migration of effluent below the root zone to rapidly to the ground water, they will be fenced off and cows will not be allowed in the area. The area will be removed from the irrigation application process until repairs are made, under the presently proposed conditions on the permit. An additional condition should be imposed whereby any sink holes or other voids or similar breaks in the ground surface which pose a risk of effluent rapidly migrating to ground water should be bermed around the circumference to prevent effluent or stormwater laden with nitrates from the land surface from entering the fault or cavity. The applicant is required under the proposed conditions on the permit to report to DEP any sink holes which develop within a certain period of time in the barn area. Cows are not to be permitted to enter into any of the sink hole areas by additional fencing, if necessary. If sink holes develop in the spray field there can be no discharges of fertilizer or irrigation on those areas until the sink holes have been repaired in the manner referenced above. The phosphate pits on the site will also be fenced to prevent discharges past the root zone potentially caused by cattle entering the pits. Additionally, berms are required to be constructed around the phosphate pits to prevent surface water from storm events or other means by which nitrates from the ground surface can be transported into the pits and then possibly to ground water. Any holes which may develop, also called "piping failures," around the periphery of the phosphate pits should be treated in a similar manner to prevent the migration of surface water into those holes whether or not they communicate with the phosphate pits themselves by fencing and berming. These arrangements coupled with the fact that the phosphate pits are characterized by a sufficient soil layer in the bottom of the pits between the bottom surface of the pits and the water table or aquifer will constitute reasonable assurance that the pits will not result in a conduit or path for nitrate-laden, surface water to migrate past the root zone directly into the ground water aquifer. Mr. Holloway, an engineer, testifying for the applicant conducted soil borings on the site to verify the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) surveys as accurate and to ensure that an adequate root zone for treatment purposes existed. Additionally, the NRCS did a ground penetrating radar survey or study on the property. The Petitioners also did a separate ground penetrating radar study performed by Mr. Windschauer. The Petitioners study identified a number of karst-type "anomalies" on the property. The number of anomalies located by Windschauer was not unusual for a such a karst geologic area, but, in any event, all of them had adequate soil depth to support the crops necessary to establish the root zone and maintain the nitrogen balancing. Soil borings were conducted, as well on four of the anomalies, under Dr. Upchurch's supervision. They confirmed that there was adequate soil depth to support crops and protect groundwater. The conditions already imposed on the permit to which the applicant has agreed, require a minimum of five feet of soil depth to ensure adequate treatment including the soil below the root zone and that soil depth and plant cover will have to be maintained even if repairs are necessary to karst anomalies or "sink holes," or the dairy will have to cease operation. The soil depth on the dairy is approximately 45-50 feet and the water table is approximately 55 feet below the ground surface. While the Department's expert, Mr. Davis, is satisfied that the location of the monitoring wells and the number of wells are adequate to monitor compliance with water quality standards for groundwater at the site, the draft permit conditions allow for a change in the number and the location of the monitoring wells. The evidence in the case, including that which shows that an intermediate well at another similar dairy site has shown elevated nitrate levels (although it has not been shown that other conditions are similar to those proposed in this permit application and in the evidence) would indicate that it would be prudent to install intermediate monitoring wells, upgradient, within the dairy site to serve as an early warning, predictive mechanism to avoid water quality violations at the boundary of the zone of discharge. This will allow time for steps to be taken, through various adjustments in the operation, to prevent any violations of the ten parts per million nitrate groundwater standard. The permit is recommended to be so conditioned. Dr. Kwader performed a photolinear trace analysis. He indicated that he did not find any particular linear features such as fractures. A fracture in the limestone stratum is significant in that it can provide a conduit or preferential pathway through the sub-surface rock and thus transfer contaminants from one point to another at a more rapid rate than simple percolation through soil and pores in the rocks. This could result in excessive nitrates being deposited in the groundwater aquifer before an adequate treatment time and mechanism has had its effect on the nitrates. A fracture or conduit flow will, however, cause dilution and Mr. Davis, for the Department, testified that he did not expect a higher concentration of nutrients in a fracture than in the surrounding rock. Additionally, there will be substantial dilution once the nutrients reach the aquifer and