Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Thriftway of Indiantown, is a retail food store located at 15488 Southwest Warfield Boulevard, Indiantown, Florida. It has a mailing address of Post Office Box 188, Indiantown, Florida 34956. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is charged with the administration and enforcement of Chapter 500, Florida Statutes, along with rules promulgated thereunder relating to food safety and the selling of food to the consuming public. Department food safety inspectors conducted food safety inspections at Thriftway of Indiantown's place of business on the following dates during 1995: April 4 and 19, May 4 and 18, and June 1 and 15. On each of the five inspections from April 4 through June 1, the Thriftway of Indiantown received an overall rating of "poor." These ratings resulted from the fact that on each of these five occasions the inspector observed unsanitary conditions that constituted violations of applicable statutory and rule provisions. On each of the five inspections from April 4 through June 1, most of the violations were not critical violations. Only two critical violations were noted during the subject five inspections. One critical violation was the presence of rodent droppings. The other critical violation was the presence of live roaches. Rodent droppings were observed on all five of the subject inspections. Live roaches were observed on four of the five subject inspections. The last inspection of the Thriftway of Indiantown was on June 15, 1995. On that date there were no rodent droppings, no roaches, and no other critical violations. On June 15, 1995, there were only two minor problems, which were promptly corrected, and the store received an overall rating of "fair." During the period from the "poor" rating on April 4, 1995, until the "fair" rating on June 15, 1995, the manager and owners of Thriftway of Indiantown made diligent and industrious efforts to correct all of the violations noted on all of the inspection reports from April 4, 1995, through June 15, 1995. They made continuous progress towards correcting all of the non- critical violations, but in spite of their best efforts over several weeks they were unable to resolve the rodent and roach problems until early June. During April and May of 1995 the manager and owners of Thriftway of Indiantown did everything they could think of to resolve the rodent and roach problem. They called their pest control service and had extra pest control treatments applied. They searched in vain for rodent nests. They moved stock and cleaned everywhere they thought there might be rodents. They set out mouse traps and glue strips. When the existing pest control service appeared to be unable to solve the rodent and roach problems, the manager and owners of Thriftway of Indiantown began looking for another pest control service. After contacting and negotiating with several pest control companies, on May 31, 1995, the owners of Thriftway of Indiantown signed a contract with a new pest control company. The new pest control company was apparently successful, because when the store was inspected on June 15, 1995, the inspector did not see any rodent droppings or any roaches. On the dates of the five inspections from April 4, 1995, through June 1, 1995, Thriftway of Indiantown held food items in an unsanitary environment and offered such food for sale to the consuming public.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order imposing an administrative fine in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00). DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April 1996.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, is the state agency charged with regulating waste water treatment facilities and any sanitary nuisance which may emanate as a result of such operations pursuant to Chapters 381 and 386, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Larry G. Delucenay d/b/a Madhatter Utilities, Inc., owns and operates the Foxwood Waste Water Treatment Plant which is permitted and certified by the Department of Environmental Regulation. Respondent, in operating the Foxwood system, discharges its treated effluent water by means of two percolation ponds and a drip field located adjacent to the Cypress Cove Subdivision in Pasco County, Florida. Respondent owns and controls percolation ponds which are located adjacent to the Cypress Cove Subdivision and pumps human waste from a sewage treatment plant to percolation ponds in the Cypress Cove Subdivision. Respondent's percolation ponds are located approximately 50 ft. west of several residences and the ponds are accessible to the public. The ponds are elevated from 3 ft. to 5 ft. above the adjacent residential lots in the subdivision. However, there is a sand berm approximately 8 ft. high with a 12 yd. base which serves as a barrier between the percolation ponds and the Cypress Cove residences. On August 5, 1991, environmental health specialist Burke observed liquid flowing through the sand berm. He also observed erosion patterns in the sand on the berm which indicated liquid was flowing through it. Mr. Burke, while in the company of two other employees of Petitioner, observed liquid flowing from the percolation ponds onto Lake Floyd Drive to the south of the ponds. An improperly designed nearby lake exacerbated the flooding into Lake Floyd Drive. Respondent's waste water treatment system is designed according to the manufacturer's specifications. Pasco County allowed a number of developments to be built in the area without an adequate drainage system which adversely impacts Respondent's system to the point whereby untreated drainage outfall is draining into the southeast areas in Cypress Cove. Specifically, Respondent's pond #4 is designed to handle a water level up to 67.33 ft. During the investigation of the case, the water level in that pond was approximately 3 1/2 ft. higher than the designed capacity and was therefore causing overflow into the southeast areas of the development. (Respondent's Exhibits A, B and C.) Noteworthy also was the fact that a developer failed to complete a connection which has impacted Respondent's percolation pond and has forced the water to rise approximately 9 ft. higher than the designed capacity which has resulted in an overflow approximately 3 ft. to 4 ft. into the neighboring subdivision. As a result of the overflow, waste water spills over the percolation ponds and prevents the water from draining through the berms as designed. Petitioner's consulting engineer, Robert William Griffiths, credibly testified that a number of agencies having oversight responsibility such as Pasco County, the Southwest Florida Water Management District and the Department of Environmental Regulation, mandated that the drainage system be completed prior to the entire build-up of Cypress Cove. Despite the mandate, the drainage system was not completed and the County allowed the development to continue. Respondent is properly treating and chlorinating sewage in its plant which complies with Petitioner's requirements for the treatment of sewage in systems designed such as Respondent's. Respondent properly treats sewage flowing through its ponds and its berms are properly maintained. As early as October 1989, Respondent consulted and retained an engineer, Gerald E. Towson, who was commissioned to investigate the specifics of designing a waste water treatment plant based on concerns raised by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER). As a result of that charge, Towson investigated the area and observed flooding and the stormwater runoff in the Cypress Cove neighborhood and attempted to find a solution to alleviate the problem. Consultant Towson also investigated Respondent's treatment plant to determine if the system was functioning as designed. Based on his observation and inspection of the treatment facility, the facility was operating as it was designed and properly filters and treats the effluent. However, based on Respondent's inability to control the stormwater runoff in the neighborhood created by the excess buildup, Towson concluded that there was no workable solution to the problem. As a result of Towson's inability to find a workable solution to handle the concerns raised by DER, Respondent suggested that Towson locate another wastewater treatment site which he found in a surrounding area. Respondent negotiated a lease arrangement with the landowner and initiated the permit process with DER. After the completion of numerous documents and engineering studies required by the Department of Environmental Regulation, Respondent was able to get the leased site permitted by DER as a slow drip irrigation system during March 1991. However, while construction of the system was scheduled to start during March 1991, as a result of vigorous protests from area neighbors, construction was delayed. Respondent thereafter investigated several sites but was unable to fine a suitable area near Cypress Cove. Towson completed a lengthy and cumbersome process in getting Respondent's construction application processed by DER. Initially the application was filed and following a DER review, a Notice of Intent to Issue was given. Hillsborough County thereafter reviewed the project and following their review, Hillsborough County issued its Notice of Intent to Grant and public notice was given. Based on Respondent's inability to comply with the neighbor's concerns regarding setback problems, DER withdrew its permit during May of 1991. Thereafter, Petitioner became involved in connecting with the Pasco County Public System. That connection was ultimately made and the County gave its approval following a delay based on a review occasioned by an employee who had been on vacation. Upon getting the approval, Petitioner ordered the equipment from a supplier which included installation of a magnetic meter and the necessary hookups into the Pasco County System. A "phased in" connection has been completed and the stormwater runoff problem has been abated. When the problems raised by DER and ultimately Petitioner was first brought to Respondent's attention, Pasco County did not have the capacity to handle the hookups required by Respondent's system. Respondent, has been involved in the installation of waste water treatment plants since 1967. Respondent is qualified as a Class "A" Licensee Waste Water Operator. He has been accepted as an expert in numerous administrative hearings. Respondent purchased the Foxwood System during 1982. Respondent utilized a 13 acre tract near Lake Floyd Drive. The system was licensed and designed with a flow capacity of 300,000 plus gallons per day. During the time when the Administrative Complaint was issued, the flow capacity was 220,000 gallons per day. The storm water system which was to have been completed by developers in the area was not connected to the public system and the County granted numerous other permits to daycare centers and several parking lots were constructed for other newly constructed commercial buildings in the area. As a result of the excess runoff created by the development in the area, Respondent's system was impacted and the water level was raised in the percolation ponds to the point whereby an overflow resulted. Petitioner adduced no evidence which showed that any physical or emotional harm resulted from the runoff. At all times while the concerns were being raised by Petitioner and other oversite agencies, the effluents in Respondent's systems were properly treated. Respondent vigorously attempted to abate the runoff created by the excess buildup in the area despite the fact that the problem was raised by Pasco County and over which Respondent had no control. Throughout the process of attempting to find alternate solutions and ultimately getting permitting approval to start construction of an alternative waste water treatment system, Respondent operated in good faith. When no alternate site became available, Respondent initially made application to connect with Pasco County System and that connection has now been made.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint herein in its entirety. DONE and ENTERED this 29 day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29 day of April, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: THOMAS W CAUFMAN ESQ HRS DISTRICT V LEGAL OFFICE 11351 ULMERTON RD - STE 407 LARGO FL 34648 RANDALL C GRANTHAM ESQ COTTERILL GONZALEZ & GRANTHAM 1519 N MABRY - STE 100 LUTZ FL 33549 RICHARD S POWER AGENCY CLERK DEPT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 1323 WINEWOOD BLVD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0700 JOHN SLYE ESQ/GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 1323 WINEWOOD BLVD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0700
The Issue Is Pioneer Farms (E. T. Usher) entitled to the issuance of a permit from the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection which would allow the construction of a 0.033MGD dairy waste management system which includes rotational grazing of the dairy herd and the application of spray effluent derived from a solids separation chamber and an anaerobic lagoon?
