The Issue Whether the August 30, 1988 application of Petitioner James R. Regan for a permit to operate a wastewater (sewage) treatment facility should be granted in that Petitioner has provided reasonable assurances that the operation of the facility will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution in contravention of Department of Environmental Regulation standards or rules.
Findings Of Fact The sewage treatment plant that is the focus of this proceeding is "Weakley Bayou, Inc.," a corporation. The real property upon which it is located is owned by the wife of James R. Regan. Despite corporate status, Weakley Bayou, Inc. has been operated at the option and control of James R. Regan since its inception in the early 1970's. The permit application here at issue was made in Mr. Regan's name, and he has been treated as if he were the corporation throughout all stages of the permit process. Mr. Regan brought the Petition for Formal Hearing in his own name. He was also accepted as the qualified representative for himself and the corporation. "Weakley Bayou, Inc." is an aerobic gravity flow wastewater treatment plant located in Escambia County. In 1988 James R. Regan applied for a renewal of the operating permit for the facility. The Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) issued an Intent to Deny on December 16, 1988, based on agency perceptions derived from observations, monitoring of Petitioner- generated reports, and grab samples, that the facility did not meet the requirements set down in Rule 17-6 F.A.C. Specifically, the Intent to Deny focused on the following problems: A reclaimed water sample taken on December 6, 1988 revealed the facility was exceeding BOD5 (Biological Oxygen Demand) and TSS (Total Suspended Solids) limits in violation of specific condition number 17 of Permit Number D017-71682. The BOD5 was 232.8 mg/l and TSS was 1,430 mg/l. The same sampling showed the facility was exceeding 200/100 ml for fecal coliform in violation of specific condition number 17 of permit number D017-71682 and Rule 17- 6.180(1)(b)4.d., Florida Administrative Code. The fecal coliform was 79,000/100 ml. Ground water monitoring samples show the levels of nitrates in excess of 10 mg/l in well #l on two out of last four quarterly samples, which is in violation of Rule 17- 6.040(4)(q) paragraph 4.2, Florida Administrative Code. During the inspection on December 6, 1988, the sludge blanket in the clarifier was overflowing the weirs, solids had accumulated in the chlorine contact chamber and percolation ponds in violation of Rule 17- 6.110(3) and 17-6.180(2) (e) , Florida Administrative Code. Auxiliary electrical power is not provided as required by Rule 17-6.040(4) (c) and 17-6.110(3), Florida Administrative Code. The applicant was notified March 14, 1988, that emergency power would be required. During the period (1984-1988) that Petitioner's sewage treatment plant has been permitted by DER, it has been periodically inspected and the Petitioner's self-generated reports have been monitored. From time to time after inspections, Petitioner has been notified of pollution and contaminant hazards or violations pursuant to agency standards, which hazards or violations required corrections in order to retain his permit. Among these hazards and violations have been noted large sewage spills, overflows, poor equipment condition, and substandard plant operation. In most instances, Petitioner cooperated with DER and at least attempted to adjust the plant's operation to conform to the notifications. However, as of December 15, 1988, DER notified Petitioner of the following problems with the plant: sludge blanket in the clarifier overflowing the weir, solids accumulation in the chlorine contact chamber, solids accumulation in both percolation ponds, no auxiliary power on the site, and high levels of nitrates (6.9 ppm) in Monitoring well -1. DER's test of an effluent grab sample tested BOD at 232.8 mg/L and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) at 1430 mg/L. That is, samples taken by DER during an inspection indicated excessive levels of TSS, BOD, and fecal coliform, in violation of Chapter 403 F.S. and Chapter 17-6 F.A.C. Mr. Regan admitted that for approximately four years, broken and unrepaired pipes and fittings at his plant had caused sewage spills or overflows of approximately eight thousand gallons of sewage sludge. He contended that the surface enrichment around Monitoring Well #1 was caused by a separation of a two-inch PVC skimmer line which was corrected in March 1988. Although Mr. Regan established that the leak in the pipe had been repaired, the evidence does not permit a finding that this enrichment was solely from that source, that it will dissipate over a reasonable time, or that it has not polluted the ground water. 1/ Thus, there is no reasonable assurance that fixing the leak, by itself, protects the environment. Over a period of time, Petitioner's own groundwater monitoring reports showed excessive nitrate levels and these have worsened since late 1988, according to witness Ray Bradburn. Petitioner contended that a grab sample is not as accurate as a composite sampling. Although DER witnesses concur in this contention of Petitioner with regard to grab samples generally, and although one DER witness suggested that part of the December 1988 grab sample reading by itself would not cause him to deny the permit, no credible evidence disputes the accuracy of the December 6, 1988 grab sample as a grab sample.2/ Petitioner admitted that it was and continues to be his conscious management decision to keep the plant's auxiliary gasoline powered engine locked away from the plant site so as to discourage theft and vandalism, and so as to discourage childish curiosity which might expose Petitioner to liability. He was reluctant to secure the engine on the premises as a hedge against emergency shutdowns of the plant. Mr. Regan, upon advice of outside engineers, has attempted to correct many of the cited errors and omissions. However, notwithstanding the DER's express disapproval of such a method, Mr. Regan has instructed his plant operators to curtail the input of air from the plant's blower to the sewage at night so as to create a "belching" effect designed to clear out certain wastes and thereby attempt denitrification in the clarifier. DER witnesses did not explain in any detail why Regan's belching procedure was unacceptable except that addition of an expensive denitrification unit was preferable and constituted a "reasonable assurance," whereas Mr. Regan's method had not been demonstrated to be successful in the past. Mr. Regan, who bears the burden of proof in these proceedings, did not demonstrate that his "belching" system was a reasonable assurance of denitrification or offer expert witnesses to support such a theory. This sewage treatment plant is subject to a Notice of Violation which became final on September 21, 1989. 3/