begin moving laterally. The dilution will be proportional to the water moving through the conduit, meaning that if the fracture is relatively large, then the concentration of nutrients will be proportionately smaller because of the higher volume of water. Such linear features or fractures are difficult to observe through 50 or more feet of soil existing at the site above the rock stratum and the top surface of the aquifer. Dr. Upchurch, for the Petitioners, also performed a photolinear trace analysis and identified two areas as being highly probable, in his belief, for linear fracture features beneath the farm and surrounding area. He believes there is a possibility of a number of other fractures beneath the Watson property, although the evidence does not definitely identify such nor the measures or precise locations of any such postulated fractures. The Watson property, however, is not unlike any of the surrounding karst terrain with respect to such potential linear fracture features and, in fact, much of north Florida can be so characterized. Moreover, Dr. Upchurch himself agreed that only a limited area of the Watson farm would be impacted by such features, and further, if they are present, they will not impact the nutrient balance aspect of the dairy design because it will perform above many feet of soils separating it from the fractures, if they exist. Limestone pinnacles protruding to the land surface can provide preferential pathways for water to migrate downward to the groundwater aquifer in a manner similar to that posed by a sink hole. They can also function as a break in the soil and plant root zone covering the spray effluent treatment area if allowed to remain exposed. Limestone was observed within one of the mine pits and in a sink hole. It is not clear whether it is a pinnacle which leads down to the sub-strate containing the aquifer or is merely a remnant boulder. In any event, these pinnacles or limestone outcroppings or boulders, whatever they prove to be, will not result in a preferential pathway for water to migrate to the aquifer because the management plan conditioning the permit requires that any limestone protruding to the surface be sheared off and replaced with top soil and vegetation. The permit conditions require that at least five feet of soil overlaid by vegetation must be present for all areas in the spray field. No exposed groundwater was observed in any of the sink holes. In fact the aquifer water level would be at least ten to twenty feet below the bottom of any pit or sink hole observed on the property. An additional 50-foot buffer from the property boundary surrounds all of the paddocks, providing an additional safety factor before the outside boundary of the zone of discharge is reached. The proposed dairy is located approximately six miles south of the Sante Fe River at its nearest point. The Sante Fe River is an outstanding Florida waterway in accordance with Rule 62-302.700(9)(i)27, Florida Administrative Code. The dairy site is not within the flood plain of the river and there will be no surface water discharged from the dairy, including none to the Sante Fe River. Any impact the dairy might have on a water quality in the Sante Fe River would come from groundwater flowing from the site to river. Groundwater beneath the dairy site flows first in a northeasterly direction thence apparently swinging more northerly in the direction of the river, more or less in a "banana shape" flow pattern and direction. Current permitting requirements for such a dairy require that the groundwater leaving or flowing from the zone of discharge must meet "drinking water standards." Those standards are codified in Rules 62-520.400 and 62-522.400, Florida Administrative Code. Those standards require that nitrates not exceed the standard or level of ten parts per million. Dr. Bottcher's expert opinion, which is accepted, is that the dairy design and operation will provide adequate protection to the Sante Fe River with that perameter in mind. He also established that reasonable assurances exist that the river will be adequately protected and not significantly be degraded alone or in combination with other stationary installations in addition to the dairy in question. The dairy waste management system has been established by preponderant evidence to abate and prevent pollution of the groundwater to the extent required by the applicable statutes, rules and policies, in that water or pollution will not be discharged from the dairy in violation of the above-referenced standard. Especially because of the great thickness of soil cover and because of the conditions and protective measures designed into the draft permit, and the project and recommended as conditions herein, in order to prevent effluent from bypassing the root zone treatment area due to karst features the preponderant, credible geological and hydro- geological evidence, including that of Mr. Davis, shows, within a reasonable degree of professional certainty, that there are not conditions concerning the hydro-geology or geology in the area of the site as to make it unsuitable for the proposed dairy operation in the manner conditioned and recommended herein. SECTION 120.57(1)(E) - FINDINGS The specific permitting requirements for the rotational grazing dairy at issue are embodied in a policy followed by the Department as far back as 1990. Those requirements are not contained in a Department rule. Rather, the policy is presumably enacted pursuant to the statute