05-002984
Indian Trail Improvement District vs.
Department Of Environmental Protection And Palm Beach County Water Utilities Department
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Tuesday, October 18, 2005.
Recommended Order on Tuesday, October 18, 2005.
1STATE OF FLORIDA
4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
8TROY AND TRACEY LEE; JOSEPH )
14ACQUAOTTA AND LISA GABLER; )
19ANTHONY AND VERONICA DALY; )
24MICHAEL D'ORDINE AND ANN E. )
30HAWKINS; LISA LANDER; and )
35INDIAN TRAIL IMPROVEMENT )
39DISTRICT, )
41)
42Petitioners, ) Case Nos. 05 - 2979
49) 05 - 2980
53vs. ) 05 - 2981
58) 05 - 2982
62PALM BEACH COUNTY and ) 05 - 2983
70DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ) 05 - 2984
77PROTECTION, )
79)
80Respondents. )
82____________ ____________________)
84RECOMMENDED ORDER
86Pursuant to notice, these matters were heard before the
95Division of Administrative Hearings by its assigned
102Administrative Law Judge, Donald R. Alexander, on September
11013, 14, and 15, 2005, in West Palm Beach, Flo rida.
121APPEARANCES
122For Petitioners: Michael D'Ordine
126(Case No. 05 - 2982) Ann E. Hawkins
1344474 140th Avenue North
138Royal Palm Beach, Florida 33411 - 8464
145For Petitioner: Lisa Lander
149(Case No. 05 - 2983) 13881 40th Street North
158Royal Palm Beach, Florida 33411 - 8491
165For Petitioner: Anthony D. Lehman, Esquire
171(Case No. 05 - 2984) Hunton & Williams, LLP
180Bank of America Plaza, Suite 4100
186600 Peachtree Street, Northeast
190Atlanta, Georgia 30308 - 2216
195William D. Preston, Esquire
199William D. Preston, P.A.
2034832 - A Kerry Forrest Parkway
209Tallahassee, Florida 32308 - 2272
214For Respondent: Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire
220(Department) Justin G. Wolfe, Esquire
225Department of Environmental Protect ion
2303900 Commonwealth Boulevard
233Mail Station 35
236Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000
241For Respondent: Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire
250(County) de la Parte & Gilb ert, P.A.
258Post Office Box 2350
262Tampa, Florida 33601 - 2350
267Amy Taylor Petrick, Esquire
271Palm Beach County Attorney's Office
276301 North Oli ve Avenue, Suite 601
283West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 - 4705
290STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
294The issue is whether Palm Beach County's application for
303a permit to construct a domestic wastewater
310collection/transmission system in Palm Beach Cou nty should be
319approved.
320PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
322On May 12, 2005, Respondent, Department of Environmental
330Protection (Department), issued its Notice of Permit Issuance
338(Notice), which proposed to issue Permit No. 0048923 - 017 - DWC
350(Permit) to Respondent, Palm B each County (County),
358authorizing the construction of a domestic wastewater
365collection/transmission system. The Permit allows the
371construction of a wastewater collection and transmission
378system to serve the Palm Beach County Research Village
387(Village), wh ich will be home of the Scripps Florida
397Biomedical Research Institution and Campus (Scripps Project)
404in an unincorporated area of the County.
411On August 15, 2005, Petitioners, Troy and Tracey Lee,
420Joseph Acquaotta and Lisa Gabler, Anthony and Veronica Dal y,
430Michael D'Ordine and Ann E. Hawkins, and Lisa Lander, who
440reside in the area where the transmission line will be
450constructed, filed with the Department five identical,
457untitled papers challenging the proposed agency action. These
465papers were treated as formal petitions and were forwarded by
475the Department to the Division of Administrative Hearings
483(DOAH) on August 18, 2005, with a request that an
493administrative law judge be assigned to conduct a hearing.
502The Petitions have been assigned DOAH Case Nos. 05 - 2979
513through 05 - 2983. On August 15, 2005, Petitioner, Indian Trail
524Improvement District (ITID), also filed with the Department a
533Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing (Petition)
539challenging the same proposed agency action. That Petition
547was forwa rded to DOAH on August 18, 2005, and has been
559assigned DOAH Case No. 05 - 2984. By Order dated August 23,
5712005, all cases were consolidated.
576On August 22, 2005, the Department filed a Motion for
586Summary Hearing Pursuant to Section 403.973(15)(b), F.S.
593(Mo tion). The Motion was later joined in by the County. That
605statute requires in part that "summary proceedings must be
614conducted within 30 days after a party files the motion for
625summary hearing, regardless of whether the parties agree to
634the summary proce eding." Because the project qualifies for an
644expedited hearing, the Motion was granted and the cases were
654scheduled for a final hearing on September 13 - 15, 2005, in
666West Palm Beach, Florida.
670At the beginning of the final hearing, the undersigned
679granted the Department's and County's ore tenus motion in
688limine to exclude the introduction of evidence regarding
696certain real estate disputes between ITID and the County on
706the ground that those disputes should be adjudicated by the
716circuit court.
718At the final hearing, the Department presented the
726testimony of Robert E. Heilman, a professional engineer,
734Pretreatment Coordinator, and accepted as an expert; Timothy
742W. Powell, a professional engineer, Wastewater Permitting
749Supervisor, and accepted as an expert; and Michael W.
758Bechtold, a professional engineer, Senior Permitter, and
765accepted as an expert. Also, it offered Department Exhibits
7741 - 3, and 7, which were received in evidence. The County
786presented the testimony of Robert Walker, a professional
794engineer, Ex ecutive Director of UniBell PVC Pipe Association,
803and accepted as an expert; Brian A. Shields, a professional
813engineer, Director of Engineering of the Water Utilities
821Department, and accepted as an expert; Leisha Pica, a
830professional engineer, Deputy Direc tor of the Water Utilities
839Department, and accepted as an expert; and Bevin A. Beaudet, a
850professional engineer, director of the Water Utilities
857Department, and accepted as an expert. Also, it offered
866County Exhibits 1 - 21, 23, 36, 39, 92, 93, 107, 122, 12 4 - 127,
882129, 142 - 145, 151A and B, 152, and 153, which were received in
896evidence.