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order denying the pending permit application. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of January, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1990.
Findings Of Fact Background And Stipulations. Petitioner, Mad Hatter Utilities, Inc. (Mad Hatter) made application on May 14, 1987, for a permit to construct on a 46-acre site in south central Pasco County a 0.5 million gallon per day (MGD) field-erected, extended aeration wastewater treatment plant and spray irrigation effluent disposal system. The application also proposes the use of a 0.1 MGD temporary packaged facility to provide services during the construction and before operation of the proposed field-erected plant and disposal system. Prior to final hearing, the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) determined in free-form agency proceedings that reasonable assurances had not been provided that 0.5 MGD of effluent could be disposed of on the site safely and in accordance with the applicable statutes and rules using the proposed spray irrigation disposal system and that the capacity of the plant and disposal system should be limited to 0.1 MGD. Mad Hatter filed a petition challenging the DER's proposed agency action to down-size Mad Hatter's application Love Our Lakes Association (the Association) and Augustine L. Miro (Miro) each filed a petition challenging the DER's proposed agency action to grant the down-sized application. Pasco County intervened in support of the DER's proposed agency action. Also, prior to the hearing, the parties stipulated that the proposed wastewater treatment plant, in itself, provides reasonable assurance that wastewater will be treated in accordance with the requirements of the applicable statutes and DER rules and standards. However, remaining for resolution is the issue of how much effluent can, with reasonable assurance, be disposed of on the site safely and in accordance with the applicable statutes and DER rules and standards using the proposed effluent disposal system. 1/ At the final hearing, the standing of all of the parties was stipulated. Whether Plant Capacity Should Be Limited To Currently Available Effluent Disposal Capacity. In addition, at final hearing, the DER changed its position and urged that a permit could and should be issued to Mad Hatter to construct the proposed 0.5 MGD capacity wastewater treatment plant subject to the installation of a physical "baffle" or partition capable of limiting the actual operational capacity of the treatment plant (and, therefore, the effluent disposal system) to 0.1 MGD. The proposed "baffle" is described by Mad Hatter Exhibit 10, in evidence. Mad Hatter proposed a 0.5 MGD wastewater treatment plant because it is the smallest centralized plant that can be field erected and still provide economies of scale in its construction. The evidence proved that a proposed welded but removable steel "baffle" of the kind described in Mad Hatter Exhibit 10 would, along with other DER controls, provide reasonable assurance that the actual operational capacity of the plant would not exceed the effluent disposal limitation placed on the DER construction permit. Depending on where in the extended aeration chamber the baffle is placed, the reduction in treatment capacity will be proportional to the reduction in size of the aeration chamber, e.g., a reduction to 1/5 of design size will limit effective treatment capacity to 0.1 MGD. In addition to the physical "baffle," typical permit conditions require a wastewater treatment plant operator to report levels of plant activity to the DER and allow the DER to inspect the plant at reasonable times. In addition, customers of a wastewater treatment plant must receive a DER permit to send wastewater to the plant for treatment, and the permit places a limit on the amount of wastewater sent for treatment, giving the DER control over the inflow to the plant (and, therefore, the outflow, too.) Allowing Mad Hatter to build a plant with more capacity than currently available effluent disposal capacity allows Mad Hatter to more cost-effectively provide for anticipated future need for sewage treatment in the Land O'Lakes area. Rather than Mad Hatter or other utilities having to build multiple, inherently less cost-efficient "package plants," each at new construction costs, Mad Hatter could simply remove the "baffle," which itself costs only about $10,000, if additional effluent disposal capacity could be established. Excess plant capacity provides an incentive for Mad Hatter to explore the real possibility of contracting with customers for the use of treated wastewater ("gray water") as a source of additional effluent disposal capacity. The result would comport with the DER's policy to encourage reuse. Capacity Of The Currently Proposed Effluent Disposal System. Mad Hatter proposes to apply 0.41 MGD at an average of 2.4" of wastewater per week to a 43.69 acre spray field area on the site. Mad Hatter's permit application does not specify any spray irrigation schedule or identify non-application days when spraying of effluent would not be possible due to adverse climatic conditions, harvesting conditions, maintenance of irrigation equipment, or other conditions which preclude irrigation. Mad Hatter intends to grow as a cover crop on the irrigation site either bahia hay or other similar grass. Mad Hatter's permit application does not specify what soil-plant system Mad Hatter proposes to employ on the site for nutrient uptake. Mad Hatter plans to install a series of several hundred adjustable sprinkler heads for the distribution of effluent throughout the site. Each head is expected to have a reach of between 50 and 75 feet. Smaller sprinkler heads (18" high) were