referenced by the parties, including the Department, in this case as the general pollution abatement statute, Section 403.087, Florida Statutes. The action of the Department in announcing its intent to grant the permit may be deemed an agency action "that determines the substantial interest of a party and that it is based on an un-adopted rule . . ." to the extent that one might deem this policy, consistently followed in a substantial area of the state since 1990, an un-adopted rule for purposes of Section 120.57(e)(1), Florida Statutes. In that context, the agency must demonstrate that the un-adopted rule comports with the statutory definitional of characteristics of a valid rule. Thus the agency must present proof that its un-adopted rule or "policy" would be valid as a rule. In that context the evidence adduced by the Department and indeed by both Respondents, since they presented a joint case, shows that the policy at issue is within the powers, functions and duties delegated by the legislature in Section 403.087,Florida Statutes, which is a generalized grant of authority designed to give the Department the power to regulate in a way to abate the pollution of waters of the state, including groundwater. It has also been adequately shown that the policy or un- adopted rule does not enlarge, modify or contravene the specific provisions of that law being implemented but rather provides sufficient regulatory details so that the general principals, stated in that statute, can be carried out in terms of the installation, regulation and operation of the subject dairy project. It has been adequately proven that the rule is not vague and that it establishes adequate standards for agency decisions on whether or not to permit such a rotational grazing dairy. It does not vest unbridled discretion in the agency nor constitute an arbitrary or capricious act or policy imposition, because the standards and requirements advanced by the Department as being necessary under this policy or un-adopted rule, for a permit to be granted, must, of legal and factual necessity, be predicated on competent, scientific expert and factual evidence. That has been shown, which likewise meets the requirement that the un-adopted rule be supported by competent and substantial evidence. Likewise, the evidence shows that under the circumstances, given the great public necessity in protection of the groundwater and the Floridian aquifer, that the requirements placed upon a grant of a permit for this project and the conditions placed upon its construction and operation do not impose, under the circumstances, excessive regulatory costs on the regulated person, Mr. Watson, or the governmental entity where the project is located, in other words, Gilchrist County.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered granting the permit requested by Craig Watson to construct and operate the proposed dairy waste management system in accordance with the draft permit proposed by the Department, including the general and specific conditions attached and incorporated therein and also including the general and specific conditions recommended to be adopted and implemented for the proposed system in this Recommended Order, based upon the preponderant, persuasive, credible evidence. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 23rd day of February, 1999.
The Issue Whether Respondent, John J. D'Hondt, as a licensed operator, should be disciplined for violations of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-602.650(2), (4) and (4)(f).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following facts were established by clear and convincing evidence: Petitioner is the State agency vested with the responsibility of regulating Florida's air and water resources, administering Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (2006), and the rules promulgated in Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62. Petitioner has the statutory authority to establish qualifications; examine and license drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment plant operators and to place an operator on probation; and issue, deny, revoke, or suspend an operator's license pursuant to its rules. Respondent is the owner, supplier of water, and licensed operator of the Double D Mobile Home Ranch's drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment plants located in Volusia County, Florida. He holds Certified Operator Drinking Water License No. 0000542 and Certified Operator Wastewater License No. 0006032. The Volusia County Health Department is a county health department that has been approved by Petitioner pursuant to Subsection 403.862(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2006), to enforce Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (2006), and the rules promulgated for the State's drinking water program for Volusia County. As a result of not having received Respondent's September 2004 MOR, by letter dated October 20, 2004, the Volusia County Health Department notified Respondent that MORs were to be submitted to the Volusia County Health Department by the tenth of the month following the month of operation. The November 2004 MOR was to have been submitted to the Volusia County Health Department by December 10, 2004. Respondent signed and dated the November 2004 MOR on December 12, 2004; it was received by the Volusia County Health Department on December 27, 2004. The December 2004 MOR was to have been submitted to the Volusia