897Petitioners in Case Nos. 05 - 2979 and 05 - 2981 did not
910appear at the final hearing. One of the Petitioners in Case
921No. 05 - 2980, Joseph Acquaotta (but not Lisa Gabler, who also
933signed the Petition), appeared as a witness on the final day
944of the hearing. Petitioners in Case No. 05 - 2982, Michael
955D'Ordine and Ann E. Hawkins, testified on their own behalf.
965Petitioner in Case No. 05 - 2983, Lisa Lander, testified on her
977own behalf an d presented the testimony of Alexandria Larson,
987who resides in the area. Also, she offered Lander Exhibits 1,
9982, 3A - W, and 4 - 6, which were received in evidence.
1011ITID presented the testimony of Christopher Karch, a
1019professional engineer and vice - presiden t of its Board of
1030Supervisors; and David L. Farabee, a professional engineer and
1039accepted as an expert. Also, it offered ITID Exhibits 1 and
10502, which were received in evidence.
1056Finally, official recognition has been taken of the
1064following matters: a co py of an Order denying ITID's Renewed
1075Motion for Temporary Injunction in Case No.
1082502005CA000965XXXXMB, Indian Trail Improvement District v.
1088Palm Beach County (Cir. Ct., 15th Jud. Cir.); the Recommended
1098and Final Orders issued in DOAH Case No. 04 - 4492GM; t he
1111Recommended Order issued in DOAH Case Nos. 04 - 4336GM, 04 -
11234337GM, and 04 - 4650GM; and the Recommended Standards for
1133Wastewater Facilities (1997 Edition), more commonly referred
1140to as the Ten State Standards.
1146The Transcript of the hearing (five volumes) was filed on
1156September 19, 2005. By agreement of the parties, proposed
1165findings of fact and conclusions of law were due on September
117629, 2005. Filings were timely made by Lander and D'Ordine
1186(jointly), ITID, the County, and the Department, and they have
1196been considered by the undersigned in the preparation of this
1206Recommended Order.
1208FINDINGS OF FACT
1211Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of
1221fact are determined:
1224A. Parties
12261. The County is a political subdivision of the State of
1237Flori da and is the permittee in this matter. The County Water
1249Utilities Department currently serves approximately 425,000
1256persons, making it the largest utility provider in Palm Beach
1266County and the third largest in the State of Florida.
12762. ITID is an indep endent water control special district
1286created by special act of the legislature in 1957 and whose
1297boundaries lie within the County. Portions of the
1305transmission line to be constructed by the County will cross
1315easements and roads, and pass under canals, ow ned by ITID.
13263. Petitioners Joseph Acqualotta, Michael D'Ordine, Ann
1333E. Hawkins, and Lisa Lander all live in areas in close
1344proximity to the proposed transmission line. Lander lives
1352adjacent to the proposed route of the line along 40th Street
1363North, whil e Acqualotta, D'Ordine, and Hawkins live adjacent
1372to the proposed route along 140th Avenue North. Acqualotta,
1381Hawkins (but not D'Ordine, who resides with Hawkins), and
1390Lander own the property where they reside. Petitioners Troy
1399and Tracey Lee (Case No. 0 5 - 2979), Lisa Gabler (Case No. 05 -
14142980), and Anthony and Veronica Daly (Case No. 05 - 2982) did
1426not appear at the final hearing.
14324. The Department is an agency of the State of Florida
1443authorized to administer the provisions of Part I of Chapter
1453403, Florida Statutes, and is the state agency charged with
1463the responsibility of issuing domestic wastewater collection/
1470transmission permits under Section 403.087, Florida Statutes
1477(2004) . 1
1480B. Background
14825. On December 15, 2004, the County filed its
1491application wi th the Department for an individual permit to
1501construct a domestic wastewater collection/transmission system
1507(Transmission Line). The Transmission Line is one element of
1516the County's Northern Region Utilities Improvement Project
1523(Project) and will be appr oximately 41,050 feet long and
1534comprised of approximately 32,350 linear feet of 20 - inch force
1546main and 18,700 linear feet of 30 - inch force main (or nearly
1560ten miles in length).
15646. A primary purpose of the Project is to provide water
1575and wastewater servi ce to the Village, a 1,900 acre parcel
1587located in the unincorporated part of the County several miles
1597west of the Florida Turnpike, south of State Road 710, and
1608north of the Villages of Wellington and Royal Palm Beach. The
1619Village will be the home of the Scripps Project and Campus.
1630The Transmission Line will run from the southeastern corner of
1640the Village south to Northlake Boulevard, then east to 140th
1650Avenue North, then south along that roadway to 40th Street
1660North, where it turns east until it intercon nects with
1670existing facilities.
16727. The wastewater will be collected in a regional pump
1682station on the Scripps Project site, where it will be pumped
1693through the Transmission Line to the East Central Plant, which
1703will be the primary treatment facility. The East Central
1712Plant is owned and operated by the City of West Palm Beach
1724(City), but the County owns between forty and forty - five
1735percent of the treatment capacity. Because the wastewater
1743system is interconnected, the wastewater could also be treated
1752at t he County's Southern Regional Plant. Ultimately, the flow
1762from the Scripps Project will be one or two million gallons
1773per day.
17758. The Transmission Line is the only way that wastewater
1785can be handled at the Scripps Project. A preliminary analysis
1795by th e Department and the South Florida Water Management
1805District determined that on - site treatment was not feasible
1815because of the environmentally sensitive nature of the area.