Findings Of Fact Pioneer applied for necessary environmental permits to construct a 0.033 MGD dairy waste management system in Levy County, Florida. Pioneer sought permission for this construction from DEP. DEP has regulatory authority over the construction of Pioneer's proposed waste management system in accordance with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes and Chapter 62, Florida Administrative Code. Desmond owns property in Levy County, Florida. His property is adjacent to the Pioneer property where the dairy waste management system would be established. When Desmond received notice that DEP intended to grant a permit to Pioneer to construct the dairy waste management system, he petitioned in opposition to that grant. Desmond asserts that the proposed waste management system is experimental in nature and will adversely affect surface and subsurface water quality, that use of spray irrigation is not appropriate for the area, that the property upon which the project would be located is prone to flooding and has flooded in the past, that the applicant has failed to delineate the landward extent of wetlands and surface waters, that the supporting engineering studies do not contain historical data on flood duration periods, that there is no record of plant species surveyed, that the property in question ponds during the rainy seasons and that the ponding lasts longer than seven days, that the property is saturated during the rainy season and the saturation is of a duration greater than 20 days, that the subsurface water level during the rainy season is less than 18 inches from the surface, that the percolation rate of the properties soils are equal to or greater than 20 inches per hour or 40 feet per 24 hours, that the engineering report does not contain sufficient data for supporting adequate modeling of manure and nitrate transport, that the Floridan Aquifer is highly vulnerable to contaminants in the area of the project, and that pollution will certainly occur with the advent of the project, that facts indicate that ammonia and nitrate deposits will be washed through the soils before sufficient retardation and denitrification can occur, that the holding pond design fails to meet the 25-year, 24-hour storm event, that there are records of storms greater than the 25-year storm as frequent as 13 times in the last 94 years, that the piezometric head in the northwest portion of the property is unknown, and that as a consequence the subsurface directional water flow has not been determined. Desmond failed to prove these facts. By contrast, Pioneer and DEP have proven that the necessary reasonable assurances have been presented to allow the construction project to be permitted subject to general and specific conditions set forth in the notice of intent to issue the permit. The dairy waste management system is designed to accommodate a herd of 978 lactating cows on 374 acres of rotationally grazed pastures and 200 dry cows and 224 heifers pastured on a 124 acre effluent spray field and 112 acres of rotationally grazed pastures. The calves that are part of this herd will be grazed off-site. The waste management system consists of a concrete solids separation chamber; a 54,000 cubic foot anerrobic lagoon, and the 124-acre effluent spray field. Effluent, by way of solids in the barn area where the separation chamber is found, are transported by gravity to a pond referred to as the anerobic lagoon. That effluent is then sprayed on certain pasture land. While there are areas within the project site which are subject to ponding, the herd will not be allowed to access the ponded areas. The ponded areas are not sufficiently wide spread to compromise the project design. Waste solids associated with the herd's grazing activities will be applied to a pine forest adjacent to the site. The waste management system is designed to collect and treat wastewater that is generated at the milking barn and contaminated storm-water runoff that is processed through the solids separation chamber and that enter the lagoon. The lagoon/pond is designed to respond to a storm event that is greater than the 25 year/24 hour storm event. Well sites will be located on the property to monitor the effects of solid wastes from the herd grazing on pasture land and the effects of spray effluent on the pasture land as these sources influence groundwater quality, having in mind compliance with Chapter 62-522, Florida Administrative Code. The engineering design is set forth in Usher Exhibit No. 2, the report in support of the permit application. Usher Exhibits Nos. 3 and 5, are responses to the DEP requests for additional information about the permit application. Adequate information has been provided concerning the soils in the area, their structure and drainage potential. Emphasis has been placed on the excavation of the lagoon/pond and the existing soil structure in that area and any need to over-excavate and fill. Any necessary fill will be constituted of sand or limestone with sufficient compaction to meet design specifications for the lagoon/pond. Appropriate attention has been paid to grade elevations of the primary structures associated with the project, the side slopes of embankments against the barn floor, concrete cattle lanes, solids separator and entrance ramp to the storage pond and the storage pond itself, as these engineering features respond to drainage issues. Appropriate attention has been paid to hydro-geology of the region in which this project is located by specific information obtained through soil borings made at on-site monitoring wells as this information anticipates percolation rates. Studies at the project site reveal that the information from potentiometric maps of the Floridan Aquifer are incorrect concerning the direction of groundwater flow. The more specific studies done by the applicant show that the flow is in a northeastern direction. In determining the direction of flow of groundwater, 13 wells were drilled. While the concept in this project of using frequent and intensive grazing rotations in the pasture land, referred to as paddock areas, is a new concept in Florida, the expected performance by the herd, the pasture land and the overall waste management system in this project are based upon reasonable assumptions and do not lead to the results that violate the DEP statutes and rules for the protection of surface water and groundwater. This system is one in which the lactating cows within the herd would spend 85 percent of their time in the paddock areas/pasture land. There are four separate grazing areas with individual irrigation pivots. There is a fifth pivot not involved with the lactating herd. This pivot is associated with the spray effluent process from the lagoon. The lactating herd will spend 15 percent of their time in the barn area, known as the milk/feed barn. That barn will be flushed after each milking with the wastewater traveling into the storage lagoon and eventually applied to the pasture land associated with the fifth center pivot. The spray effluent will be applied to parts of that paddock area served by the fifth pivot only at times when the cows are not there. Dry cows and heifers will be located in the field area served by the fifth pivot, and an area just north of the fifth pivot area will also serve as pasture land for the non-lactating cows. In the fifth pivot area the non- lactating cows will rotate through paddock areas within that pasture. Likewise the lactating herds will rotate through the other four pivot areas. The rotation in these pastures is a fourteen day rotation. One day is spent in each paddock. Within each individual pivot of pivots 1 through 4, one herd of cows will be located under pivot 1, another herd under pivot 2 and a third under pivots 3 and 4. Each day the lactating herds will spend about 20 hours in the pasture land under the pivots and roughly 4 hours walking to and from the milk/feed barn and being milked. More specifically, the manure deposited in the milk barn will be flushed from floors to a gutter collector. From there the waste goes by a gravity flow from the gutter collector to a concrete lined ditch and into a solids separator trap. The solids separator is designed to remove all of the sand and the majority of the course solids associated with waste. This assists in the reduction of solids accumulation in the storage pond. The solids that are collected at the separator will undergo dewatering and then will be transported and spread on adjacent land owned by Pioneer. The amount of solids that enter the lagoon/pond are expected to be applied to the pasture land under pivot number 5. Nonetheless, on a quarterly basis, solids accumulations are noted when the lagoon/storage pond is pumped. If there is a significant accumulation, then solids will be removed from the pond. As well as accommodating the 25 year 24 hour design storm, the storage lagoon/pond is designed to hold 10 days of dairy operation wastewater and direct rain fall simultaneously. As extra capacity, the lagoon/pond has one foot of free board for safety in the operation. The effect of the one foot free board is to create a condition where it would require approximately a 1,000 year storm event to over-top the pond. Approximately two and a half hours of effluent irrigation per week is necessary to accommodate the wastewater from the milk barn. The irrigation system for effluent is sensitive to the level of water in the lagoon/pond. The pasture under the fifth pivot also uses fresh water irrigation separately. Attention will be paid to the maintenance of grass in the pasture areas available to the dairy herd. The health of the grass is supported by freshwater irrigation, effluent spray irrigation and direct waste deposits from the herd. The applicant has given the necessary assurances concerning nutrient management of nitrogen and phosphorus. As part of stormwater management system, the herd will not be allowed into areas of the property which are within the 100 year flood plain. There are five groundwater monitoring wells, the second, third and fifth of which are to determine compliance with DEP water quality standards. Under wet conditions where there is a high incidence of rainfall, pivot number 5 may be in operation; however, without intention to operate that pivot in a manner which will cause spray effluent to be applied to ponded areas, thereby producing runoff on the surface. The soils in the area have high permeability rates in the range of 6- 20 inches per hour. Thus, waste water easily infiltrates the soil at acceptable rates unless there is an extremely high water table, which is not anticipated. It is especially unlikely that a high water table of long duration will be experienced. Dr. Dale Bottcher is an expert in agricultural engineering and dairy design. He established that the project as proposed by Pioneer will provide the necessary reasonable assurances to the DEP that the activities associated with the dairy will not contaminate surface waters or exceed standards for the protection of groundwater. To arrive at those assurances, the applicant has assessed the location of the herd densities in the dairy operation, the soil uptakes related to nutrient balance, with specific emphasis on the assurance that there will not be excess nitrogen available that could migrate from the project site to adjacent property and contaminate that adjacent property by exceeding DEP standards. As established by Dr. Bottcher the animal waste produced that is immediately dropped on the pasture land and the spray effluent from the lagoon/pond is used up by the grass on the pasture land. In fact, there is not enough animal waste generated to produce the grasses. It is anticipated the animal waste will produce 50-70 percent of the necessary nutrients for the grasses. Therefore, a supplemental fertilization program is to be put in place for the grass