selected to reduce potential aerosol dispersion of mist during irrigation. Mad Hatter's proposed disposal system design incorporates a total of 1.5 million gallons of effluent storage capacity in two lined holding tanks to be constructed on site. Each tank is designed to be 150' square, with a design depth of three feet plus one foot of freeboard. The bottom and banks will comprise a vinyl liner placed on grade and lapping up onto the sides (above grade) which will consist of earthen berms reinforced by, steel angle irons and support rods. No emergency overflow discharge or "pop-off" device is incorporated for either tank. In the event the tanks become full when no irrigation is possible, tank contents may be routed back to the head of the treatment plant if it is not already overloaded. The capacity of a particular parcel of land to safely and adequately dispose of wastewater by spray irrigation depends on several factors: (1) design and construction of the system, including storage capacity; (2) rainfall; (3) water table; (4) soil composition; (5) permeability or hydraulic conductivity of the soils; (6) evapotranspiration; (7) treatment level of the wastewater; (8) nutrient uptake capability of the ground cover; (9) flow of water on and off the site; (10) classification of area waters, especially downstream; and (II) other characteristics of the immediate vicinity. The parcel of land Mad Hatter has selected for its proposed spray irrigation effluent disposal system is near Land O'Lakes, Pasco County, Florida. It is approximately 1300 feet south of Lake Thomas which is at a higher elevation than the site. The site consists of Zolfo series fine sand to depths of about 35 to 40 feet, below which is a layer of primarily clay to a depth of about 120 feet. The clay is thick enough to protect the Floridan aquifer, which lies still deeper below the surface. The soils found on the proposed disposal site are denominated as Zolfo fine sands under the classification system of the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (SCS). The SCS Soils Atlas for Pasco County describes Zolfo fine sands as follows: The Zolfo series is a member of the sandy, siliceous hyperthermic family of Grossarenic Entic Haplohumods. It consists of somewhat poorly drained, moderately permeable soils that formed in thick deposits of marine sand. These nearly level soils are on the uplands. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of 24 to 40 inches for 2 to 6 months during most years. It is at a depth of 10 to 24 inches for as long as 2 weeks in some years. Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent. The Mad Hatter site displays the fluctuating seasonal high water table level characteristic of Zolfo soils. During soils testing associated with the permit application process, the water table on site was observed at varying levels ranging from six feet below the surface (in October) to at or near the surface (in July), with average levels from two to three feet below surface observed in September, December, and February. The Lake Thomas area, as is the case with the Land O'Lakes region in general, has poor drainage. This area, including the proposed site, which formerly had been an orange grove like others still located in the area, historically has experienced periods of persistent standing water and saturated soil conditions during the rainy season. The area receives more than half of its annual rainfall (35.46") during the rainy season, the period from June through September. Ground penetrating radar tests and soils analysis indicated no significant paleosinks on the site. There were no indications of karst formations at the site. The site, as it presently exists, does not handle stormwater runoff efficiently. Runoff flows onto the site from upstream properties north and east of the site. The furrows on the site which remain from its use as a citrus grove allow stormwater to sheet flow onto the site and sit in numerous depressions until it leaves the site by percolation. However, Mad Hatter will grade the site to eliminate the depressions. In addition, Mad Hatter proposes to reestablish the former swale or ditch along Lake Thomas Road to facilitate proper drainage for the properties east of the site. This swale would tie into the existing ditch along the pipe beneath Drexel Road. The swales will divert runoff water originating at higher elevations off-site from the site and direct the runoff to a drainage ditch and culvert leading off the parcel near the midpoint of the western boundary. In extremely wet conditions, runoff might back up in the culvert, the swales and an existing drainage ditch running east from the culvert towards the middle of the site. The grading and drainage improvements to which Mad Hatter has committed would transmit stormwater in a more efficient and direct manner and will be easy to maintain. These improvements would reduce the quantity of water that occurs on the site by diverting runoff from adjacent properties so that it no longer flows onto the site. This would enhance the capability of the site to treat or dispose of effluent, Even under existing or natural conditions, the possibility of surface runoff from the site flowing into Lake Thomas is remote. The natural flow of groundwater across the site is west-southwest. Therefore, the likelihood of groundwater flowing to the north to Lake Thomas is very remote. As an extra assurance against surface runoff into Lake Thomas, Mad Hatter proposes to construct a two- to three-foot high berm along the site's north property line as described in Mad Hatter Exhibit 2F, in evidence. (This proposal is not a part of the application, but Mad Hatter committed to it at final hearing.) This berm would further preclude surface runoff from flowing in the direction of Lake Thomas and would provide 24 acre-feet or 7.8 million gallons of storage under "worst case" circumstances until water could flow naturally. The proposed berms and drainage improvements will have the net effect of decreasing the amount of water added to the site during rainfall, will decrease sheet flow across the site, and will keep water from "sheeting" across Lake Thomas Road, which is directly to the north of the site, and mixing with the waters of Lake Thomas. A groundwater monitoring plan is a hydrological study of a site to describe the subsurface