18249. The Scripps Project will include residential units,
1832commercial entities, and institutional uses, such as medical
1840clinics. Besides serving these customers, the Transmission
1847Line will also serve other customers in the area. The County
1858has already signed agreements with the Beeline Community
1866Development District (which lies a few mi les northwest of the
1877Village) and the Village of Royal Palm Beach (which lies
1887several miles south - southeast of the Village). At the time of
1899the hearing, the County anticipated that it would also sign an
1910agreement with Seacoast Utility Authority (whose ser vice area
1919is located just southeast of the Village) to transport
1928wastewater through the Transmission Line.
193310. All of the treatment facilities have sufficient
1941existing capacity to treat the estimated amount of domestic
1950wastewater that will be generated by the Scripps Project and
1960the other users that will discharge to the Line.
196911. The County commenced construction of the
1976Transmission Line in May 2005 when the Department issued the
1986Permit. On August 2, 2005, the County published the
1995Department's Notice to issue the Permit, and once the
2004Petitions were filed, the County stopped construction pending
2012the outcome of this hearing. Approximately seventy percent of
2021the Transmission Line is now completed. The Permit does not
2031allow the Transmission Line to be u sed until it is pressure
2043tested and certified complete. Upon completion, the County
2051must receive an Approval to Place a Domestic Wastewater
2060Collection/Transmission System into Operation from the
2066Department. Such approval is given only after the County ha s
2077given reasonable assurance that adequate transmission,
2083treatment, and disposal is available in accordance with
2091Department standards. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62 - 604.700.
210112. On August 15, 2005, Petitions challenging the
2109issuance of the Permit were fil ed by ITID and the individual
2121Petitioners. ITID contends that the Transmission Line will
2129convey not only domestic wastewater, but also industrial
2137waste; that the County did not comply with all applicable
2147technical standards and criteria required under the
2154Department's rules; that the Project will be located on ITID's
2164right - of - way, on which the County has no right to occupy; that
2179the Project will be located within seventy - five feet from
2190private drinking wells and does not provide an equivalent
2199level of reli ability and public health protection; and that
2209the pipe material and pressure design is inappropriate for the
2219Transmission Line's requirements. The individual Petitioners
2225(who filed identical Petitions) are mainly concerned about the
2234location of the Trans mission Line in relation to their private
2245drinking wells and property, the possibility of the pipe
2254bursting or leaking once it becomes operational, and the
2263restoration of their property to its original condition after
2272construction is completed.
227513. As to the property claims by all Petitioners, the
2285County plans to place the Transmission Line in property that
2295it either owns or has an easement, in property that it is in
2308the process of condemning, or in a public right of way. While
2320the County acknowledges th at it has already placed, and
2330intends to place other portions of, the Transmission Line in
2340easements that ITID says it has the exclusive right to use and
2352for which a permit from ITID is required, the County alleges
2363that it also has the right to use those e asements without an
2376ITID permit. The dispute between the County and ITID is the
2387subject of a circuit court proceeding in Palm Beach County,
2397and neither the Department nor DOAH has the authority to
2407decide property interests.
2410C. Petitioners' Objections
2413a . Domestic wastewater and pretreatment
241914. The wastewater that will be generated by the Scripps
2429Project is considered domestic wastewater; it will not include
2438industrial wastewater. Waste that is industrial or non -
2447domestic must be pretreated to protect the wastewater plant,
2456collection system, and the health of system workers and the
2466general public.
246815. The Department administers a pretreatment program
2475through which it requires a public wastewater utility to
2484police the entities that discharge to their wastewater plants.
2493A central part of the pretreatment program is the local
2503ordinance that gives legal authority to the utility to permit,
2513inspect, and take enforcement action against industrial users
2521who are part of the pretreatment program. The utility files
2531an annual report with an industrial user survey, and the
2541Department periodically inspects and audits local pretreatment
2548programs to ensure they are being operated as intended. The
2558system is not failsafe but is designed to ensure that
2568potentially har mful wastes are rendered harmless before
2576discharge. For example, the utility has the authority to
2585immediately shut water off if a harmful discharge is
2594occurring.
259516. Both the County and the City have pretreatment
2604programs approved by the Department. T he City has an
2614ordinance that allows it to enforce the pretreatment standards
2623for all entities that discharge to its wastewater system. The
2633County Water Utilities Department has a written pretreatment
2641manual, and the County has zoning restrictions on the
2650discharge of harmful material to the wastewater system. It
2659has also entered into an interlocal agreement under which it
2669agrees to enforce the City ordinance. The County provides
2678wastewater treatment to industrial, educational, and medical
2685facilities, and it has never experienced a discharge from any
2695of these facilities that has caused adverse health or
2704environmental impacts. The County pretreatment program for
2711the Southern Regional Facility was approved in 1997. The City
2721pretreatment program for the Eas t Central Regional Facility
2730was approved in 1980.
273417. The Scripps Project must apply for a permit from the
2745County and provide a baseline monitoring report, data on its
2755flow, and information on the flow frequency and raw materials.
2765Medical waste from the Scripps Project will be pretreated to
2775render it safe before it is discharged into the Transmission
2785Line.
2786b. Transmission Line Design
279018. The Transmission Line was designed in accordance
2798with the technical standards and criteria for wastewater
2806transmis sion lines in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62 -
2816604.300(5). That rule incorporates by reference a set of
2825standards commonly known as the Ten State Standards, which
2834contain several of the standards used in the design of this
2845project. These standards are recommended, but are not
2853mandatory, and a professional engineer should exercise his or
2862her professional judgment in applying them in any particular
2871case.
287219. The Transmission Line also meets the design
2880standards promulgated by the America Water Works As sociation
2889(AWWA). Specifically, the County used the AWWA C - 905 design
2900standard for sizing the polyvinyl chloride, or PVC, pipe used
2910in the project. The County has received written certification
2919from the manufacturer that the PVC pipe meets the standards in
2930AWWA C - 905.