production. To make certain that the grass is uptaking the nutrients adequately the monitoring wells will be installed. The monitoring wells are strategically located to insure groundwater protection. Under pivot 5, the spray effluent pasture, in combination between the spray effluent and direct deposits by the animals, 250 pounds of nitrogen will be produced a year of the needed 700 pounds. As Dr. Bottcher established there are areas on the property that are subject to periodic flooding for no more than a few weeks per year. During those times that land will not be available to the herd in its grazing activities. Again, those ponded areas will not receive spray effluent under pivot 5. Dr. Bottcher gave the opinion, within a reasonable degree of engineering certainty, that the dairy waste management system would abate and prevent water pollution to the extent required by applicable statutes and rules and that the activities in the project would not allow for discharge or cause water pollution in violation of those applicable DEP rules. His opinion is accepted. Dr. Bottcher established that the phosphorus produced on the site is bound up in the soils and the groundwater is further protected in some places by an underlying clay layer. Mark Bardolph, DEP Environmental Manager within the Industrial Wastewater Section is an expert in dairy design. His opinion that no problems will be experienced with ponding of water is accepted. The opinion by Mr. Bardolph that this design is a better alternative to traditional diary designs is accepted. John Davis is a Professional Geologist. He is employed by DEP. He is an expert in hydro-geology. His opinion as a hydro-geologist that reasonable assurances have been given that the proposed dairy waste management system will comply with applicable laws and rules is accepted. David Bolam is an expert in environmental engineering who works for DEP. He does not believe that there is a problem with ponding of water on the site that would interfere with the operation of the dairy waste management system. That opinion is accepted. His professional opinion that reasonable assurances have been given that the construction and operation of the waste management system would comply with the applicable DEP laws and rules is accepted.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which grants Pioneer permission to construct the 0.033 MGD dairy waste management system as proposed by DEP in its draft permit with general and specipic conditions. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May, 1995. APPENDIX The following discussion is given concerning the proposed findings of fact by the parties: Petitioner's Facts: Desmond: Paragraph 1 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 2 is rejected in its suggestion that Pioneer has not adequately met applicable DEP rules. Paragraph 3 is accepted in its suggestion that the Floridan Aquifer is vulnerable to contamination but is rejected in the suggestion that the activities by Pioneer will cause such contamination. Paragraph 4 is contrary to facts found. Pioneer and DEP: Paragraph 1 is not necessary to the resolution of dispute. Paragrap 2 through 4 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 5 and 6 are accepted to the extent that they correspond to the findings in the recommended order related to testimony from witnesses for Pioneer and DEP and the suggestion that the allegations by Desmond have not been proven. COPIES FURNISHED: Noel K. Desmond Post Office Box 1771 Chiefland, FL 32626-1771 Marty Smith, Esquire Post Office Box 3310 Ocala, FL 34478-3310 Thomas I. Mayton, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issue posed herein is whether or not the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' revocation of Respondent's pest control business license, operator's certificate and employee's identification is warranted based on conduct set forth hereinafter in detail as set forth in the Petitioner's revocation notice dated June 4, 1979. 1/
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, the arguments and briefs of counsel and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Pursuant to Petitioner's Notice of Violation dated June 4, 1979, the administrative proceeding herein commenced on December 6, 1979, on twenty-six of the thirty-nine specific violations alleged to have been committed by Respondent. The specific alleged violations are as set forth below based on a separation by complainant or victim with the alleged date of violation: On February 28, 1977, it is alleged that Respondent and/or its agents, performed pest control services for Ms. Ethel Atkinson and Ms. Loree Atkinson, 1903 East Leonard Street, Pensacola, Florida, and violated the following Administrative Code sections and/or statutes: Treated the Atkinsons' residence with fumigant gas, methyl bromide, without notifying in advance, the Escambia County Health Department, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.110(1), Florida Administrative Code. Failed to perform the fumigation of the Atkinson residence in strict accordance with the registered label directions for methyl bromide, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.111(4), Florida Administrative Code. On March 17, 1977, Respondent failed to perform subterranean termite control treat- ment for the Atkinsons, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.142(1)(b), Florida Administra- tive Code. During July, 1978, Respondent's agents and/or employees, Steven R. Foster and Gerald A. Caudill, inspected the Atkinson residence and told them that the home was infested with powder-post beetles and proposed a treatment when no such infestation existed, and thus no treatment was required, which acts constitute violations of Chapter 10D-55.104(4), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent, during times material, failed to apply for and obtain an I.D. card for Steven R. Foster, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.143(1), (2) and (3), Florida Adminis- trative Code. Respondent performed Phostoxin fumi- gation on residences when Phostoxin is not labeled or registered for residential fumi- gation, in violation of Chapters 10D-55.106(1); 10D-55.111(4) and 10D-55.144(1), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent and/or its agents, during times material but particularly during July, 1978, illegally used Phostoxin for fumigation purposes in a residential structure, in vio- lation of Chapter 10D-55.116(2), Florida Administrative Code. During July, 1978, Respondent per- formed Phostoxin fumigation without notifying the Escambia County Health Department, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.110(1), Florida Administrative Code. During July, 1978, Respondent performed Phostoxin fumigation without the knowledge and personal supervision of its certified registered operator in charge of fumigation for Killingsworth, Inc., Elmer Logan, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.108(1) and (2), Florida Administrative Code. Shumpert/Graham Case On April 22, 1977, Respondent performed services for Robert Shumpert and/or R. A. Graham of 109 Harris Street, Pensacola, Florida, by fumigation of their residence at 109 Harris Street, without informing the Escambia County Health Depart- ment, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.110(1), Florida Administrative Code. On or about April 22, 1977, Respondent fumigated the Shumpert/Graham residence with "Vikane" gas in a manner not in accordance with the label instructions, nor were occupants of the residence properly warned of the hazards, in violation of Chapters 10D-55.106(1); 10D-55.110(3); 10D-55.111(4) and 10D-55.144(1), Florida Adminis- trative Code. On or about April 22, 1977, Respondent used Phostoxin for residential fumigation for the Graham/Shumpert residence, in violation of Chapters 10D-55.106(1); 10D-55.111(4) and 10D-55.144(1), Florida Administrative Code. On or about April 22, 1977, Respondent fumigated the Graham/Shumpert Residence with Phostoxin without informing the occupants of the hazards, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.110(3), Florida Administrative Code. During approximately April 22, 1977, Respondent performed a fumigation with Phostoxin without advance notification to the Escambia County Health Department, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.110(1), Florida Administrative Code. During April 22, 1977, Respondent performed a Phostoxin fumigation without the knowledge and personal supervision of its certified operator in charge of fumigation, Elmer Logan, in violation of Chapter10D-55.108(1) and (2), Florida Administrative Code. During May 22, 1978, Respondent per- formed pest control services for Mrs. Ann Boyett of 706 North Lynch Street, Pensacola, Florida, and during the course of such treatment, through its agent and employee, Steven R. `Foster, placed Phostoxin pellets under the Boyett residence for control of powder-post beetles, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.108(1) and (2), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent used Phostoxin in resi- dential fumigation in violation of Chapter 10D-55.106(1); 10D-55.111(4) and 10D-55.144(1), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent, during May 23, 1978, released Phosphine gas during use of Phostoxin. which is highly inflammable and its use in resi- dential structures is illegal pursuant to Chapter 10D-55.116(2), Florida Administrative Code. During May 23, 1978, Respondent performed a fumigation with Phostoxin without informing the Escambia County Health Department, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.110(1), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent, during May 23, 1978, per- formed a fumigation with Phostoxin without informing the homeowner of the hazards, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.110(3), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent, during May 23, 1978, failed to apply for and obtain an employee I.D. card for Steven R. Foster, in violation of Section 482.091(1), (2) and (4), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-55.143(1),(2) and (3), Florida Administrative Code. Based on the foregoing activities, it is alleged that Respondent violated his duties as a certified operator in charge of the pest control activities of a licensee, in violation of Section 482.152(1), (2),, (4), and (5), Florida Statutes. During July 12, 1978, Respondent performed pest control work for John A. Sanders, Jr. , at his residences located at 912, 914 and 916 North 63rd Avenue, Pensacola, Florida. During the course of this treatment it is alleged that Respondent failed to per- form the work in accordance with the label directions of any registered termiticide or by the use of methods and equipment generally suitable and accepted as good industry practice, in violation of Chapters 10D-55.106(1); 10D-55.135(2) and 10D-55.144(1), Florida Adminis- trative Code. Based on the conduct set forth in the paragraph next above, it is alleged that the Respondent violated the duties of a certified operator in charge of pest control activities of a licensee, in violation of Section 482.152(1), (4), and (5), Florida Statutes. The Hinote Case During December 21, 1978, it is alleged that Respondent's agent Wayne Thompson, repre- sented to Ms. Lee Hinote of 1405 East Gonzales Street, Pensacola, Florida, that wood borers were infesting her residence and that treatment was needed, when no such infestation existed and no treatment was required, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.104(4), Florida Administrative Code. Based on the alleged conduct set forth in the paragraph next above, it is alleged that the Respondent engaged in conduct violative of Section 482.152(1), (2), (4), and (5), Florida Statutes. William E. Grimsley, Supervisor, Environmental Health Unit of the Escambia County Health Department, is the