lithology of the site, identify the depth of the water table, or any confining layers, determine the direction of groundwater flow and determine the location of any public or private potable water supply wells in the area. The groundwater monitoring plan for the site proposes a background well in the northeast corner of the site to sample water upstream of the site and three wells to be placed on the south and west property lines to demonstrate any impacts of effluent on the groundwater before it leaves the property. The groundwater monitoring plan proposed by Mad Hatter is adequate. Using an extended aeration technique, a clarifier, more-than-adequate detention time for chlorination and a tertiary filter, Mad Hatter's treatment plant will treat wastewater to relatively advanced stages. The proposed bahia hay or similar grass ground cover will provide adequate nutrient uptake upon application of the wastewater to the land. Section 7.5 of the Land Application Of Domestic Wastewater Effluent In Florida manual, which is incorporated by reference into Chapter 17-6, Florida Administrative Code, requires that a detailed soil-vegetation management program be included in the engineering report in an application for a wastewater treatment plant permit. Under Section 7.1 of the Manual, this requirement can be waived in 0.1 MGD plant proposals but is mandatory for proposed plants as large as 0.5 MGD. There was no evidence as to exactly where between 0.1 and 0.5 MGD the Section 7.5 requirement becomes mandatory. It is not possible to predict with complete accuracy the capacity of a parcel of land to dispose of wastewater effluent, even taking as many factors into account as possible. Only actual operational experience will be able to pinpoint disposal capacity. The operating permit can and should be adjusted to actual experience, whether up or down. Mad Hatter presented evidence through the opinion testimony of a qualified expert that the disposal system has a capacity of 0.41 MGD. This opinion does not account for variations in nutrient uptake because they were not expected to make a significant difference in capacity. It assumes no drainage improvements on the site and assumes that sheet flow onto the site equals sheet flow off the site. In preparing the water balances that support the opinion, the annual rainfall in 1983 or 1984 (whichever represents the highest annual rainfall in the last ten years) was used, and water loss by evapotranspiration was conservatively estimated by assuming grasses at the site and making downward adjustments from data collected by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) at Lake Alfred. To estimate water loss by percolation, the lowest permeability results from double ring infiltration tests (46.5 minutes/per inch) were converted using a conservative factor of 1.4 percent, resulting in water loss through percolation of just 0.421 inches per day. In its document entitled "The Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters," the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends applying a 4-10 percent reduction factor to measured percolation values to estimate water loss by percolation. But it is not clear what kind of percolation tests are recommended by the EPA. Expert witnesses for the DER accepted the water balance methodology used and calculations made by Mad Hatter. But the DER witnesses stressed that the water balance is, as a matter of DER policy, only a guide and a starting point in assessing the capacity of a particular parcel of land to dispose of effluent. This is because unique characteristics of a particular site (such as soil composition, grade and vegetation) can result in Significantly different capacity than calculated by the water balance. Based on a site visit on July 22, 1987, and other eyewitness reports, the DER experts were of the opinion that only 0.1 MGD of effluent could be disposed of as proposed. On July 22, 1987, the sky was clear and temperatures were in the 90s. The last rain was less than one inch on July 20, 1987; yet, 30 percent of the site was covered by two inches of water, and the ground was saturated all over the site on July 22. The water table generally was less than 2 feet below the surface on July 22. Local residents told the DER experts and later testified at final hearing that similar or wetter conditions are prevalent generally throughout the months of May through August. When saturated conditions such as were observed on July 22, 1987, prevail at the site, spray irrigation of effluent cannot take place without causing surface water sheet flow runoff or ponding prohibited by the DER Land Application Manual. During periods when no spray irrigation is possible, it will be necessary for Mad Hatter to store treated wastewater for disposal at a later time when soil conditions permit. Primarily because Mad Hatter's application called for installation of a 0.1 MGD interim package plant during field erection of the proposed permanent plant and because 0.1 MGD was the threshold size for a mandatory groundwater monitoring plan, the DER conservatively and grossly estimated site capacity to be 0.1 MGD. Pasco County's expert witness also based his opinion on a water balance. Like the Mad Hatter expert, the County expert did not account for variations in nutrient uptake, assumed no drainage improvements, and assumed no net sheetflow on or off the site. The County expert did not use the double ring infiltration method Mad Hatter's expert used or any other site specific data to measure hydraulic conductivity. He estimated hydraulic conductivity at eight feet per day based on regional data from the area of the Southwest Florida Water Management District. It is not understood how this measure of hydraulic conductivity relates to either the 46.5 minutes per inch infiltration rate observed in Mad Hatter's double ding infiltration test or the 0.421 inch per day percolation water loss rate used in Mad Hatter's water balance. But the County expert specifically testified that he does not agree with Mad Hatter's methodology for obtaining a percolation water loss rate. He testified that there is no relationship between the results of a double ring infiltration test and the hydraulic conductivity of soil. The former, he says, just measures the rate at which water can enter the "soil horizon" and is a function