293420. The Transmission Line is designed with stub - outs,
2944which will allow for future connections without an
2952interruption of service, and inline isolation valves, which
2960allow the line to be shut down for maintenance.
2969c. The Use of PVC Pipe
297521. There is no standard regulating the selection of PVC
2985pipe material in the Department's rules. Instead, the
2993Department relies on the certification of the applicant and
3002the engineer's seal that the force main will be constructed to
3013accepted engineering standards. The only specification
3019applicable to the Transmission Line is the Ten State Standard,
3029adopted and incorporated by reference in Florida
3036Administrative Code Rule 62 - 604.300(5)(g). That document
3044contains a general requirement that the material se lected have
3054a pressure rating sufficient to handle anticipated pressures
3062in wastewater transmission lines.
306622. The Transmission Line will be constructed with PVC
3075piping with a thickness of Dimension Ratio (DR) 32.5, which is
3086the ratio of the outside dia meter of the pipe to its
3098thickness. Higher ratios mean thinner - walled pipes. This is
3108not the first time the County has used 32.5 PVC piping for one
3121of its projects, and other local governments in the State have
3132used 32.5 or thinner pipe. The County is t ypically
3142conservative in requiring thicker - walled pipe, because most
3151transmission lines are built by developers, and the County is
3161unable to design the entire line or control or inspect its
3172installation. The specifications for wastewater transmission
3178line s built in the County call for the use of DR 25 pipe. On
3193this project, however, the County determined that thicker -
3202walled pipe would have been an over - design of the system
3214because the County controls the pump stations and oversees the
3224installation; theref ore, the Director of the Water Utilities
3233Department has waived that requirement.
323823. The County considers the use of DR 32.5 PVC to be
3250conservative. Although this pipe will be thinner than what is
3260typically used in the County, it satisfies the Departmen t's
3270requirements. The Department has permitted many miles of
3278similar PVC force mains in South Florida, and none have
3288failed.
328924. PVC has benefits over other transmission line
3297material, such as ductile iron. For example, PVC is more
3307corrosion resistant. Wastewater generates hydrogen sulfide as
3314it decomposes, which can form highly corrosive sulfuric acid.
3323Some of the older transmission lines in the County that were
3334made of ductile iron have corroded. PVC also has a superior
3345ability to absorb surges, su ch as cyclical surges, than
3355ductile iron. It is easier to install, and its interior flow
3366characteristics are smoother than ductile iron or pre - stressed
3376concrete pipe.
337825. Mr. Farabee, a professional engineer who testified
3386on behalf of ITID, recommended a DR 14 pipe, which is thicker -
3399walled than the DR 32.5 pipe used by the County. While he
3411opined that the DR 32.5 pipe was too thin for the project, he
3424could not definitively state that it would not pass the 150
3435per square inch (psi) pressure test. He als o opined that the
3447pipe is undersized because it will be unable to withstand the
3458surge pressures during cleaning. The witness further
3465testified that the pipe would be subject to much higher
3475pressures than 150 psi, and therefore it was impossible to
3485know wh ether the pipe would fail. In his opinion, this means
3497the Department did not have reasonable assurance for the
3506project.
350726. The County consulted with the Unibell PVC Pipe
3516Association (Unibell) in the planning of this project.
3524Unibell is a trade associa tion that provides technical support
3534for PVC pipe manufacturers. Robert Walker, a registered
3542professional engineer and Unibell's executive director who
3549testified on behalf of the County, disagreed with Mr.
3558Farabee's conclusions concerning the adequacy of the PVC pipe
3567in this project. The AWWA C - 905 standard uses a safety factor
3580of two, which means the pipes are tested at pressures that are
3592at least twice their stated design strength.
359927. Mr. Walker explained the different standards that
3607apply to PVC pi pe. DR 32.5 pipe, which is used in this
3620project, has a minimum interior pressure rating of 125 pounds
3630per square psi. Each pipe section is tested before it is
3641shipped at 250 psi, and the minimum burst pressure for the
3652material is in excess of 400 psi. T he pipe also meets a 1000 -
3667hour test at 270 psi. In light of these standards and
3678testing, the pipe will pass the two - hour 150 psi test required
3691by the Department.
369428. Mr. Farabee expressed some concern that the PVC pipe
3704would be more prone to breakage t han ductile iron or thicker
3716PVC. However, the PVC pipe standards provide that the pipe
3726can be flattened at sixty percent without splitting, cracking,
3735or breaking. At shallow depths on dirt roads, ovalation,
3744which occurs when PVC is flattened through pres sure, will
3754initially occur, but over time the soil around the pipe will
3765become compacted and result in re - rounding of the pipe. The
3777joints are three times stiffer than the body of the pipe,
3788which will protect the joint from excessive ovalation and
3797leaking , and the use of mechanical restrained joints will
3806further strengthen the joints. There has been no joint
3815leakage in Florida due to deflection of the joints. Finally,
3825there have been no failures of PVC pipe caused by three - feet
3838of fill, which is the dept h to which the Transmission Line
3850pipe will be buried.
385429. To further protect the pipe, the County optimized
3863its pumping system to avoid cyclical surges by using variable
3873frequency drive pumps that gradually increase and decrease
3881speed rather than just tu rning on or off. In addition, the
3893pump stations are fed by two power lines that come from
3904different directions and emergency generators, which should
3911lessen the chances of harmful surging.
3917d. Testing the Installation
392130. The anticipated pressures in t he Transmission Line
3930will likely be about 50 psi. After installation, the Line
3940will be pressure tested at 150 psi for two hours, which is
3952sufficient to provide the Department with reasonable assurance
3960that the Line will hold pressure and will not leak. A lso, the
3973County contract inspectors are on the construction site daily.