person in charge of inspecting and ensuring that within the county no violations of Chapter 10D-55.110(1), Florida Administrative Code, occur. All pest control companies operating in the county, including Respondent, are required to notify the County Health Department when a fumigation is to take place and the approximate time that the "gas" will be released. Fumigation notices are required to be submitted to the Health Department twenty-four hours in advance of the fumigation. Thee Health Department inspects the premises to be certain that the tent is properly sealed, that there is first aid equipment readily available and to generally ensure that the operator is qualified to perform the fumigation Mr. Grimsley recalled having received no fumigation notices from Respondent. Specifically, Mr. Grimsley testified that his office, the County Health Department, received no fumigation notice from Respondent for the Atkinson residence during April of 1977, for the Sumpert residence during times material, or for Ann Boyett's residence during the period of May, 1978. During May of 1978, Mr. Grimsley, through the Escambia County Health Department, received a complaint from the Atkinsons regarding the pest control services performed by Respondent. Mr. Grimsley referred Ms. Atkinson to Mr. William E. Page, Petitioner's agent in the Office of Entomology, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. During October of 1978, Mr. William Page and Mr. William Grimsley removed a sample of a white powdery substance found in the Atkinsons' attic. The sample was analyzed by Chris Bush, a chemist employed by Petitioner, who determined that the substance was a residue of Phostoxin. (Petitioner's Exhibits 32 and 40.) The Atkinson residence was treated by Respondent during, April of 1977. As stated, the Atkinsons complained to the Health Department during May of 1978, approximately fifteen months after the treatment. Samples of a white powdery residue found in the attic were analyzed by Petitioner's chemist during. October, 1978, and were determined to be a Phostoxin residue. Respondent and its agents and employees denied treating the Atkinson residence with anything other than Lindane and Methyl Bromide. During late 1978, Messrs. Grimsley and Page visited the residence of Mrs. Ann Boyett of 704 North Lynch Street, Pensacola, Florida. Mr. Page removed two prepac Phostoxin strips from underneath the Boyett residence. Steven Roy Foster (Moneyhun) also known as Steven Roy Foster was employed by Respondent from March of 1978 through July of 1978. Foster was hired by Respondent to perform mechanical work, although he assisted in tapings for fumigations and assisted Respondent's pest control operators. Foster placed two prepac Phostoxin strips under the Boyett residence. Foster was assigned to do the work by Respondent's agent, Frank Ancarrow, and was paid by the Boyetts for the work. (Petitioner's Exhibit 13.) Respondent and its agents, Frank Ancarrow and former employee, Elmer Logan, denied any knowledge, authorization or other assistance in the use of the treatment of residential structures with Phostoxin. Phostoxin is not authorized for the use in residential construction according to its label use restrictions. (Petitioner's Exhibit 12.) Respondent treated the Graham-Shumpert residence at 109 Harris Street, Pensacola, Florida, for subterranean termites and old house wood borers during late April, 1977. The old house wood borers were located in the attic and, according to Respondent, were treated by him using a "spot" fumigation treatment of Methyl Bromide. 3/ Approximately two years later, Mr. Shumpert detected traces of termites again swarming in the kitchen of his home and called Frank Roberts of Roberts Pest Control Company to check on the termites. Mr. Roberts inspected the Shumpert residence and noted what he found in the attic, a residue of suspected Phostoxin. Mr. Roberts engaged the services of a private laboratory in Pensacola, Florida, to analyze the residue of the substance he found in the Shumpert residence. The sample was analyzed and, according to the lab analysis, the residue of the sample was Phostoxin. Gail Thompson, a former employee of the Respondent, testified that he treated the Shumpert residence for termites and that he assisted in taping the house in preparation for the fumigation which was performed by Respondent Billy F. Killingsworth. Respondent testified that he treated the Shumpert house by a "spot" fumigation using Methyl Bromide as a localized treatment to eradicate the infestation which was concentrated on a few joists. Respondent's testimony to the effect that the infestation was localized to a few joists conflicts with the testimony of witnesses William Page, Carlton Layne and John Boitnott, who testified that the damage and infestation was severe and widespread. Based on the extended hiatus between the treatment by Respondent and the inspections by Messrs, Page, Layne and Boitnott, it cannot be concluded that the condition of the premises as found by Respondent, continued unchanged until the subsequent and, of course, more recent visit by the investigating officials. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3.) When the Shumpert residence was treated, it was under contract to be sold by Mims-Snow Realty of Pensacola, Florida. Prior to sale, it was necessary to receive an FHA wood infestation report which admittedly, as testified to by Respondent's secretary and assistant, Joyce Beard, was filed incorrectly using information from another wood infestation report for another property. (Petitioner's Exhibits 6 and 9.) According to that report, Vikane gas was used as a fumigant, which, if used according to the petitioner's licensing administrator, Warren T. Frazier, was not applied in accordance with the label instructions of that fumigant. 4/ On or about July 12, 1978, Mr. John A. Sanders entered into a contract with Respondent for pest control treatment of three houses that he owned on North 63rd Avenue, Pensacola, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibits 17, 15 and 19.) Respondent contracted to control household pests, fleas, etc. in the Sanders' residences for a total price of $520.00. According to 14r. Sanders, the treatment period lasted approximately twenty minutes and no trenches were dug, no drilling took place and there was no treatment for powder-post beetles contrary to his payment and contract for these services. Mr. Sanders filed a complaint with local and state officials and executed a complaint form. (Petitioner's Exhibits 20 and 21.) Respondent's former employee, Steven Foster, was assigned the task of treating the Sanders' residences. Foster acknowledged that he inadequately and incompletely treated the Sanders' residences for termites and powder-post beetles. Testimony of Warren Frazier, John Sanders and William Page corroborate Foster's testimony to the effect that the treatment was substandard and was not in accordance with the label directions of any registered termiticide. Additionally, the treatment fell below what is generally accepted as good industry Practice. Respondent testified that the Sanders' residences were treated by Carl Heichel. Heichel was unavailable and did not testify in this proceeding. Opal Lee Hinote of 1405 East Gonzalez Street contacted Respondent during December, 1978, for an annual renewal inspection of her residence. Respondent's agent, Wayne Thompson, performed the annual inspection. (Petitioner's Exhibit 27.) Additionally, Respondent's agent, Thompson, represented to Ms. Hinote that old house wood borers were affecting her residence and that treatment was needed. Thompson discussed a treatment price of $175.00, which was reduced, after some negotiation, to $125.00. Ms. Hinote, being suspicious, called Elmer Logan, Respondent's former employee who presently operates Fireman Pest Control, to inspect her premises. Mr. Logan advised Ms. Hinote that there were no wood borers in her house but merely old traces of wood borer activity. Ms. Hinote, still concerned, contacted Petitioner's agent, William Page, who inspected the house and confirmed Logan's report that there was no present wood horer activity to her residence. (Petitioner's Exhibits 28, 29 and 30.) Respondent's position on Ms. Hinote's complaint is that it is difficult to discern whether or not there is active or inactive wood borer activity and that Thompson, being a sales representative only for a short time when he made the inspection, was unable to discern whether or not the activity signs were evidences from old damage by powder-post beetles and wood borers. 5/ Mr. F. R. Du Chanois is Petitioner's supervisor for pest control records and has in excess of twenty-six years experience as an Entomologist. Mr. Du Chanois, who is Petitioner's records custodian, also receives and assigns complaints for investigation. Based on the complaints received about Respondent, Mr. Du Chanois directed an Inquiry to the manufacturer respecting the application of Phostoxin for residential application. Mr. Du Chanois determined and received confirmation that there are presently no registered uses for residential application for Phostoxin fumigations to control wood destroying insects. (Petitioner's Exhibit 42.) According to Du Chanois, the responsibility for obtaining an I.D. card is jointly placed on the operator and the employee. See Section 482.091(1) and (2), Florida Statutes. Billy F. Killingsworth, the certified operator and owner of Killingsworth pest control business, has been in business for approximately eleven years in Escambia County. Respondent has a B.S. degree in Entomology from Auburn University and is certified in all areas of pest control, i.e,. general household pest and rodent control, subterranean termites, lawn and ornamental, and fumigation. According to Respondent, it is very difficult to determine whether powder-post beetles are in an active or inactive status. Respondent uses Lindane as a residual treatment for the eradication of beetles and Methyl Bromide as a fumigant to control beetles, dry wood termites and rodent control. Respondent only uses Phostoxin as a commodity fumigant since it is only labeled for such uses and since it is one-half to two-thirds more expensive than other registered fumigants. Respondent, Billy F. Killingsworth, is the only certified operator within his employ in Escambia County who is registered to use Phostoxin. (Testimony of Billy F. Killingsworth.) According to the worksheets, Tommy Phelps was the card holder assigned to perform the work for the Atkinson job. Respondent performed the fumigation, using oil based Lindane in the attic. Respondent acknowledged that he erroneously issued a termite contract for the Atkinsons. Respondent considers a "spot" fumigation as being superior to a complete or tent fumigation, in that it permits a larger concentration of gas to be infused to the exposed area and is least expensive. Respondent has performed less than ten structural fumigations since he has been in business. (Respondent's Exhibits 4, 5 and 6.) Respondent employed Steven Roy Foster (Moneyhun) to help in repairing hydraulic pumps, refrigeration equipment and to do mechanical and other minor maintenance tasks based on his (Foster's) prior experience. Respondent denied that Foster was assigned to assist or perform fumigations within the short period that Foster was employed by Respondent. Respondent acknowledged that the FHA Wood Infestation Report given to Ms. Graham of Mims-Snow Realty was erroneously issued based on the realtor's rush to sell the property. (Respondent's Exhibit 8.) Respondent performed the fumigation for the Shumpert residence and placed a warning sign on the front and back doors of the house. At the time of the fumigation, the house was unoccupied. Respondent used Methyl Bromide to fumigate the Shumpert residence and had no explanation as to the presence of Phostoxin in the attic of the Shumpert residence. Respondent assigned Carl Heichel to do the termite and beetle treatment for the Boyett residence. (Respondent's Exhibit 9.) Lindane and Heptachloride were used for the treatment. Heichel left Respondent's employ approximately October of 1978. According to Respondent, Heichel was also assigned to perform the work for the Sanders' houses on 63rd Avenue. (Respondent's Exhibit 10.) Respondent testified that he attempted to correct the problems in connection with the Sanders residence but was unable to arrange a mutually convenient schedule to resolve the matter. Wayne Thompson was assigned to perform the pest control treatment for the Hinote residence. Thompson had only been employed approximately six months when he was assigned to inspect the Hinote residence. Respondent noted that it was a mistake not to apply for an I.D. card for Steven R. Foster. He acknowledged that there was no reason not to apply for an I.D. card for Foster; however, the fact that Foster was hired to do mechanical work delayed his decision to apply for or to obtain an I.D. card for Foster. Respondent treated the Shumpert residence using Methyl Bromide which was registered and labeled "Dowfume MC-2". 