County Health Department by January 10, 2005. On February 4, 2005, Respondent was sent a late reporting violation letter stating that the December 2004 MOR had not been received. This letter again reminded Respondent that MORs were to be submitted within ten days after the month of operation. The December 2004 MOR was received on February 11, 2005. The April 2005 MOR was to have been submitted by May 10, 2005. Respondent signed and dated the April 2005 MOR on May 17, 2005. It was received on May 27, 2005. The September 2005 MOR was to have been submitted by October 10, 2005. It was received on October 18, 2005. The November 2005 MOR was to have been submitted by December 10, 2005. It was signed and dated December 14, 2005, and received on December 19, 2005. Respondent did not timely submit MORs for the months of November 2004, December 2004, April 2005, September 2005, and November 2005. In 2004, the Volusia County Health Department inspected the Double D Mobile Home Ranch's drinking water treatment plant and found that Respondent maintained a combined logbook for the drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment plants. Respondent was informed that he was required to keep a separate operation and maintenance logbook for each of the drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment plants. On August 10, 2004, Petitioner inspected the Double D Mobile Home Ranch's domestic wastewater treatment plant and found that there was a combined logbook for the drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment plants. Respondent was again informed that he was required to keep separate logbooks for each plant. A non-compliance letter dated October 12, 2004, and a copy of the August 10, 2004, inspection report were sent to Respondent informing him that he needed to separate his operation and maintenance logbook. In 2005, the Volusia County Health Department inspected the Double D Mobile Home Ranch's drinking water treatment plant and found that Respondent still maintained a combined logbook for the drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment plants. During the inspection, Respondent was again informed that he was required to keep a separate operation and maintenance logbook for the drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment plants. On June 15, 2005, Petitioner inspected the Double D Mobile Home Ranch's domestic wastewater treatment plant and again found that Respondent was keeping a combined logbook for the drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment plants. During this inspection, Respondent was again informed that he was required to keep separate logbooks. A non-compliance letter and a copy of the June 15, 2005, inspection report were sent to Respondent again informing him that he was required to maintain separate logbooks for the drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment plants. On February 13, 2006, the Volusia County Health Department inspected the Double D Mobile Home Ranch's drinking water treatment plant and found that Respondent still maintained a combined operation and maintenance logbook for the drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment plants. During this inspection, Respondent was again informed that he was required to maintain a separate logbook for each plant. Over the extended period reflected by the inspections cited in paragraphs 11 through 15, Respondent failed to maintain separate logbooks for the operation and maintenance of the Double D Mobile Home Ranch's drinking water and domestic wastewater treatment plants. On August 10, 2004, Petitioner inspected the Double D Mobile Home Ranch's domestic wastewater treatment plant and found that the logbook did not contain sufficient entries of the performance of preventative maintenance and repairs or request for repairs of equipment. During this inspection, Respondent was informed that he was required to keep adequate entries of preventative maintenance and repairs or request for repairs of equipment for the domestic wastewater treatment plant. A non-compliance letter and a copy of the August 10, 2004, inspection report were sent to Respondent informing him that he was required to maintain entries of the performance of preventative maintenance and repairs or request for repairs of equipment for the domestic wastewater treatment plant. On June 15, 2005, Petitioner inspected the Double D Mobile Home Ranch's domestic wastewater treatment plant and again found that Respondent was not keeping adequate entries of the performance of preventative maintenance or repairs for the domestic wastewater plant. During this inspection, Respondent was again informed that he was to keep such entries. A non-compliance letter and a copy of the June 15, 2005, inspection report were sent to Respondent informing him that he needed to maintain such entries for the domestic wastewater treatment plant. Photocopies of the combined logbook have essentially no entries for the performance of preventative maintenance or repairs or requests for repairs to a domestic wastewater treatment plant. Infrequent margin notes are not decipherable and do not differentiate between the two activities.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the licenses of John J. D'Hondt, as a Certified Operator Drinking Water and a Certified Operator Wastewater, be disciplined as set forth in the "probation" letter of March 15, 2006. