C. PREVATT, d/b/a )
RIVERVIEW SPEED WASH, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 82-356
) STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT ) OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, an administrative hearing was held before Diane D. Tremor, Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings, on July 15, 1982 in the Hillsborough County Courthouse, Tampa, Florida. The issue for determination at the hearing was whether petitioner is entitled to a temporary operation permit for his coin operated laundry facility located in Riverview, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: L. C. Prevatt
Post Office Box 998 Gibsonton, Florida 33534
For Respondent: William W. Deane
Assistant General Counsel 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner requested an administrative hearing after he received notice from the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) that it intended to deny his application for a temporary operation permit for the Riverview Speed Wash, a coin operated laundry. At the hearing, Mr. Prevatt testified, but presented no other witnesses or documentary evidence. The respondent DER presented the testimony of Eugene V. Elliott, a permitting engineer with the DER's Tampa office, who was accepted as an expert in the area of civil environmental engineering; William J. Harper, an environmental engineer with the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission; and William A. McRae, Jr., with DER's enforcement section in the area of industrial and domestic waste water.
Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 3 were received into evidence.
Subsequent to the hearing, the respondent submitted a proposed recommended order and the petitioner submitted a letter setting forth his position on the issues. To the extent that the proposed findings of fact contained in these post-hearing documents are not included in this Recommended Order, they are
rejected as being either not supported by competent substantial evidence adduced at the hearing or as being irrelevant and immaterial to the issues in dispute in this proceeding.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found:
Petitioner L. C. Prevatt is the owner and operator of the Riverview Speed Wash, Inc., a coin operated laundry which has been in existence for over ten years. The facility has twelve top load washers, four double load washers, one triple load washer and seven gas dryers. It is open from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., seven days a week. The facility is located in a shopping center in space which petitioner rents on a month-by-month basis. The facility utilizes a 0.0075 mgd waste treatment plant with effluent disposal to a county-owned drainage ditch which is connected and discharges to the Alafia River approximately 0.6 miles south of the facility.
On or about May 29, 1981, petitioner submitted an application for a temporary operation permit for his Riverview laundry facility. Temporary operation permits are issued by the DER when a facility is not currently meeting State water quality standards and the applicant needs or desires a period of time to bring the facility up to the applicable standards. Here, the petitioner stated on his application that no upgrade of the waste treatment facility was planned. The application further stated that the facility would be connected to an area wide regional waste treatment system when that system became available.
After numerous requests for further information from the applicant and various inspections of the facility, the DER issued its notice of intent to deny petitioner's application for a temporary operation permit. Reasons for the intended denial included failure to provide requested background water quality information, failure to provide a proposed water quality standards compliance schedule, failure to provide reasonable assurance that a municipal sewer would be available as an alternative means of disposal and improper and deficient operation and maintenance of the facility.
Numerous inspections of the petitioner's facility by personnel from the DER and the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission revealed that the facility was not functional in terms of operating correctly and that the design of the plant was inadequate to meet State water quality standards. Specifically, these inspections revealed that the chlorination equipment was not operational, that the trickling filter was not operational, that the removal rates for BOD and suspended solids were consistently and significantly less than the State standard of 90 percent, that the discharge and effluent were of a milky color and would not meet the State standards for turbidity and color, that the water quality of the drainage ditch was extremely low and that the water quality results were actually worse after going through the existing system. It was determined that the discharge was degrading the quality of the receiving waters and that, even if the petitioner's operational and maintenance problems were solved, the design of the facility is not adequate to assure future compliance with State standards.
Petitioner admits that his facility does not currently meet State water quality standards. In mitigation, it is contended that many other laundries in the area also do not meet State standards, that it is not economically feasible to redesign the facility to attain compliance, that he has no land available
upon which to discharge effluent and that he would be willing to install a sand filter and did have the permission of the manager (not the owner) of the property to discharge effluent into the parking lot drain ponds. No written evidence of this agreement was adduced and there was no demonstration that such runoff ponds would be able to hold and/or treat effluent from the petitioner's facility. There was also no evidence offered to demonstrate that a municipal or regional sewer system would be available in the near future to serve the laundry facility.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The requirements for the Issuance of a temporary operation permit are set forth in Section 403.088(4)(c), Florida Statutes. The applicant bears the burden of providing reasonable assurance that these requirements have been met. Rule 17-4.07, Florida Administrative Code.
In this case, the only demonstration made by the petitioner Is that the discharge from his laundry facility does not qualify for an operation permit. This is a necessary prerequisite but, standing alone, It does not entitle one to a temporary operation permit. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he either is, or has submitted plans and reasonable schedules for, constructing, installing or placing into operation an approved pollution abatement facility or alternate waste disposal system. It has not been demonstrated that there is no feasible and acceptable method of treatment or disposal for petitioner's waste. Florida Statutes, Section 403.088(4)(c)(2). Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that there is no present, reasonable alternative means of disposing of the waste (Section 403.088(4)(c)(4)), that the granting of a temporary operation Permit would be in the public interest (Section 403.088(4)(c)(6)), or that the discharge would not be unreasonably destructive to the quality of the receiving water (Section 403.088(4)(c)(7)). Indeed, the undisputed evidence is that the effluent being discharged is in violation of State water quality standards and that the present discharge is degrading the quality of the receiving waters. While the applicant has orally consented to install a sand filter, no plans or schedule for otherwise complying with the State standards have been submitted by the petitioner. Absent such evidence, the petitioner has failed to provide the DER with reasonable assurance that the laundry facility meets the requirements for the issuance of a temporary operation permit.