6/ Respondent acknowledged that it is unlawful to use a registered pesticide in a way which is inconsistent with the label. He also acknowledged that certified operators are charged with the duty of using fumigants in accordance with the registered labels consonant with the structure to be fumigated. (Testimony of Billy F. Killingsworth.) Several of Respondent's former employees who were employed during times material herein testified that they were unaware of any illegal uses of Phostoxin by Respondent and/or its employees. These employees included J. D. White, Sr., of Sterling, Illinois; Gerald Caudill of Evansville, Indiana; Frank Ancarrow; Elmer Logan and Gail Thompson. J. D. White, Sr. , of Sterling, Illinois, was formerly employed by Respondent from June, 1973, through the end of 1974. Mr. White worked for Frank Roberts, a competitor of Respondent during the period July, 1976, through August of 1977. Mr. White was party to conversations between Frank Roberts to the effect that he was; "out to get" Respondent and was privy to conversations with Mr. Roberts to the effect that Roberts had communicated with various Federal regulatory and state agencies to register complaints about Respondent and other competitors in the area. White testified that he was offered money to spray the yards of customers who were on annual contract with Respondent using the wrong chemicals to destroy the grass. Gerald Caudill presently is employed by Economy Pest Control of Evansville, Indiana. He was formerly employed by Respondent from approximately March, 1978, through approximately April of 1979. Caudill did a localized treatment for powder-post beetles for the Atkinson residence on Leonard Street in Pensacola, Florida. Caudill was shown by the Atkinsons, signs of what he viewed to be an active infestation in the attic of the Atkinson residence and advised them that they needed treatment in their attic. Frank Ancarrow, Respondent's sales manager, has been employed in that capacity for approximately four years and has approximately eight years' experience with another pest control company. Mr. Ancarrow is certified in all categories except fumigation. Messrs, Ancarrow and Thompson prepared the Shumpert residence for fumigation. The Shumpert residence was treated by Gail Thompson for subterranean termites and the Respondent fumigated the attic for old house wood borers. Frank Ancarrow was shown the statement given in an affidavit taken by Carlton Layne of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the effect that Gail Thompson was in charge of the fumigation of the Shumpert residence. Mr. Ancarrow testified that that was a mistake and that Thompson only prepared the house for fumigation. (Petitioner's Exhibits 5 and 26.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby, Recommended: That the Respondent's Pest Control Operator's Certificate Number 1306; Respondent's Pest Control Employee Identification Card Numbers 5832 and 5843 and Respondent's Pest Control Business License Number 78 be SUSPENDED for a period of two (2) years. In all other respects, the June 10, 1980 Recommended Order previously entered herein remains unchanged. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of July, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jon W. Searcy, Vsquire Department of IIIS 160 Governmenta] Center Pensacola, Florida 32522 Larry Parks, Esquire Murphy, Beroset and Parks 216 Government Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Alvin J. Taylor, Secretary Department of IRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= STIPULATION TO CONSENT FINAL ORDER =================================================================
Findings Of Fact During approximately 1961, the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County adopted the Orange County Conservation and Water Control Act. This act included a comprehensive drainage plan. Orange County is divided into several natural drainage basins. The Petitioner is presently actively seeking to implement the comprehensive drainage plan in what is known as the Upper Howell Branch drainage basin. The proposed Lateral H-15 forms a part of the drainage plan in the Upper Howell Branch drainage basin. The proposed Lateral H-l5 would begin at the outfall of Park Lake, and would extend approximately 1900 feet to Lake Maitland. Lateral H-l5 would allow the controlled lowering of Park Lake, with excess water flowing into Lake Maitland. Lateral H-15 as proposed would be a structure with a concrete paved bottom. It would be 18 feet wide, and would have vertical side walls constructed of aluminum siding. A weir would be constructed at the Park Lake outfall, and a new crossover would be constructed at the point where Highway 17-92 crosses over the project. The depth of the structure would be 5 feet. At peak flows water would flow at four foot depths leaving a one foot free area. The structure has been designed to allow passage of peak flows of water using as little land area as possible. Vertical side walls have been proposed in order to limit the amount of property which the Petitioner would need to obtain in order to construct the project. The Petitioner's comprehensive drainage plan is designed to ultimately prevent flooding which would result from a "25 year storm". The term "25 year storm" means that there is a 4 percent chance that such a storm would occur in any given year. The Petitioner's comprehensive plan for the Upper Howell Branch basin is depicted in an aerial photograph which was received into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Generally, waters within the basin will flow from Lake Killarney through Lateral H-22, which is nearly completed, and from Lake Bell through the Lake Bell Lateral, which has been completed, into Park Lake. The Lake Bell Lateral and Lateral H-22 permit the controlled lowering of the water in Lake Bell and Lake Killarney into Park Lake. Lateral H-15 would permit the controlled lowering of the waters of Park Lake into Lake Maitland. Waters from Lake Maitland would then flow out of the drainage basin through Howell Creek which is now extremely swampy. Petitioner proposes ultimately to clear Howell Creek so that it can accept peak water loads from Lake Maitland. The proposed Lateral H-15 would follow the channel presently followed by a naturally occurring creek bed known as the Maitland Branch. Maitland Branch is a dried up waterway during dry weather periods. When waters in Park Lake rise during rainy seasons, overflow goes through the Maitland Branch into Lake Maitland. In addition storm runoff from areas surrounding the Maitland Branch drain into Maitland Branch and then into Lake Maitland. At its most Westward point, adjacent to Park Lake, the Maitland Brunch is approximately 40- 50 feet wide. A railroad crosses the branch near to the Park Lake outfall and the pipe and culvert under the railroad control the water level in the branch. The branch then extends under Highway 17-92, and into Lake Maitland. From the railroad, into Lake Maitland, Maitland Branch is confined to a narrow channel. The Maitland Branch is not a navigable water body. Lake Maitland is a navigable water body. Petitioner's proposed dredging activities would extend approximately 55 yards into Lake Maitland in order to permit the free flow of waters through the proposed Lateral H-15 into Lake Maitland. Maitland Branch is dominated by a variety of emergent and aquatic vegetation. Maitland Branch presently serves a significant function in preserving the waters of Lake Maitland. The water quality of Lake Maitland is presently good. Tests taken within the lake do not reveal violations of the Respondent's water quality rules and regulations. The lake is, however, dominated by hydrilla, and does not support a diverse aquatic plant population. The water quality in Lake Park is inferior to that of Lake Maitland. Lake Park is dominated by algal growths. During periods of high water, the waters of Park Lake flow through Maitland Branch. The aquatic vegetation in Maitland Branch serves to filter the waters and to assimilate nutrients contained in the water before the water enters Lake Maitland. Approximately 27 acres of impervious surfaces adjacent to the Maitland Branch drain directly into the branch. Storm water runs across the surfaces into Maitland Branch generally without the benefit of any filtration mechanism at all. Without the aquatic vegetation present in Maitland Branch, this storm water runoff would enter Lake Maitland without being filtered, and without nutrients being assimilated by vegetation. Aquatic vegetation in Maitland Branch does serve the filtration and assimilative functions outlined above. The degree of filtration and assimilation that is occurring is not subject to any finite measurement. No scientific means exists for accomplishing such a measurement. The very fact that the vegetation is flourishing, provides scientific evidence that the assimilation of nutrients is occurring. Furthermore, the large amounts of toxic substances which enter the Maitland Branch would cause a very rapid and provocative deterioration of the waters of Lake Maitland unless the runoff were filtered. The fact that the water of Lake Maitland is of fairly good quality evidences the fact that filtration and assimilation functions are occurring in Maitland Brunch. The Petitioner sought to demonstrate that the aquatic, vegetation in the Maitland Branch does not serve to filter the waters, or to assimilate nutrients. Petitioner's testimony tends to show that the water quality of waters at the Park Lake outfall and at the western extremes, of the Maitland Branch are of higher quality than waters at the end of Maitland Branch closest to Lake Maitland. This evidence is not creditable. In the first place the sampling techniques used by the Petitioner's agents were inadequate. Too few samples were taken to permit the drawing of any proper scientific conclusions. The samples were not taken simultaneously and in some cases samples taken at the Park Lake outfall were taken several days prior to the taking of samples at sampling stations closer to Lake Maitland. Furthermore, samples were taken at times when vegetation in the Maitland Branch was most sparse. One group of samples was taken just subsequent to a freeze which killed all of the vegetation. Another group of samples was taken shortly after the Petitioner had removed vegetation from the Maitland Branch in accordance with a temporary permit that had been issued by the Respondent (see discussion in paragraph 9 infra) Even if the Petitioner's samples had been taken in such a way that the conclusion could be drawn that the water quality in Maitland Branch is worse close