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 February, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronda L. Moore, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 John J. D'Hondt 2 Tropic Wind Drive Port Orange, Florida 32128 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Michael W. Sole, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Beason, Acting General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The parties have raised myriad issues hare. Petitioner has alleged being capriciously and arbitrarily denied its permit because similar treatment plants have been licensed nearby. The parties disagree over whether local Lake County Pollution Control Board rules are applicable to Petitioner's plant. If the rules are applicable, they disagree over their interpretation. The parties further disagree over whether Petitioner has pending an application for a waste water treatment plant operating permit. It is this last issue which is discussed below because it is dispositive of the case.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner operates a waste water treatment plant in Lake County, Florida which serves four motels at the intersection of U.S. Highway 27 and SR 19 immediately to the south of Interchange 27 on the Florida Turnpike. On October 27, 1972, DER issued a construction permit to Petitioner to construct the plant at a design capacity of 250,000 gallons per day (gpd). The treated effluent was proposed to be discharged via a spray irrigation system to the ground water on Petitioner's site. The plant has never operated at capacity. Its normal volume has ranged from between a low of 40,000 gpd to a peak of 140,000 gpd. Petitioner's plant is situated on a 12.5 acre site over a clay hard pan. The hard pan which is immediately below the ground surface prevents adequate percolation of the plant's effluent down to the underlying ground water. During periods of heavy rain the effluent from the plant has breached a retaining dike and flowed directly into a marsh area known as the Little Everglades to the north. Petitioner has submitted four permit applications to the Department. The first, submitted in September of 1972 was for the construction permit already mentioned. The next applications dated October 22, 1973, was for an operation permit. The application indicated that there would be no discharge to surface waters but there would be a discharge to ground waters. The application also indicated that the availability of space for the expansion of the plant was limited to the site at that time. Petitioner later purchased additional land not reflected in this application. The operation permit was never granted by the Respondent. As stated by Mr. Potter, President of Lake County Utilities, Inc., "In the fall of 1973, I made an application as engineer for the utility company to the Florida DPC [Department of Pollution Control] and to Lake County for an operation permit. That permit was denied by the Department on the ground that we had not satisfied Lake County as to the total containment of our effluent." Subsequently on August 30, 1976, Petitioner submitted a construction permit application to DER for permission to add a 1.32 acre oxidation-polishing pond, to regrade and regrass the existing spray irrigation field, to construct a 0.40 acre denitrification pond and to add a nutrient uptake. No increase in the design capacity was proposed. On that application Petitioner indicated that there would be a discharge to the surface waters of the state. In answer to that part of the application which asked for proposed drainage path of the effluent Petitioner stated, "From treatment plant to 'on-site' ponds to 'on-site' grassy pond and marsh would overflow to ajacent Florida DOT [Department of Transportation] borrow pit: thence via developed drainage waste to the 'Little Everglades' swamp: then, via developed canal and ditches and through natural ponds and marshes to 'Little Lake Harris' and ultimately the Atlantic Ocean." This permit was denied by DER because the Lake County Pollution Control Board did not approve the plan. Finally on September 29, 1978, Petitioner applied for another construction permit. Thee construction would include: Construction of storm water control structures and culverts: Regrading of water and sewer plant sites; Construction of percolation pond "A" and enclosing dikes; and Construction of percolation pond "B" and enclosing dikes. This application was made in response to advice from DER that Petitioner's plant should be in a no discharge condition in order to comply with Lake County Pollution Control rules. On November 2, 1979, the Department issued a Letter of Intent to deny the last permit application because the application was deemed to be incomplete and because the further data which DER requested was not provided. In response to DER's intent to deny the construction permit Petitioner on November 20, 1979, filed its Petition for an Administrative Hearing. Petitioner does not now intend to construct the proposed facilities for which it requested the construction permit in September of 1978. The following colloquy is from the final hearing. Mr. Stephens Have you-- Can you describe briefly the nature of the changes proposed in your 1978 construction permit application? Mr. Potter 1978 construction permit application on nominally the five acre parcel to create a diked pond or lake. Mr. Stephens Uh-huh. Mr. Potter Solely that. The part on the nominally two and a half acre parcel, give or take, was to create a deep percolation pond in which I proposed