3982If problems with the installation arise later, the County has
3992committed to promptly fix the problem, even if it means
4002digging up the line.
400631. During the hearing, ITID asserted tha t the Uniform
4016Policies and Procedure Manual standards, which the County has
4025adopted for use by developers when constructing wastewater
4033transmission lines, should be applied to the County as well.
4043This standard, which requires pressure testing to 200 psi f or
4054PVC pipes larger than 24 inches, has not been adopted by the
4066Department and is not an applicable Department permitting
4074standard. Even if it did apply, the Transmission Line would
4084meet this criterion because it is designed to withstand 270
4094psi for at le ast 1,000 hours.
410232. Mr. Farabee believed that the entire Transmission
4110Line would be pressure tested after the construction was
4119complete, which would require digging up sections of the pipe
4129to install bulkheads. However, this assessment of the
4137County's te sting program is incorrect.
414333. Leisha Pica, Deputy Director of the Water Utilities
4152Department, developed the schedule for the project, helped
4160develop the phasing of the work and budget, and oversaw the
4171technical aspects. She stated that the County has
4179successfully tested approximately fifty percent of the line
4187that was already installed at 150 psi for two hours and not a
4200single section of the line failed the test.
4208e. Compaction
421034. The County has stringent backfilling and compaction
4218requirements, w hich are sufficient to ensure the pipe will be
4229properly installed and that there will be adequate compaction
4238of the fill material. The County plans and specifications
4247provide that compaction must be to ninety - five percent of the
4259American Association of St ate Highway and Transportation
4267Officials (AASHTO) standards for non - paved surfaces and one
4277hundred percent of AASHTO standards for paved surfaces. Even
4286ITID's expert agreed that the compaction specifications are
4294sufficient.
429535. Mr. Farabee contended, h owever, that even though the
4305standards are stringent, the County cannot properly test the
4314installation for compliance with the standards. Mr. Farabee
4322believed that testing of the backfill would be done after all
4333of the construction was complete. In that case, he did not
4344see how the testing could be done without digging many holes
4355to check for the density of the backfill. These assumptions,
4365however, are incorrect.
436836. The evidence shows that a total of two hundred
4378sixty - four compaction tests have already been done on the
4389portion of the Transmission Line that was completed. No part
4399of the installation failed the tests. The County has an
4409inspector who observes the installation and pressure tests.
4417The compaction was tested at every driveway and major roadw ay,
4428as well as every five hundred feet along the route. While
4439Lander and D'Ordine pointed out at hearing that no compaction
4449tests have been performed on the dirt roads which run adjacent
4460to their property and on which construction has taken place,
4470the Dep artment requires that, before the work is certified as
4481complete, non - paved roads must be compacted in accordance with
4492AASHTO standards in order to assure that there is adequate
4502compaction of the fill material.
4507f. The Sufficiency of the Application
451337. Whe n an application for an individual transmission/
4522collection line permit is filed with the Department, the
4531applicant certifies that the design of the pipeline complies
4540with the Department's standards. However, not all of the
4549details of the construction wil l be included in the permit
4560application. The Department relies on the design engineer to
4569certify that the materials used are appropriate. The
4577application form is also signed and sealed by a professional
4587engineer registered in the State of Florida.
459438. All plans submitted by the County, including the
4603original, modifications, and final version, were certified by
4611professional engineers registered in the State of Florida.
4619After receiving the application, the Department requested
4626additional information bef ore issuing the permit, and the
4635County provided all requested information. The original
4642construction plans that were submitted with the application
4650were changed in response to the Department's requests for
4659additional information. The Permit issued by the Department
4667indicates the Transmission Line would be constructed with
4675ductile iron pipe, but this was a typographical error.
468439. ITID maintains that all of the technical
4692specifications for the project must be included in the
4701application, and because no s eparate engineering report was
4710prepared by the County with the application, the County did
4720not meet that standard. While the County did not submit an
4731engineering report, it did submit sufficient data to provide
4740reasonable assurance that the project will c omply will all
4750applicable rules of the Department. As a part of its
4760application package, the County submitted construction plans,
4767which contain the specifications required by the Department.
4775Also, the general notes included in the construction drawings
4784s pecify the use of restrained joints where appropriate, the
4794selection of pipe material, the pressure testing of the
4803Transmission Line, and other engineering requirements. In
4810addition, the plans contain numerous other conditions, which
4818are also specificatio ns sufficient to fulfill the Department's
4827requirements. Finally, further explanation and clarification
4833of the technical aspects of the application was given by the
4844County at the final hearing.
484940. At the same time, the Department engineer who
4858oversaw the permitting of this project, testified that a
4867detailed engineering report was not necessary. This engineer
4875has extensive experience in permitting transmission lines for
4883the Department and has worked on over five hundred permits for
4894wastewater transmission and collection systems. The
4900undersigned has accepted his testimony that in a relatively
4909straightforward permit such as this, the application and
4917attachments themselves can function as a sufficient
4924engineering evaluation. This is especially true here sinc e
4933the County is seeking only approval of a pipeline project,
4943which would not authorize the receipt of wastewater flow
4952unless other wastewater facilities are permitted.
4958g. Impacts on Public and Private Drinking Water Wells
496741. As part of the design of the Transmission Line, the
4978County located public and private drinking water wells in the
4988area of the line. County personnel walked the route of the
4999Transmission Line and looked for private wells and researched
5008the site plans for all of the properties along th e route. No
5021public wells were found within one - hundred feet of the
5032Transmission Line route, but they did find seventeen private
5041wells that are within seventy - five feet of the line. None of
5054the Petitioners have private wells that are within seventy -
5064five f eet of the line. While Petitioners D'Ordine and Hawkins
5075initially contended that the well on Hawkins' property was
5084within seventy - five feet of the Transmission Line, at hearing
5095Mr. D'Ordine admitted that he "misread the plans and referred
5105to the wrong pro perty."