to Lake Maitland that it is at the Park Lake outfall, it would still be clear that the aquatic vegetation in the branch is performing its important environmental function. Runoff from adjacent impervious surfaces into Lake Maitland constitutes water of the poorest possible quality. It is thus to be expected that the water quality of the branch would be worse at the points farthest from the Park Lake outfall where more runoff water can accumulate. This does not however permit the conclusion that no filtration and assimilation is occurring, but rather amplifies the necessity for such functions if the water quality of Lake Maitland is to be preserved. Petitioner's proposed Lateral H-15 would constitute a source of pollution for the waters of Lake Maitland. The concrete bottom of Lateral H-15 would reduce the PH level of water the branch and could result in violations of PH standards set out in the Respondent's rules and regulations. Emergent and attached aquatic vegetation could not exist in Lateral H-15. There would be no place for such vegetation to take root. The only sort of vegetation that could take hold would be water hyacinths. During peak water flows these hyacinths would be flushed out of the branch into Lake Maitland. While water hyacinths do serve to filter water that flows through them and to assimilate nutrients from the water, they are not attached, and do not serve that function as well as attached aquatic vegetation. Since water hyacinths would be washed out of the branch during periods of heavy storm runoff, when filtration and assimilation are most essential, they would not be likely to serve to maintain the water quality of Lake Maitland to the extent that the present vegetation in Maitland Branch serves this function. Lateral H-15, with the reduced ability to preserve water quality would permit water of inferior quality from Park Lake to enter Lake Maitland, and would permit storm runoff with high levels of pollutants to enter Lake Maitland. The amount of injury to water quality in Lake Maitland that would result from replacing Maitland Branch with Lateral H-15 cannot be measured finitely. It is, however, clear from the evidence that injury is certain. The frequency of water quality violations, the degree of degradation of the water, and the amount of consequent harm to fish and wildlife in Lake Maitland that will result from Petitioner's proposed project are matters for speculation. It does appear that violations will occur, that the water will be degraded, and that fish and wildlife will be harmed. The testimony will clearly not support a finding that Petitioner has given reasonable assurance that water quality violations will not occur, that the quality of water will not be degraded, and that fish and wildlife will not be harmed. The Respondent within recent months had issued a permit allowing the Petitioner to remove aquatic vegetation from the Maitland Branch between the railroad which crosses the branch near to the Park Lake outfall , and Highway 17-92 which crosses the branch approximately halfway between Park Lake and Lake Maitland. Issuance of this permit does not demonstrate that the Respondent sees no value in the aquatic vegetation of Maitland Branch. Aquatic vegetation will rapidly reestablish itself in the area, and it will be missing for only a temporary period. In addition, the Petitioner was permitted to remove vegetation from less than half of the length of Maitland Branch.
The Issue The issue is whether the Petition for Administrative Hearing should be dismissed for failure to state a cause cognizable under Florida Law.
Findings Of Fact On November 30, 1998, Suwannee American filed its application and fee for an air construction permit for a dry process, preheater/precalciner type portland cement plant. The cement plant will emit oxides of nitrogen as a result of the combustion of fuels. A small fraction of the nitrogen oxides will, through oxidation, convert to nitrate. Some of the nitrate will become available for deposition as fall- out through two mechanisms: (a) dry deposition from particulate deposition; and (b) wet deposition from rainfall. Nitrate that lands on land and water surfaces can remain there, be taken up by vegetation, or enter ground and surface waters. The cement plant will also emit mercury. Joseph Kahn, a permit engineer in the Department's Division of Air Resources, Bureau of Air Regulation, was assigned to review the application. Early in the review process, Mr. Kahn became aware that members of the public and the Department's staff in its park's division had concerns about the atmospheric deposition of mercury and nitrate emissions from the cement plant. By letter dated December 29, 1998, Mr. Kahn requested the applicant to furnish additional information, including but not limited to, an additional impacts analysis of mercury and nitrogen deposition pursuant to Rule 62-212.400(5)(e), Florida Administrative Code. 1/ Specifically, the December 29, 1998, letter made the following inquiries: 8. Please compare other NOx [nitrogen oxide] limits established by BACT (for LaFarge and Great Star Cement, for example) with the proposed NOx limit and discuss the variables that affect emissions of NOx from Portland cement plants that are applicable to the proposed facility. * ** Please discuss the basis for the estimated emissions of mercury and provide illustrative calculations. Please estimate the possible impact or deposition of mercury at the Ichetucknee Springs State Park and the Santa Fe and Suwannee Rivers in the vicinity of the proposed facility. Please perform an additional impact analysis in the PSD [prevention of significant deterioration] Class II area near the facility including the Ichetucknee springs State Park and the Santa Fe and Suwannee Rivers in the vicinity of the proposed facility. This analysis must include impact on growth, soils and vegetation, and visibility. On February 25, 1999, the Department received Suwannee American's response to the December 29, 1999, letter. The response states as follows in regards to the deposition of mercury: Response: The PSD report used an emission factor for mercury from AP-42, Table 11.6-9, for cement Kilns with fabric filters. The other available emission factor in AP-42 is for cement kilns with ESPs. As this kiln will utilize an ESP for the pyroprocessing system, this response uses the ESP emission factor: 0.00022 pounds/ton of clinker X 839,5000 tons/year = 185 tons per year. Mercury emission data from nine cement plants ere evaluated as reported in the EPA Document Locating and Estimating Air Emission From sources of Mercury and Mercury compounds. These data are shown in the following table: [Table Omitted] The use of the average value from these tests results in a lower and consistent value: 0.000171 pounds/ton of clinker X 839,500 tons/year = 144 pounds per year. Emission estimates based on expected mercury levels in limestone, clay, sand, fly ash, and coal that will be used by Suwannee American result in an estimated emission rate of 129 pounds per year. The ambient air impact of mercury at the Ichetucknee Springs State Park and the Santa Fe and Suwannee rivers in the vicinity of the proposed facility is estimated as 0.00003- 0.00005 ug/m 3/ as a maximum annual concentration. The Reference Air concentration (RAC) for mercury (40 CFR 266, Appendix IV) is 0.3/m 3/ annual average. The deposition of mercury at the Ichetucknee Springs State Park and the Santa Fe and Suwannee Rivers in the vicinity of the proposed facility is estimated as 0.00002- 0.00005 g/m 2/ as a maximum annual deposition. If this level of deposition continued for 50 years and if all deposited mercury was to accumulate in the top six inches of soil, the increase in mercury levels in the soil would be on the order of 0.006 mg/kg. Safe mercury levels in soil established by Rule 62-785, F.A.C., are 3.7 mg/kg for direct exposure and 2.1 mg/kg for groundwater protection. After receiving the applicant's response to the December 29, 1998, request for additional information, Mr. Kahn performed independent evaluations to determine whether nitrate or mercury deposition would be of special concern in the area around the proposed plant. As to nitrate deposition, Mr. Kahn determined that approximately 50 tons per year of the NOx would be converted and deposited as nitrate within a 23-mile radius of the plant. He concluded that the estimated nitrate deposition from the cement plant was not significant because it was less than 0.1 percent of the annual total loading rate of nitrate (50,000 tons per year) from all other sources in the counties surrounding the Suwannee River. Mr. Kahn's independent analysis of mercury deposition yielded similar results. He concluded that, compared to the background levels of mercury existing in the soils around the proposed facility, and compared to the criteria of the Department's direct exposure soil criteria, 2/ the estimated additional mercury deposition from the cement plant would not be significant. Mr. Kahn and the applicant made several conservative assumptions in making an analysis of mercury deposition. For example, they assumed that mercury would be emitted and deposited in the cement plant's vicinity at a constant rate for 50 years. They also assumed that all of the mercury deposited on the ground would remain in the top six inches of the soil and would not migrate into any other media. On March 25, 1999, the Department conducted a public meeting on Suwannee American's application. The public commented on various issues. As to atmospheric deposition of substances, the public's comments were not structured enough for the Department to consider them per se in the application review. By letter dated March 26, 1999, the Department summarized the public concerns and requested Suwannee American to furnish the following information in relevant part: 2. Estimate potential mercury emissions from the pyroprocessing system, and characterize the fraction of mercury that will come from other raw material, coal, petroleum coke and tires. Please evaluate control methods for mercury emissions. * * * 8. What portion of the proposed plant's Nox emissions will be deposited as nitrate through dry and wet deposition within an area 25 miles radius from the site? Investigate pollution prevention techniques that may result in lower overall NOx emissions. On or about April 21, 1999, Suwannee American responded to the above-referenced questions. As to question no. 2, the responses states as follows: Response: Potential mercury emissions were submitted to the Department on February 25, 1999. Using three different approaches, the projected emissions were in all cases below the 200 pound per year threshold established by Rule 62-212.400(2)(f) and Table 212.400-2, F.A.C. as a significant emission rate increase (for PSD permitting purposes). Because the expected emissions are below the threshold amount, there is no regulatory requirement to apply BACT review for the de minimis emissions that are expected. Approximately 40 percent of the mercury will be contributed by fuel (coal) and 60 percent by raw materials. When petroleum coke or tires are used as fuel, the mercury contributed by fuel is expected to decrease. As to question no. 8, Suwannee American's response stated as follows: Response: The applicant notes that the matters inquired of in this request are not related to those matters allowed under Section 403.0876(1), F.S., and therefore requests that the Department begin processing the permit application under Section 403.0876(2)(a), F.S. However, in a continuing effort to be responsive to the concerns behind the questions asked, the applicant submits the following information, provided the submittal does not affect the permit processing time clock. Approximately 7% or less of the plant's NOx emissions will be deposited as nitrate through dry and wet deposition within an area 25 miles radius