digging through the clay to the sand and shell below. Mr. Stephens Uh-huh. Mr. Potter So that waters that entered that pond, A, because of its depth, would denitrify and release nitrogen contents to the atmosphere; and, the water would, because of its hydraulic head in relation to the soil below, would push its way into the soils below. Mr. Stephens Uh-huh. Mr. Potter But in the event I could not dispose of the water through that form of percolation, it would overflow into the five acre diked area. And thereby I hoped to satisfy Lake County and the D.E.R. and solve this lingering festering problem. Mr. Stephens Uh-huh. You are the Petitioner in this case. Is it your desire or intention to complete those. . .that construction? Mr. Potter Now that I have been made aware of the law, the law of Chapter four oh three, the rules of Florida D.E.R. and become clear as to the ordinances adopted by the County Commission and the Lake Pollution Board of Lake County as to Class 3-B waters, I have no intention of squandering my money, and, in effect, the money of my customers, in such a wasteful pursuit. Mr. Stephens So you're saying here under oath you don't intend to perform that work even if granted a permit? Mr. Potter Not shy of a court order. As the result of Mr. Potter's testimony on behalf of the Petitioner at the final hearing, it is found that Petitioner has withdrawn its September 1978 application for a construction permit. There is not now pending before the Department of Environmental Regulation a valid permit application for the Petitioner to operate its waste water treatment plan. On May 9, 1980 Lake County Utilities, Inc. served Petitioner's Fourth Interrogatories to Respondent which asked by Interrogatory 10: Please state when and by whom the Department of Environmental Regulation has caused field studies to be made and samples to be taken out of the waters of Lake County (and specifically the geographical vicinity of U.S. 27 - S.R. 19 - Fla. Turnpike) periodically and in a logical geographic manner so as to determine the levels of water quality of the waters as such studies and sampling is within the powers and duty of the Department as mandated by the Florida Legislature in Chapter 403 of the Laws of Florida. (emphasis in original) The Department responded: 10. The Department conducts sampling in the waters of Lake County in conjunction with individual permit applications and not on a systematic basis throughout the County. Respondent objects to this interrogatory as being irrelevant to this proceeding in that the subject permit was not denied on the basis of anticipated water quality violations, but rather, as a result of the pollution control ordinances of Lake County, Florida, which prohibit any discharge to surface waters from the subject facility, and which the Department is required to enforce pursuant to Section 403.182(6), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it Is RECOMMENDED: That the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order dismissing the Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing without prejudice, however, to the filing of a new application by Petitioner for a waste water treatment plant operating permit. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of May, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of May, 1981.
The Issue The issue presented for determination in this proceeding is whether the wasteload allocations set forth in respondent's interoffice memorandum dated September 8, 1977, constitute a rule subject to the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: The petitioner, a municipal corporation, applied to the respondent for renewal of its permit to operate a sewage treatment plant. The respondent gave notice of its intent to deny said application on the ground that petitioner had not met the wasteload allocations established for the upper part of the Peace River Basin. A petition for a hearing on this denial was filed by petitioner pursuant to the provisions of Florida Statutes, 120.57(1), and a hearing was originally scheduled for May 11, 1978. At the commencement of this hearing, it became apparent that petitioner was also alleging that the wasteload allocations set forth in an interoffice memorandum dated September 8, 1977, constituted a rule within the meaning of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and therefore must be adopted pursuant to the provisions of said chapter. The respondent not being prepared to meet this allegation and the petitioner not having filed a petition pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.56, the scheduled hearing was continued and petitioner was granted leave to file a petition pursuant to Section 120.56 challenging the validity of the wasteload allocations as an invalid rule. Petitioner properly filed its petition for an administrative determination of the validity of a rule and the two petitions were consolidated for hearing purposes. The "rule" being challenged herein contains revised wasteload allocations for four municipalities in Polk and Hardee Counties. These four include Bartow, Ft. Meade, Bowling Green and Wauchula, each of which discharges effluent into the Upper Peace River Basin. As noted above, these allocations are set forth in an interoffice memorandum dated September 8, 1977, and were not adopted pursuant to the rulemaking provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Wasteload allocations are derived from mathematical calculations fed into