511042. In order to protect the private drinking water
5119wells, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62 - 604.400(1)(b)
5127requires that the County provide an extra level of protection
5137for the wells that are within seventy - five feet of the
5149Transmission Line. The County will provide that extra level
5158of protection by installing restrained joints that will
5166restrain the joints between the pipe sections. The restrained
5175joints are epoxy - coated mechanical devices that reduce the
5185tendency for the pipes to separate under pressure. The County
5195has used these restrained joints on its potable water and
5205wastewater lines in other areas of the County and has never
5216experienced problems with the devices. The restrained joints
5224will provide reliable protection of the private wells within
5233seventy - five feet of the Transmission Line. The Department is
5244unaware of any instances where restrained joints have failed
5253in South Florida. If more wells are discovered that are
5263within seventy - five feet of the Transmission Line, then the
5274County will excavate the Line and install restrained joints.
5283h. Minimum Separation Distances
528743. The County has complied with all applicable pipe
5296separation requirements in the installation of the
5303Transmission Line. More specifically, it is not closer than
5312si x feet horizontally from any water main and does not
5323intersect or cross any reclaimed water lines. See Fla. Admin.
5333Code R. 62 - 555.314(1)(a). It will be at least twelve inches
5345below any water main or culvert that it crosses. See Fla.
5356Admin. Code R. 62 - 55 5.314(2)(a). Finally, it will be a
5368minimum of twelve inches below any culverts that it crosses.
5378(However, the Department has no separation requirement for
5386culverts crossed by the Transmission Line.)
5392h. The M - Canal Crossing
539844. The Transmission Line must cross the M - canal, which
5409runs in an east - west direction approximately midway between
541940th Street North and Northlake Boulevard. The original
5427design called for the Transmission Line to cross above the
5437water, but the City and the Department suggested that it be
5448located below the canal to eliminate the chance that the pipe
5459could leak wastewater into the canal. In response to that
5469suggestion, the County redesigned the crossing so that a 24 -
5480inch high density polyethylene pipe in a 48 - inch casing will
5492be insta lled fifteen feet below the design bottom of the
5503canal. The polyethylene is fusion - welded, which eliminates
5512joints, and is isolated with a valve on either side of the
5524canal. Appropriate warning signs will be installed. See Fla.
5533Admin. Code R. 62 - 604.400 (2)(k)2. - 5. The depth of the
5546subaqueous line and the use of the slip line, or casing,
5557exceeds the Department's minimum standards. See Fla. Admin.
5565Code R. 62 - 604.400(2)(k)1.
5570i. Flushing Protocol
557345. Section 48.1 of the Ten State Standard recommends
5582that wastewater transmission lines maintain a velocity of two
5591feet per second. When the Transmission Line becomes
5599operational, it will not have sufficient flow to flush (or
5609clean) accumulated solids from the lines at the recommended
5618two feet per second velocit ies. (Sufficient flow will not
5628occur until other customers connect to the Transmission Line
5637during the first one to three years of operation.)
5646Accumulated solids produce gases and odors that could create a
5656problem at the treatment plant and might leak ou t of the
5668manhole covers. To address this potential problem, Specific
5676Condition 9 of the Permit requires the County to flush the
5687lines periodically. Pursuant to that Condition, the County
5695plans to flush the Transmission Line with additional water
5704which wi ll raise the velocity to three or four feet per
5716second, so that the accumulated solids will be flushed. The
5726water will be supplied by large portable tanks that will be
5737temporarily set up at several locations along the Line.
5746During the purging of the Line , sewage will collect in the
5757pump stations until the purge is finished. There is
5766sufficient capacity in the pump stations to contain the
5775wastewater. In addition, the County will use a cleansing tool
5785known as a pig, which is like a foam bullet that scrape s the
5799sides of the pipe as it is pushed through the line. This
5811protocol will be sufficient to keep the Line clean.
582046. ITID asserts that the County's plan for flushing is
5830inadequate, because it does not provide enough water for long
5840enough to flush both the 20 - inch and 30 - inch lines. Mr.
5854Farabee calculated that the County would need almost twice the
5864proposed volume, or almost six million gallons, to adequately
5873flush the lines.
587647. ITID's analysis of the flushing protocol is flawed,
5885however, because it assumes a constant flow in all segments of
5896the pipe, which is not practical. In order to maintain the
5907flushing velocity of three feet per second, the County will
5917introduce water into the Transmission Line at three separate
5926locations, resulting in a more constant flow velocity
5934throughout the Transmission Line. In this way, it can
5943maintain the proper velocity as the lines transition from a
595320 - inch to 30 - inch to 36 - inch pipe. The County has flushed
5969other lines in the past using this protocol and has had no
5981problems. This flushing protocol would only be in effect from
5991one to three years. The County estimates that the necessary
6001volumes to maintain a two - feet - per - second velocity in the 20 -
6017inch line would be reached in about one year. The 30 - inch
6030line should have sufficient flows sometime in 2008. These
6039estimates are based on the signed agreements the County has
6049with other utilities in the area to take their flows into the
6061Transmission Line. Because of these safeguards, the
6068Transmission Line will not accumu late solids that will cause
6078undesirable impacts while flow is less than two feet per
6088second.
6089D. Other Requirements
609248. The construction and operation of the Transmission
6100Line will not result in the release or disposal of sewage or
6112residuals without provid ing proper treatment. It will not
6121violate the odor prohibition in Florida Administrative Code
6129Rule 62 - 600.400(2)(a). It will not result in a cross -
6141connection as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62 -
6151550.200. The construction or operation of the Transmission
6159Line will not result in the introduction of stormwater into
6169the Line, and its operation will not result in the acceptance
6180of non - domestic wastewater that has not been properly
6190pretreated. If constructed and permitted, the Transmission
6197Line w ill be operated so as to provide uninterrupted service
6208and will be maintained so as to function as intended. The
6219record drawings will be available at the Department's district
6228office and to the County operation and maintenance personnel.