from the site. This is approximately 0.1 pounds per acre per year, and is less than one percent of the wet and dry background deposition measured at the Bradford Forest, near Starke, Florida. This analysis was very conservative, as it assumed nitrate deposition between five miles and 25 miles to be equal to the deposition rate at five miles (i.e., there was no credit taken for the decrease in deposition rate with distance beyond five miles). This approach is also conservative in that it assumed all NOx from the plant would immediately convert to nitrate and be available for deposition. This is a worst case assumption. Pollution prevention operating procedures that may result in lower overall NOx emissions are being evaluated. One technique planned for the facility is the stockpiling of limestone to allow natural drainage before pyroprocessing. Lower material moisture contents allow for the use of less fuel and hence, less NOx. After receiving Suwannee American's response to the Department's March 26, 1999, letter, Mr. Kahn reviewed the applicant's analysis. He compared information presented by the applicant with his own estimates of nitrate and mercury deposition. Suwannee American's data confirmed Mr. Kahn's prior conclusion that atmospheric depositions of mercury and nitrate from the cement plant would not be a significant fraction of the existing total deposition and total loading of those elements from all sources. Mr. Kahn did not perform any further analysis to estimate the impact of nitrate or mercury emissions on the area surrounding the proposed plant. He never made any comparisons to the Department's surface water quality criteria or standards related to Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) bodies. In other words, Mr. Kahn did not attempt to discern the specific impact of mercury and nitrate deposition on the ground water and surface water surrounding the proposed plant. His additional impact analysis was limited to comparing the estimated mercury and nitrate depositions from the proposed facility to the existing total loading of those elements from all sources in the area around the cement plant. Concluding that the impacts would be insignificant, he then informally advised certain members of the public, including Mr. Greenhalgh and some of Sierra Club/SOS' members, that the water pollution and OFW rules did not apply. The Department's Division of Air Resources never applies the standards relating to water quality or an OFW. Those standards are applied and enforced by the Department's staff in its water resource division when a water pollution permit is required. If there are off-site impacts that are not covered by the PSD rules, the applicant will be required to apply for other applicable permits. 3/ The parties do not assert that, in order to construct the cement plant, Suwannee American requires a separate water pollution permit to determine its compliance with the OFW rules. No one from the Department's water resource division officially reviewed the application at issue here. In performing his independent evaluation of additional impacts, Mr. Kahn sought information regarding the total nutrient loading in the Middle Suwannee River Basin from all sources from the Department's water resource staff, including Mr. Greenhalgh. Mr. Greenhalgh is a professional geologist who works for the Department in its water resource division. Specifically, Mr. Greenhalgh is one of the individuals working on the Department's Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) analysis for the Middle Suwannee River Basin. In response to Mr. Kahn's inquires, Mr. Greenhalgh stated that the basin had already exceeded its assimilative capacity and could not tolerate additional inputs of nitrate. Other members of the Department's water resource division gave Mr. Kahn similar opinions. However, Mr. Greenhalgh admits that he has not done any calculations to determine the impact of atmospheric deposition of nitrates from the proposed plant on the surrounding area. Mr. Greenhalgh directed Mr. Kahn's attention to a paper written by David Hornsby, an employee of a water management district, concerning the total nitrate loading from all sources in the Middle Suwannee River Basin. Mr. Kahn used data from the paper to make his comparisons between the total nitrate loading from all sources in the area to his estimate of nitrate deposition from the proposed plant. Mr. Kahn then informed Mr. Greenhalgh that the Department could not deny the permit on the basis of nitrate atmospheric deposition because the Department did not regulate all sources of nitrate in the basin. Except for the applicant, and the informal consultations with members of the Department's Division of Water Resources, no one furnished Mr. Kahn with any technical information regarding the atmospheric deposition of mercury and nitrates. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency has not developed or approved methods for calculating air deposition rates for emissions. In the absence of such standards, the methods used by Suwannee American and Mr. Kahn to determine the proposed facility's additional impact on the surrounding area were appropriate and reliable. The Department has adopted the federal government's acid rain rule (Rule 62-214.420, Florida Administrative Code.) That rule specifically addresses water quality impacts from the emissions and atmospheric deposition of sulfur dioxide and NOx from certain electric power plant facilities. The parties agree that the acid rain rule does not apply in this case. Permits for electrical power plants are issued under the authority of the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act. The Governor and Cabinet sitting as the electrical power plant siting board approve power plant siting applications. The Department's Division of Air Resources performs a PSD review for electric power plant siting applications. Unlike the circumstances in this case, an electrical power plant siting application also requires other sections of the Department to consider impacts on water quality, solid waste, and land use. Under the terms of the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act, the Department has required one other applicant to perform the type of additional impact analysis that was performed in this case. That application involved an existing Florida Power and Light Company, Inc. (FP&L) electrical power plant located near Tampa Bay, an OFW. The FP&L electrical power plant requested permission to convert to orimulsion fuel. In the FP&L power plant case, the Department took the position that water quality concerns were satisfied by a demonstration of compliance with air quality standards. There is no specific permit application that one would fill out or apply for to determine if one would be in compliance with the OFW rule. The OFW rule is usually considered in the context of another permit. However, there is no evidence that the Department has ever considered the OFW rule in the context of a new source PSD permit application. Suwannee American's proposed cement plant will be located within three miles of an OFW. There is no evidence that the Department has ever considered another application for a new source PSD (prevention of significant deterioration) permit within such close proximity to an OFW. Sierra Club/SOS' only factual allegation is that Suwannee American has not provided reasonable assurances that it would not significantly degrade the Santa Fe River, an OFW, through the atmospheric deposition of mercury, in contravention to Rule 62-302.700, Florida Administrative Code. 4/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Administrative Hearing in DOAH Case No. 99-3096, with prejudice for lack of standing. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of October, 1999.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of discharging untreated septage at a site that Respondent was not permitted to use, in violation of Rule 10D-6.052(7)(b), Florida Administrative Code; and operating two septic pumping trucks, even though authorized to operate only one such vehicle, in violation of Rules 10D-6.052(2)(a) and 10D-6.052(1), Florida Administrative Code; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Since 1989, Respondent has been a registered septic tank contractor. Petitioner annually issues Respondent a separate permit to pump, transport, and dispose of septage. Petitioner or its predecessor has disciplined Respondent on two occasions. On November 15, 1994, Respondent paid a $500 fine after the issuance of an administrative complaint for discharging improperly treated septage, and, on August 19, 1996, Petitioner issued a final order imposing a $500 fine and 90-day suspension against Respondent for repairing a septic tank system without a permit. Respondent’s attempts to explain away these violations were unpersuasive. At the time in question, Respondent’s permits allowed him to operate only one truck in transporting septage--a 1988 Ford--and to discharge septage only at one location--Hunter Land Application Site. Respondent’s permits also required him to stabilize septage only at one location--A-1 Septic Tank Service’s Lime Stabilization Facility. On August 15, 1997, Respondent operated or caused to be operated the permitted 1988 Ford truck and another unpermitted truck for the purpose of receiving and transporting septage that Respondent had pumped from septic tanks. Respondent and one of his employees drove the loaded trucks to J. R. Brooks & Sons Ranch, where they landspread the septage that they had been transporting. They dumped at this site about 8000 gallons of raw septage containing condoms, tampons, vegetable matter, and other items of the type normally found in unscreened septage pumped from septic tanks and grease traps. Petitioner had not approved the J. R. Brooks site for discharge of septage pumped from septic tanks. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) had designated the J. R. Brooks site for use by Resource Tech, which transported wastewater residuals from the Dade County Municipal Treatment Plant and discharged them at the J. R. Brooks site. The permit allowed Resource Tech to discharge wastewater residuals with only minimal levels of pathogens. DEP calculates the carrying capacity of sites such as the J. R. Brooks site based on the amount of material that they receive from permitted, disclosed discharges. After learning that the J. R. Brooks site had received unpermitted discharges, DEP determined that it must close the site and find a new one due to public-safety concerns. Respondent also failed to stabilize the septage with lime prior to discharging it on the J. R. Brooks site. The purpose of adding lime to septage is to kill pathogens. The J. R. Brooks site drains through ditches into nearby wetlands. From there, runoff drains into the Estero Bay. The untreated septage discharged by Respondent presents a greater threat to wildlife and public safety than do the wastewater residuals remaining after wastewater treatment that Residual Tech was authorized to discharge at the site. At the time of the hearing, Respondent was negotiating the sale of the business, but the buyers needed to operate under Respondent’s certificate until they could qualify to obtain one. However, Respondent admitted that he had someone else available to qualify the buyers’ operation for a certificate.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order revoking Respondent’s certificate as a septic tank contractor. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 9th day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Mastin Scott Chief Legal Counsel Department of Health Post Office Box 9309 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-9309 John Charles Coleman Coleman & Coleman Post Office Box 2089 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