solely of the permeability of the top 6 inches or so of the soil; on the other hand, he says, the latter measures the rate at which water moves vertically through saturated soil and leaves the soil from below. Mad Hatter did not rebut this testimony. Using his method, the County expert opinion was that 0.1 MGD of effluent could be disposed of at the site with only three days (or, at that rate, 300,000 gallons) of storage for the average annual rainfall but that 16 days (or 1,600,000) of storage would be required to accommodate the 10-year recurrence interval, i.e., the heaviest rainfall experienced within the previous decade. The DER's Land Application Of Domestic Wastewater Effluent In Florida manual, at Section 1.10, provides in pertinent part: Since soil-plant relationships are complex, the initial design loading rate should be conservative; a maximum annual average of two inches per week is recommended. The department will consider a rate higher than the two inch per week average provided the rate is substantiated in the engineering report on the basis of the renovating and hydraulic capacity of the soil-plant system, the existing quality and use of surface or groundwater in the area, and other hydrogeologic conditions. A two inch per week loading rate equates to 341,900 gallons per day; 0.41 MGD equates to 2.40 inches per week; 0.1 MGD equates to just 0.59 inches per week. The DER's Land Application Manual requires a minimum effluent storage volume equal to three days maximum daily flow of the treatment plant. In addition, the manual recommends a storage volume equal to the plant's maximum daily flow multiplied by the number of non-application days necessary to accommodate the 10-year recurrence interval. If planned storage capacity were exceeded during continuing wet weather, Mad Hatter would attempt to return effluent overflow to the head of the plant, if possible. If there is no room at the head of the plant, approximately 24 acre-feet or 7.8 mullion gallons of effluent could accumulate on the site after the berms are constructed and swales improved, as proposed. If an emergency of such proportions developed that the emergency capacity of the site were exceeded, overflow from the site would be discharged, eventually, into the Anclote River but probably not into Lake Thomas. Mad Hatter failed to provide reasonable assurances that 0.41 MGD of treated wastewater cane be applied to the proposed disposal site without surface discharge or runoff in all weather conditions, including wet weather. Mad Hatter failed to provide reasonable assurances that effluent storage capacity proposed by Mad Hatter would be adequate to accommodate the total volume of effluent which would have to be stored on the site during wet weather saturated conditions if Mad Hatter were permitted to treat more than 100,000 gallons of sewage per day. There are reasonable assurances that 0.1 MGD of treated effluent can be applied to the proposed site without surface discharge or runoff in all weather conditions. The 1.5 million gallon effluent storage capacity proposed by Mad Hatter would be adequate to accommodate the volume of effluent which would have to be stored during wet weather saturated conditions if Mad Hatter were permitted to treat 0.1 MGD of sewage. Because the natural flow of groundwater and surface water is away from Lake Thomas, it is unlikely that groundwater or surface water contamination caused by the plant or spray field would impair water quality in Lake Thomas, particularly if only 0.1 MGD of treated effluent is disposed of on the site in the manner proposed. In the absence of a demonstration by Mad Hatter of additional effluent disposal capacity at alternative sites or through reuse agreements with local developers, it is not arbitrary for DER to require that the effective treatment capacity of the proposed Mad Hatter wastewater plant be limited to the demonstrated effluent disposal capacity of the proposed site by installation of a removable baffle in the extended aeration chamber of the plant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order granting the application of Mad Hatter Utilities, Inc., subject to the standard DER general permit conditions and subject to the following special permit conditions: A welded but removable steel "baffle," as described in Mad Hatter Exhibit 10, shall be incorporated in the proposed treatment plant reducing the size of the operable extended aeration chamber to one-fifth the original size and thereby reducing the operable capacity of the treatment plant to one-fifth, from 0.5 MGD to 0.1 MGD, until Mad Hatter can establish 0.5 MGD disposal capacity by reuse or by additional disposal acreage or both. Swales shall be improved and dug and berms constructed on the disposal site, as described in Mad Hatter Exhibit 2F. Bahia hay or, subject to DER approval, other similar grass shall be planted and maintained on the disposal site as the vegetative cover crop for nutrient uptake. Mad Hatter shall specify, subject to other permit conditions, its proposed spray irrigation schedule, including non-application days when spraying of effluent would not be possible due to adverse climatic conditions, harvesting conditions, maintenance of irrigation equipment, or other conditions which preclude irrigation. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 1988.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent Seanic Corporation's application for an operating permit for a domestic wastewater treatment facility should be granted.