623749. Finally, c oncerns by the individual Petitioners that
6246the County may not restore their property to its original
6256condition after construction is completed are beyond the scope
6265of this proceeding. At the hearing, however, the Deputy
6274Director of the Water Utilities Dep artment represented that
6283the County would cooperate with the individual property owners
6292to assure that these concerns are fully addressed.
6300E. Reasonable Assurance
630350. The County has provided the Department with
6311reasonable assurance, based on plans, test r esults,
6319installation of equipment, and other information that the
6327construction and installation of the Transmission Line will
6335not discharge, emit, or cause pollution in contravention of
6344the Department's standards.
6347CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
635051. The Division of Administrative Hearings has
6357jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties pursuant
6366to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
637352. Because Troy and Tracey Lee (Case No. 05 - 2979), Lisa
6385Gabler (Case No. 05 - 2980), and Anthony and Veronica D aly (Case
6398No. 05 - 2983) did not appear at the final hearing and did not
6412submit any proof in support of the allegations in their
6422respective Petitions, their Petitions should be dismissed for
6430lack of standing. See , e.g. , Agrico Chemical Co. v. Dept. of
6441Envir . Reg. et al. , 406 So. 2d 478, 482 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1981);
6455§ 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. All parties agree that the remaining
6465Petitioners have standing to bring this action.
647253. As the applicant, the County has the ultimate burden
6482of showing entitlement to th e Permit. To do so, it must
6494provide the Department with reasonable assurance that the
6502proposed activity will not "discharge, emit, or cause
6510pollution in contravention of Department standards or rules."
6518Fla. Admin. Code R. 62 - 4.070(1). Reasonable assuran ce
6528contemplates only a "substantial likelihood" that the project
6536will be successfully implemented, Metropolitan Dade County v.
6544Coscan Florida, Inc. et al. , 609 So. 2d 644, 649 (Fla. 3d DCA
65571992), and not an absolute guarantee. McCormick et al. v.
6567City of Jacksonville et al. , DOAH Case No. 88 - 2283, 1989 WL
6580224961 *8 (DOAH Oct. 16, 1989, DER Jan. 22, 1989).
659054. The minimum design and operation and maintenance
6598standards for domestic wastewater collection/transmission
6603systems are found in Florida Administra tive Code Chapter 62 -
6614604. The specific technical standards that apply to the
6623Project are found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62 -
6633604.300, while the design and performance considerations are
6641found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62 - 604.400.
665055. By a preponderance of the evidence, the County has
6660established that it meets all relevant criteria for issuance
6669of the Permit. More specifically, and in the context of the
6680objections raised by Petitioners, it is concluded that the
6689County has given reason able assurance that the Transmission
6698Line is designed in accordance with Florida Administrative
6706Code Rule 62 - 604.300, which contains the general technical
6716guidance for projects such as this; that it will be
6726constructed in accordance with the Department's r ules and the
6736Permit Conditions; that the subaqueous crossing of the M - canal
6747will meet the Department's criteria; that the Transmission
6755Line will be at least one hundred feet from all public
6766drinking wells; that in those instances where the Transmission
6775Lin e is within seventy - five feet of private drinking wells the
6788County will provide an equivalent level of reliability and
6797public health protection through the use of mechanical
6805restrained joints; that the County's plan for flushing the
6814Transmission Line is ad equate; that the required separation
6823distances have been maintained; that the application and
6831supporting data, as further clarified and explained at final
6840hearing, are sufficient to show that there is a substantial
6850likelihood that the Project will be succe ssfully implemented;
6859and that the Transmission Line will be located within rights -
6870of - way,
6873property owned by the County, or easements, as contemplated by
6883Florida Administrative Code Rule 62 - 604.400(1)(b).
689056. As to the property issues that have arisen b etween
6901ITID and the County, including the issue of whether the County
6912may place the Transmission Line in easements owned by ITID
6922without an ITID permit, neither the Department nor the
6931undersigned have jurisdiction to adjudicate those claims.
6938See , e.g. , Mi ller v. Dept. of Envir. Reg. , 504 So. 2d 1325,
69511327 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Safe Harbor Enterprises, Inc. v.
6961Robbie's Safe Harbor Marine Enterprises, Inc. et al. , DOAH
6970Case No. 98 - 3695, 1999 WL 33116615 *3 (DOAH Jan. 29, 1999, DEP
6984March 12, 1999); Hageman et al. v. Dept. of Envir. Prot. et
6996al. , DOAH Case No. 94 - 6794, 1995 WL 812077 *6 (DOAH July 7,
70101995, DEP Aug. 21, 1995).
701557. Because reasonable assurance has been given by the
7024County that Department standards and rules will not be
7033contravened, and there is a substantial likelihood that the
7042project will be successfully implemented, the Permit should be
7051issued.
7052RECOMMENDATION
7053Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions
7062of Law, it is
7066RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental
7072Protection enter a final order denying all Petitions and
7081issuing Permit No. 0048923 - 017 - DWC.
7089DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2005, in
7099Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
7103S
7104DONALD R. ALEXANDER
7107Administrative Law Judge
7110Division o f Administrative Hearings
7115The DeSoto Building
71181230 Apalachee Parkway
7121Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060
7126(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675
7134Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847
7140www.doah.state.fl.us
7141Filed with the Clerk of the
7147Division of Administrative Hearings
7151this 18th day of October, 2005.
7157ENDNOTE
71581/ All references are to Florida Statutes (2004).