The Issue Whether the challenged agency statement is a rule as defined under Section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes. If the agency statement is a rule, whether Respondent has violated Section 120.535(1), Florida Statutes, by failing to adopt the alleged agency statement as a rule. If the agency statement is a rule, whether it is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), is the administrative agency of the State of Florida which administers the relevant portions of Chapter 376, Florida Statutes, and the rules pertaining thereto with regard to the reimbursement of actual and reasonable costs of cleanup of petroleum sites. Petitioner, American Factors Group, Inc. (AFG), is engaged in the business of financing storage tank clean-ups eligible for reimbursement pursuant to Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes. Petitioner, The Environmental Trust (TET), is affiliated with AFG. Certain principals of AFG are also trustees of TET. TET acts as the funder of the contractors and subcontractors performing rehabilitation activities at petroleum sites. Environmental Factors, a division of AFG, negotiates and enters into the financing contracts with the contractors and subcontractors. American Environmental Enterprises, which is affiliated with AFG, handles the financial transactions relative to the contracts in which Environmental Factors enters as a division of AFG. In other words, American Environmental implements the contracts on behalf of AFG. Under the reimbursement program, the invoices are submitted to DEP after the program task is completed or not more than once every six months for remedial actions. DEP will reimburse the applicant for the actual and reasonable costs incurred for site rehabilitation. The application is reviewed by DEP within sixty days of receipt. If additional information is needed, DEP will advise the applicant. DEP is required to deny or approve the application for reimbursement within ninety days of the date the additional information is submitted or at the end of the sixty-day review period if no additional information is requested. Because of backlogs in the past, DEP has taken longer than the statutory time frames to make a payment for reimbursement. In the financial arrangements between a contractor and AFG, the contractor is required to submit invoices to AFG upon the completion of the contractor's services. AFG advances the contractor a discounted amount based upon a percentage of the face value of the invoice. The contractor is also required to contribute a certain percentage of the invoice amount to a reserve trust account. The turn around time between AFG's receipt of the contractor's invoice and the advance of the discounted amount to the contractor is typically five to ten days. This financial arrangement between AFG and the contractors is known as factoring. Factoring is generally construed as the purchase of an asset, which may include an account receivable, from another person at a discount. An account receivable reflects the costs that a company charges for its service after that service has been rendered but has not been paid by the entity responsible for payment. Thus, when a contractor completes his rehabilitation task, the amount of his invoice that would be submitted to DEP for reimbursement is an account receivable. In determining how much the invoice is to be discounted, AFG will take into consideration the time value of the funds. In other words, AFG uses how long will it take for AFG to receive the invoice amount from DEP as a component in determining the percentage of discount. In the instant case, AFG is not actually buying the account receivable, but is buying the right to receive the payment for the account receivable when it is paid. AFG has recourse against the contractor through an indemnity and such recourse is secured by the contractor's contribution to a reserve trust account. AFG has been using this type of financing in Florida in the context of clean ups of petroleum sites since 1993. By letter dated September 10, 1993, Paul DeCosta, an attorney representing AFG, requested Lisa Duchene of the DEP to advise him how certain activities contemplated by AFG in financing expenses for reimbursable environmental cleanups would be treated by DEP pursuant to Section 376.3071, Florida Statutes. By letter dated November 4, 1993, E. Gary Early, counsel for AFG, advised Bill Sittig of DEP of his understanding of a discussion between Mr. Sittig and representatives of AFG on October 21, 1993. The discussion concerned DEP's position on certain aspects of the financing arrangements that AFG contemplated using for the environmental cleanups. On January 18, 1994, Mr. Early wrote to Lisa Duchene, outlining AFG's plan for providing capital for site rehabilitation, and requesting that she advise him if there were any obvious problems with the proposed financing structure. Rule 62-773.350(4)(e), Florida Administrative Code prohibits the reimbursement of costs associated with interest or carrying charges of any kind with the exception of those outlined in Rule 62-773.650(1), Florida Administrative Code. In November, 1994, Mr. Early, Ms. Duchene, and Charles Williams, Environmental Administrator for DEP's Bureau of Waste Cleanup, had a telephone conversation concerning factored invoices. Mr. Early was advised the following by DEP staff: That the difference between the amount that a contractor accepted in payment for his services, which was a discounted amount after factoring, the difference between that and the face value of the invoice which was claimed and marked up in the application was determined to be a carrying charge or interest, which is specifically disallowed for reimbursement in the reimbursement rule. This position had been formulated at meeting of DEP representatives prior to the telephone call. The statement was limited to the scenario that Will Robbins of AFG had outlined in an earlier meeting with DEP staff. The statement of DEP was an informal opinion of how DEP would propose to deal with an application involving AFG and the scenario described if such an application should be submitted to DEP. In determining whether DEP would also treat the discounted amount as a carrying charge in other transactions of other entities involving factoring, DEP would have to deal with it on a case by case basis. By memorandum dated April 21, 1995, Bruce French, an Environmental Manager with DEP, set forth DEP's policy regarding factored and/or discounted reimbursement applications. The memorandum was issued to provide guidance to DEP reviewers when considering applications that involve factoring and reimbursement fees. The memorandum provided: Regarding reimbursement applications where the program task organization structure of the applicants may involve any combination of a general contractor, management company, funder and responsible party and any other parties with claims in applications from these entities, only incurred costs of the general contractor and subcontractors including allowable markups are to be considered for reimbursement. Specifically, invoices from subcontractors, vendors, suppliers, and/or the general contractor which were paid a factored (e.g., discounted) amount by a third party capital participant (e.g., funder) represents the actual amount incurred by that entity and subsequently by the general contractor. Additionally, the memorandum gave an example of factoring involving the payment of factoring fees, and explained what amounts would be allowed in the scenario. The factoring scenario described in the memorandum was not the same scenario that AFG representatives described to DEP. Petitioners have not challenged the validity of the April 25, 1995, memorandum as a rule.
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.
Findings Of Fact B. D. Taylor, Respondent, is the owner of a wastewater treatment facility near Panama City, Florida, which serves a community of some 125-150 mobile homes at Lane Mobile Home Estates. The facility has a 24,000 gallons per day capacity to provide secondary treatment of wastewater with percolating ponds. It was first permitted in 1971 upon construction and has been in continuous operation since that time. In 1980 Respondent employed the services of a consultant to apply for a renewal of its temporary Permit to operate a wastewater treatment facility. This application stated the temporary operating permit (TOP) was needed to give Respondent time to connect to the regional wastewater treatment facility. The schedule contained in the following paragraph was submitted by Respondent at the time needed to accomplish this objective, Following inspection of the facility, a TOP was issued December 5, 1980 (Exhibit 1), and expired January 1, 1983. TOPs are issued to facilities which do not comply with the requirements for Wastewater treatment. Exhibit 1 contained a schedule of compliance to which Respondent was directed to strictly comply to stop the discharge of pollutants from the property on which the facility is located. These conditions are: Date when preliminary engineering to tie into regional will be complete and notification to DER. July 1, 1981; Date when engineering to tie into regional system will be complete and notification to DER - June 1, 1982; Date construction application will be submitted to phase out present facility - March 1, 1982; Date construction will commence - June 1, 1982; Date construction is to be complete and so certified - October 1, 1982; and Date that wastewater effluent disposal system will be certified "in compliance" to permit - January 1, 1903. None of these conditions or schedules has been met by Respondent. The regional wastewater treatment facility was completed in 1982 and Respondent could have connected to this system in the summer of 1982. This wastewater treatment facility is a potential source of pollution. The holding ponds are bordered by a ditch which is connected to Game Farm Greek, which is classified as Class III waters. The size of Game Farm Creek is such that any discharge of pollution to this body of water would reduce its classification below Class III. On several occasions in the past there have been breaks in the berm surrounding the holding ponds which allow the wastewater in the holding ponds to flow into the ditch and into Game Farm Creek. Even without a break in the berm, wastewater from these holding ponds will enter Game Farm Creek either by percolation or overflow of the holding ponds caused by the inability of the soil to absorb the effluent. On January 28, 1983, this facility was inspected and the results of the inspection were discussed with the operators of the facility. The plant was again inspected on February 8 and February 18, 1983. These inspections disclosed solids were not settling out of the wastewater in the settling tanks; inadequate chlorination of the wastewater was being obtained in the chlorination tanks; samples taken from various points in the system, the ditch along side the holding tanks and in Game Farm Creek, disclosed excess fecal coliform counts; and that very poor treatment was being afforded the wastewater received at the plant as evidence by high levels of total Kejhdal nitrogen and ammonia, high levels of phosphates, high biochemical oxygen demand, and low levels of nitrates and nitrites. In July, 1983, in response to a complaint about odors emanating from the plant, the facility was again inspected. This inspector found the aeration tanks anaerobic, effluent had a strong septic odor, the clarifier was cloudy, the chlorine feeder was empty, no chlorine residual in contact tank, final effluent was cloudy, both ponds were covered with duckweed and small pond was discharging in the roadside ditch (Exhibit 14) Expenses to Petitioner resulting from the inspections intended to bring Respondent in compliance with the requirements for wastewater treatment facilities are $280.32 (Exhibit 9)