Findings Of Fact On January 20, 1994, Respondent Seanic Corporation submitted to Respondent Department of Environmental Protection an application to construct a wastewater treatment and disposal facility. The application requested approval to construct a facility with a design capacity of 15,000 gallons per day and to discharge its treated effluent to G-III groundwater through two Class V injection wells. Although the Department had no rules with specific depth requirements for such wells, the plans that accompanied the application contemplated wells with a total depth of 90 feet below land surface, which would be cased down to a depth of 60 feet below land surface. On February 23, 1994, the Department gave notice of its intent to issue the requested construction permit. Petitioners did not challenge the issuance of the construction permit, and the Department issued the permit on April 22, 1994, with an expiration date of five years after the issuance of the permit. On February 17, 1999, Seanic began construction of the permitted facility, including the construction of the two Class V injection wells. At the time the wells were first drilled, there were no statutes or rules regarding the appropriate depth of underground injection wells at a facility like Seanic's. Construction of the Seanic facility was completed before April 12, 1999, as reflected by the Certificate of Completion of Construction for the permitted facility. On April 21, 1999, Seanic filed with the Department its application to operate the facility. Chapter 99-395, Laws of Florida, became effective on June 18, 1999, approximately two months after the facility was constructed and the operating permit application was submitted. Section 5 of Chapter 99-395 defines the term "existing" to mean "permitted by the Department of Environmental Protection or the Department of Health as of the effective date of this act." Chapter 99-395 imposes different effluent limitations for "existing sewage facilities" than those that are applied to new facilities. For facilities that have a design capacity of less than 100,000 gallons per day, new facilities must provide treatment that will produce an effluent that contains no more, on a permitted annual basis, than the following concentrations: Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD5) of 10 mg/L Suspended Solids of 10 mg/L Total Nitrogen of 10 mg/L Total Phosphorus of 1 mg/L These standards are frequently referred to as the "10-10-10-1 Standard." In accordance with Section 6(4) of Chapter 99-395, "existing sewage facilities" have until July 1, 2010, to comply with the 10-10-10-1 standard. Prior to that date, "existing sewage facilities" must meet effluent limitations of 20 mg/L for both CBOD5 and suspended solids and must monitor their effluent for concentrations of total nitrogen and total phosphorus. The Seanic facility is an "existing" facility, as that term is defined in Chapter 99-395, and, therefore, has until July 1, 2010, to comply with the 10-10-10-1 standard. Section 6(7)(a) of Chapter 99-395 requires Class V injection wells for facilities like Seanic's to be "at least 90 feet deep and cased to a minimum depth of 60 feet or to such greater cased depth and total well depth as may be required by Department of Environmental Protection rule." The Department has not promulgated any rules requiring Class V injection wells to be deeper than the depth prescribed in Chapter 99-395, Laws of Florida. As of January 26, 2000, the total depth of Seanic's injection wells measured 92 and 94.5 feet, respectively. On November 24, 1999, the Department entered its notice of intent to issue the operating permit applied for by Seanic and attached to the notice a "draft permit" with the conditions and effluent limitations that would be applied to the facility. In issuing the notice, the Department determined that Seanic had provided reasonable assurance that the facility will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution in contravention of applicable statutes or the Department's standards or rules. The draft permit included effluent limitations of 20 mg/L for both CBOD5 and suspended solids and required Seanic to monitor its effluent for total nitrogen and total phosphorus, in accordance with Chapter 99-395, Laws of Florida, and the Department's rules for existing sewage facilities. The draft permit notes that Seanic must comply with the 10-10-10-1 standard by July 1, 2010. Because Seanic's condominium development has not been completed and the wastewater treatment facility is not expected to go into operation for approximately one year, the draft permit also requires that the facility be re-inspected and re-certified immediately prior to going into operation. The Seanic facility was designed to create an effluent that is several times cleaner than required by Department rules. The facility uses an extended aeration process that is expected to reduce levels of both biological oxygen demand ("BOD") and total suspended solids ("TSS") to lower than 5 mg/L, concentrations that are 75 percent lower than the effluent limitations in the draft permit. Similar facilities in the Florida Keys have shown that they can achieve BOD and TSS concentrations of less than 5 mg/L. The Seanic facility has also been designed to provide a greater level of disinfection than required by law. While the draft permit requires only that the facility maintain a chlorine residual of 0.5 mg/L after fifteen minutes' contact time, the facility has been designed with larger chlorine contact tanks to provide a chlorine contact time of approximately one hour at anticipated flow rates. The facility operator can also increase residual chlorine concentrations. These facts, along with the reduced TSS levels at this facility, will provide considerably greater levels of disinfection than the law requires. Although the draft permit does not contain effluent limitations for total nitrogen or total phosphorus, the levels of these nutrients expected to be present in the Seanic facility's effluent are approximately 5 mg/L and 2-3 mg/L, respectively. Studies conducted on the rate of movement of phosphorus in the subsurface indicate that some of the phosphorus is rapidly immobilized through chemical reactions with the subsurface soil matrix. Specifically, studies conducted on injection wells in the Florida Keys report that 95 percent of the phosphorus is immobilized within a short time after entering the injection well. Studies conducted on the rate of movement of nitrates in the subsurface indicate that some nitrate migration is also retarded through chemical reactions with the subsurface soil matrix. More specifically, studies conducted with injection wells in the Florida Keys report that denitrification removes approximately 65 percent of the nitrates within a short time after the effluent enters the injection well. In addition to the chemical reduction of phosphorus and nitrogen levels in the groundwater, studies conducted on injection wells in the Florida Keys with a total depth of 90 feet and a cased depth of 60 feet have reported extremely high dilution rates by the time effluent injected into such wells would appear in surrounding