a scientific model. They are based upon information pertaining to the treatment plant, the type of effluent, the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the receiving waters and the number and nature of other discharges to the receiving waters. In developing said allocations, the respondent relies upon information received from the applicant, as well as existing water quality data from the Environmental Protection Agency, United States Geological data, local programs and university studies. The purpose of developing wasteload allocations is to determine the chemical effect of the discharge upon the receiving body of water and to determine whether a certain volume of effluent treated to a specified degree will depress water quality below the standard established for a particular class of water. Wasteload allocations are calculated by the respondent for each individual discharger to determine whether a reduction in water quality will occur. When an application for a discharge permit is made to respondent, allocations for several dischargers in close proximity affecting the same portion of a body of water may be calculated at the same time, as was done in the September 8th memorandum. However, the other individual allocations become effective and applicable only when those dischargers seek a permit from the respondent. At that time, the allocation is revisited and recalculated based upon the most recent, available information and data. The wasteload allocations have applicability only when a facility seeks a permit to discharge effluents into surfaced waters. In the State of Florida, there are approximately 1,300 domestic and municipal sewage treatment plants and 230 industrial dischargers. A uniform wasteload allocation for 1,530 dischargers would be impossible and meaningless because each has its own unique characteristics based upon the type and method of discharge and the nature of the receiving body of water. Accordingly, the wasteload allocations are established by respondent on a case by case basis in the permitting process. Approximately 1.6 million dollars in capital expenditures will be necessitated in order for petitioner to comply with the wasteload allocations established by the respondent. There would also be increases in operating and management costs for new capital improvements. Alternative methods of sewage treatment may be undertaken by the petitioner.
The Issue Whether the costs incurred by the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Emergency Response (Department) in connection with its response to Incident Number 97-02-0234 may be recovered from Petitioner pursuant to Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Department is a state regulatory agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes. Orchard View Development, Limited (Orchard View) is an Ontario, Canada corporation. Its president is William T. Lamsom. Orchard View is now, and has been since approximately two to six months prior to the incident which is the subject of this proceeding, the owner of a triangular, three-quarter acre parcel of undeveloped land (Orchard View's Parcel or the Parcel) located on the fringe of a Boca Raton, Florida residential neighborhood. There are children in the neighborhood who pass by the Parcel on their way to and from school. City streets border Orchard View's Parcel on all sides. Across one of these streets is a creek. Orchard View owns an additional 78 acres of undeveloped land (Orchard View's Acreage or the Acreage) to the north of its Parcel. Only a street separates the Acreage from the Parcel. Orchard View first acquired the Acreage in approximately 1975 and sold it about 14 or 15 years later. During this 14 or 15-year period, the Acreage was used by others, without Orchard View's approval or authorization, as a dumping ground. Numerous items, including boats, automobiles, tires, baby carriages, mattresses and landscaping material, were left abandoned on the property. Steps taken by Orchard View (which was well aware of the problem) to deter such dumping, including posting "no trespassing" signs on the property and erecting a 10-foot dirt barrier on one side of the property, were ineffective. Orchard View also complained to the police about the problem, but the making of these complaints did not result in an amelioration of the situation. Orchard View reacquired the Acreage at approximately the same time it acquired the Parcel. Since Orchard View's reacquisition of the Acreage, unauthorized persons have driven their all-terrain vehicles on the property without the approval or authorization of Orchard View, notwithstanding the "no trespassing" signs on the property. Although aware of the dumping problems in the area, Orchard View has not, at any time after its acquisition of the Parcel, posted "no trespassing" signs on the Parcel or erected a fence or other barrier around the Parcel, nor has it taken any other measure designed to discourage or prevent dumping on the Parcel. On June 9, 1997, at 11:10 a.m., the Department was notified by Lieutenant John Johnson of the Boca Raton Fire Department that four drums, which were labelled “poison and toxic,” had been discovered on the Parcel. The drums did not belong to Orchard View. They had been dumped on the Parcel by some person or persons not associated with Orchard View without Orchard View's knowledge, approval or authorization. Catherine Porthouse, an Environmental Specialist II with the Department, promptly responded to the