7166COPIES FURNISHED:
7168Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk
7172Department of Environmental Protection
71763000 Commonwealth Boulevard
7179Mail Station 35
7182Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000
7187Lisa Lander
718913881 40th Street North
7193Royal Palm Beach, Florida 33411 - 8491
7200Troy and Tracy Lee
720413881 40th Lane North
7208Royal Palm Beach, Florida 33411 - 8404
7215Joseph Acquaotta and Lisa Gabler
722013882 60th Street North
7224Royal Palm Beach, Florida 33411 - 8379
7231Anthon y and Veronica Daly
72364796 140th Avenue North
7240Royal Palm Beach, Florida 33411 - 8118
7247Michael D'Ordine and Ann E. Hawkins
72534474 140th Avenue North
7257Royal Palm Beach, Florida 33411 - 8464
7264Anthony D. Lehman, Esquire
7268Hunton & Williams, LLP
7272Bank of America Plaza, S uite 4100
7279600 Peachtree Street, Northeast
7283Atlanta, Georgia 30308 - 2216
7288William D. Preston, Esquire
7292William D. Preston, P.A.
72964832 - A Kerry Forrest Parkway
7302Tallahassee, Florida 32308 - 2272
7307Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire
7311Department of Environmental Protection
73153000 Commonwealth Boulevard
7318Mail Station 35
7321Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000
7326Amy Taylor Petrick, Esquire
7330Palm Beach County Attorney's Office
7335301 North Olive Avenue, Suite 601
7341West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 - 4705
7348Edward de la Parte, Jr., Esquire
7354De la Par te & Gilbert, P.A.
7361Post Office Box 2350
7365Tampa, Florida 33601 - 2350
7370Gregory M. Munson, General Counsel
7375Department of Environmental Protection
73793000 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35
7385Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000
7390NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIO NS
7397All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within
7407two calendar days of the date of this Recommended Order and
7418written responses to exceptions within two calendar days from
7427the filing of exceptions. Any exceptions to this Recommended
7436Order should be filed with the agency that will render a final
7448order in this matter.
- Date
- Proceedings
- PDF:
- Date: 10/18/2005
- Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held September 13, 14, and 15, 2005). CASE CLOSED.
- PDF:
- Date: 10/18/2005
- Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
- PDF:
- Date: 09/29/2005
- Proceedings: Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection`s, Proposed Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 09/29/2005
- Proceedings: Indian Trail Improvement District`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 09/21/2005
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Alexander from L. Foy enclosing exhibits as instructed at hearing filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
- Date: 09/19/2005
- Proceedings: Hearing before Administrative Law Judge Donald R. Alexander (transcript) filed.
- Date: 09/13/2005
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
- PDF:
- Date: 09/12/2005
- Proceedings: Indian Trail Improvement District`s Request for Official Recognition filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 09/12/2005
- Proceedings: Indian Trail Improvement District`s List of Potential Witnesses filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 09/12/2005
- Proceedings: Notice of Appearance of Co-counsel for Department of Environmental Protection (filed by J. Wolfe).
- PDF:
- Date: 09/09/2005
- Proceedings: Indian Trail Improvement District`s Request for Official Recognition filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 09/09/2005
- Proceedings: Palm Beach County`s and Department of Environmental Protection`s Joint Pre-hearing Statement filed.
- Date: 09/09/2005
- Proceedings: Exhibits filed. (exhibits not available for viewing)
- PDF:
- Date: 09/09/2005
- Proceedings: Palm Beach County`s and Department of Environmental Protection`s Joint Pre-hearing Statement filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 08/29/2005
- Proceedings: Order (Department of Environmental Protection`s Motion for Summary Hearing granted).
- PDF:
- Date: 08/29/2005
- Proceedings: Order (Verified Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice filed on behalf of A. Lehman granted).
- PDF:
- Date: 08/25/2005
- Proceedings: (Proposed) Order Granting Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 08/24/2005
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for September 13 through 15, 2005; 9:00 a.m.; West Palm Beach, FL).
- PDF:
- Date: 08/23/2005
- Proceedings: Order (consolidated cases are: 05-2979, 05-2980, 05-2981, 05-2982, 05-2983, and 05-2984).
- PDF:
- Date: 08/23/2005
- Proceedings: Palm Beach County Joinder in Department of Environmental Protection`s Motion for Summary Hearing filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 08/23/2005
- Proceedings: Palm Beach County Joinder in Department of Environmental Protection`s Motion for Summary Hearing filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 08/22/2005
- Proceedings: Motion for Summary Hearing Pursuant to Section 403.973(15)(b), F.S. filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 08/19/2005
- Proceedings: Palm Beach County Joinder in Department of Environmental Protection`s Motion for Consolidation filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 08/19/2005
- Proceedings: Palm Beach County Joinder in Department of Environmental Protection`s Motion for Consolidation filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 08/18/2005
- Proceedings: Notice of Related Cases and Motion to Consolidate by Respondent Department of Environmental Protection (cases 05-2983, 05-2982, 05-2981, 05-2980, 05-2979) filed.
Case Information
- Judge:
- D. R. ALEXANDER
- Date Filed:
- 08/18/2005
- Date Assignment:
- 08/19/2005
- Last Docket Entry:
- 11/02/2005
- Location:
- West Palm Beach, Florida
- District:
- Southern
- Agency:
- ADOPTED IN PART OR MODIFIED
Counsels
-
Edward P. De La Parte, Jr., Esquire
Address of Record -
Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire
Address of Record -
Mark E Grantham, Esquire
Address of Record -
Amy Taylor Petrick, Esquire
Address of Record -
William D Preston, Esquire
Address of Record -
Justin G. Wolfe, Esquire
Address of Record -
Edward P de la Parte, Jr., Esquire
Address of Record -
Edward P de la Parte, Jr., Esquire
Address of Record -
Justin G Wolfe, Esquire
Address of Record