surface waters. More specifically, studies using chemical and radioactive tracers have reported dilution rates on the range of seven orders of magnitude, i.e., 10 million times. After undergoing chemical reduction in the groundwater as well as extremely high dilution rates, the levels of nitrogen and phosphorus that would be expected to enter Captain's Cove and the adjacent canals will be infinitesimal, i.e., less than one part per trillion. Such levels would be several orders of magnitude below detection limits of currently available analytical methods. The surface waters in the artificial canals and in Captain's Cove surrounding the homes of Petitioners' members are classified by the Department as Class III waters that are predominantly marine. The permitted levels of fecal coliform bacteria in the facility's effluent (as restricted in the draft permit) are identical to the discharge limits for fecal coliform bacteria in Class III waters that are predominantly marine. The operation of Seanic's facility will not result in discharges of fecal coliform bacteria in excess of the applicable effluent limitations. Petitioners' expert witnesses agree that the facility, as designed, will comply with all of the conditions and effluent limitations in the draft permit. No Department rule or standard will be violated by this facility. The Department has not promulgated any effluent limitations or standards for viruses to be discharged to G-III groundwater or Class III surface waters that are predominantly marine. Petitioners' members use and enjoy the clear waters in their canals and in Captain's Cove. They have had the water quality tested four times a year since 1988. Captain's Cove, along with the adjacent canals, has remained a clear, oligotrophic water body with minimal algae growth. Petitioners' members fear that the introduction of viruses and other microorganisms through the facility's effluent will cause swimming in Captain's Cove and the adjacent canals to be harmful to their health. Their fear has been heightened by newspaper stories about viruses and a publicized study which erroneously claimed that Captain's Cove had high levels of harmful bacteria. Petitioner Port Antigua Property Owners Association ("PAPOA") received notice of the Department's intent to issue an operating permit to Seanic. The president discussed the permit with another resident, a microbiologist, who in turn discussed the facility with geologists and reviewed studies performed in the Florida Keys. Their serious concern over the depth of the injection wells and the possible release of viruses and bacteria harmful to the marine environment and to the public health was expressed throughout PAPOA's petition, and a copy of one of the tracer studies upon which they relied was attached to the petition. The president of Petitioner Port Antigua Townhouse Association, Inc. ("PATA"), who is also a member of PAPOA, discussed the Department's notice of intent with the president of PAPOA and the microbiologist. He also discussed the project with a member of PATA who oversees Broward County's wastewater treatment facility, which has the same effluent limitations as the Seanic facility. PATA members believed they should join with PAPOA and the Lower Matecumbe Key Association in requesting a hearing on Seanic's operating permit. PATA and others have also filed litigation in the Circuit Court against Seanic Corporation and others. That litigation is still pending. Petitioners were not able to cite any statute or rule that would be violated by the Seanic facility's discharge. They believe that since the facility is not yet operating, it should be required to adhere to the stricter effluent standards required for new facilities. They also believe that the Department should consider the harmful effects of viruses and bacteria on the marine environment and on the public health. Petitioners did not file their petitions for any improper purpose. They did not file their petitions for any frivolous purpose or to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or to increase Seanic's costs in obtaining an operating permit for its facility. They believed the language in the Department's notice of intent to issue the permit which advises substantially affected persons that they have a right to an administrative hearing and that the Department could change its preliminary agency action as an result of the administrative hearing process. They believe they are simply exercising a right that they have under the law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting Seanic's application for an operating permit for its domestic wastewater treatment facility but denying Seanic's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Francine Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Evan Goldenberg, Esquire White & Case, LLP First Union Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-5309 Lee R. Rohe, Esquire Post Office Box 500252 Marathon, Florida 33050 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Phillip G. Panos, recently moved from Michigan to Florida and is now a Florida resident. On December 9, 1989, prior to moving to Florida, he applied to the Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation for certification as a Class C domestic waste water treatment plant operator. The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged, among other duties, with regulating the certification, the practice standards and the educational standards of Class C domestic waste water treatment plant operators. The Respondent agency reviewed the Petitioner's application and denied it for failure to demonstrate the requisite three years of experience required by the rule cited below. From April, 1974 to June, 1990 the Petitioner was employed at the Chapaton Pumping Station in St. Clair Shores, Macomb, Michigan. The Chapaton Pumping Station duties involved the Petitioner monitoring the distribution of sewage flows, collecting sludge samples, chlorinating the effluent and pumping it into Lake St. Clair. When the Petitioner left the Chapaton Pumping Station, in June of 1990, he held the position of Senior Station Operator II. The Chapaton Pumping Station receives a combination of storm water flow and sanitary sewage flows. It is a pumping and storm water retention facility for combined sewage. The facility provides