scene (where she met Lieutenant Johnson) and served as the Department's on-scene coordinator. Because the drums were labelled “poison and toxic” and their contents were unknown, Lieutenant Johnson would not allow anyone, including Porthouse, to approach the drums without "Level B" protective clothing and equipment. Porthouse therefore initially viewed the drums from a distance using binoculars. She noted that three of the drums were leaking and that there was stained soil in the area of the drums. She also saw other solid waste materials nearby. Porthouse learned that Orchard View was the owner of the property on which the drums were located. At 12:49 p.m. on June 9, 1997, Porthouse telephoned Lamson and advised him that the drums were on the Parcel and that they needed to be removed by an "emergency response contractor." When informed about the presence of the drums on the Parcel, Lamson was not surprised. He realized (as he testified at hearing) that the area was "a good dumping ground." Lamson told Porthouse that he would ask his son, a general contractor who lived and worked near the Parcel, to remove the drums. Porthouse, however, explained to Lamson that the removal of the drums needed to be done by someone qualified, under state and federal law, to handle and transport hazardous substances. Lamson thereupon asked Porthouse to provide him with a list of "emergency response contractors" qualified to remove the drums. Porthouse gave Lamson her office and cellular phone numbers and asked him to call her back within no more than three hours to update her on his efforts to hire an "emergency response contractor" to remove the drums. Following Porthouse's telephone conversation with Lamson, the Department faxed to Lamson the list of qualified contractors Lamson had requested during the telephone conversation. After speaking with Porthouse, Lamson attempted to telephone his son. Lamson's son was not in, so Lamson left a message on his son's answering machine telling his son about his telephone conversation with Porthouse concerning the abandoned drums on the Parcel. In his message, Lamson asked that his son look into the matter. Neither Lamson, nor his son, made any arrangements for a qualified "emergency response contractor" to remove the drums from the Parcel; nor did either of them contact Porthouse and advise her that such arrangements had been made or would soon be made. Accordingly, at approximately 4:00 p.m. on June 9, 1997, after having waited over three hours for Lamson to provide her with such information, Porthouse hired Magnum Environmental Services (Magnum), a qualified "emergency response contractor" with whom the Department had a contract, to properly dispose of the four abandoned drums (and their contents), as well as the stained soil, on the Parcel. Magnum personnel (with "Level B" protective clothing and equipment) responded to the scene shortly thereafter. By approximately 6:30 or 7:00 p.m. that day (June 9, 1997), Magnum personnel had overpacked, removed from the Parcel and taken to an off-site hazardous waste storage facility the four abandoned drums (and their contents), as well as a fifth drum which contained the stained soil from the site (which Magnum had excavated). Before it had overpacked the drums and removed them from the Parcel, Magnum had examined and sampled the contents of each drum. The samples that Magnum had collected from the drums were sent to the laboratory for analysis. The analysis revealed the following: drum number 11 contained oil, barium, lead and toluene and had a flashpoint of less than 100 degrees Fahrenheit; drum number 2 contained oil mixed with water, as well as barium, lead and chromium, and had of flashpoint of between 101 and 139 degrees Fahrenheit; drum number 3 contained oil mixed with water, as well as barium and lead, and had of flashpoint of between 101 and 139 degrees Fahrenheit; drum number 4 contained oil mixed with water, as well as barium, lead and chromium, and had of flashpoint of over 200 degrees Fahrenheit; drum number 5 contained the soil that had been contaminated by spillage from drum numbers 2, 3 and 4 and had of flashpoint of between 101 and 139 degrees Fahrenheit. Magnum properly disposed of the drums based upon the results of its analysis. The Department paid Magnum $6,135.00 from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund for the services Magnum performed. In requesting Magnum to perform these services and in paying Magnum $6,135.00 for having done so, the Department acted reasonably and prudently. The amount it paid Magnum was not excessive.2 The Department reasonably incurred other expenses (also paid from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund) totaling $390.13 in connection with its response to the report it had received concerning the abandonment of the four drums on the Parcel. The total amount the Department paid from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund to have these abandoned drums properly removed from the Parcel and disposed of was $6,525.13. The Department is requesting that Orchard View reimburse the Department for these costs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department finding that it is entitled to recover from Orchard View, pursuant to Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes, the $6,525.13 in costs it reasonably incurred in connection with its response to Incident Number 97-02-0234. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 15th day of June, 1998.