primary treatment and disinfection for this combined sewage effluent. The effluent is chlorinated and then pumped to nearby Lake St. Clair while the solids that have settled out of the effluent are retained, collected and sent to the Detroit waste water treatment facility for advanced waste treatment. Chapaton is classified by the state of Michigan's Department of Natural Resources as an "industrial/commercial facility". The industrial classification was originated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and has been adopted as a designation or classification by both Michigan and Florida. The Petitioner holds an industrial/commercial waste water treatment certification from the state of Michigan in the category of "plain clarification and disinfection." The Petitioner's experience in Michigan is in the area of industrial waste water treatment and does not constitute actual experience in on-site operational control of a domestic waste water treatment plant (that is a sewage treatment plant). The Petitioner's experience in Michigan does not qualify as industrial waste water treatment plant experience, that could be used to meet the actual experience requirement, because the Chapaton plant performs only primary treatment and disinfection. Secondary or advanced waste treatment is performed at the Detroit waste water treatment plant, with which the Petitioner has no experience. In a typical domestic waste water treatment plant in Florida, "primary treatment" involves primary clarification or settling. Primary clarification occurs in a circular or rectangular tank where soluble solids settle out to the bottom of the tank and floating solids are removed by a skimming device. The soluble solids are called sludge. Primary clarification can remove 40% of BOD and suspended solids. It is not a form of advanced treatment or even secondary treatment. At the Chapaton plant, during primary treatment, a minimum of 70% BOD and suspended solids are removed. The sludge is not treated at the Chapaton plant but is pumped to the Detroit waste water treatment plant. Thus Chapaton could not be classified as a domestic waste water treatment plant by Florida standards, since it only provides primary clarification and no secondary or advanced waste water treatment. Secondary treatment consists of two types. Activated sludge or trickling filter treatment. Both types deal with oxygen being introduced to the sludge to achieve stabilization and more settling out of the sludge elements. Since June 18, 1990 the Petitioner has been employed as a waste water treatment plant operator I in a training program at the George L. Lohmeyer Waste water Treatment Plant in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. In that training program the Petitioner is being trained in all phases of operation of the Lohmeyer plant. It is a 34-million-gallon-per-day (MGD) activated sludge treatment plant. In his duties, the Petitioner monitors the plant treatment processes, takes samples and submits them to the city's laboratory. The Petitioner is capable of testing the samples himself for dissolved oxygen, chlorine and ph. Reports are signed by the regional chief or the regional facilities manager. The Petitioner's present position qualifies as actual, appropriate experience in the operational control of a waste water treatment plant. The Petitioner has accumulated approximately 3-1/2 months of the 12 months of actual experience required for certification as a Class C waste water treatment plant operator, through the exercise of his duties at the Lohmeyer plant. The Petitioner must accumulate 12 months or 2,080 hours of actual experience before he can qualify for the Class C certification. The Petitioner is a high school graduate and has successfully completed Volumes I and II of the California State University correspondence course in waste water treatment, which is included on the Respondent agency's list of approved courses. Petitioner's 3-1/2 months of actual appropriate experience in Ft. Lauderdale, plus his educational background, including the courses taken in California, yield a total of 36 months or 3 years of constructive experience. Petitioner does not yet have the 12 months of actual experience required by the rules but rather, is approximately 8-1/2 months short of the actual experience requirement. Thus, the Petitioner fails to meet the experience requirement necessary for certification as a Class C domestic waste water treatment plant operator at this time, although in approximately 8-1/2 months, he should be able to meet that requirement.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is therefore RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Department of Environmental Regulation denying Petitioner's application for certification as a Class C domestic waste water treatment plant operator without prejudice to reapplication at such time as his one year of actual experience at such a treatment facility is completed. DONE and ENTERED this 11 of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11 day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-479 (The Petitioner filed no proposed findings of fact.) RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT 1. - 21. are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED TO: Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Phillip G. Panos 2315 N.W. 115 Drive Coral Springs, FL 33065 Francine M. Ffolkes, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should be required to obtain a current operating permit for his aerobic treatment unit and have a $500.00 fine imposed for violating an agency rule for the reason cited in the Citation for Violation issued by Petitioner on December 1, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this dispute, Petitioner, Department of Health (Department), has alleged that Respondent, Dr. Anthony Massaro, a retired public health physician, failed to obtain an annual operating permit for an aerobic treatment unit (ATU) located at his residence at 3402 North Oceanside Boulevard, Flagler Beach, Florida. The Flagler County Health Department (Health Department) is charged with the responsibility of issuing such permits. That department is under the direction and control of Petitioner. While Respondent readily admits that he failed to obtain a permit, he contends that he was misled by the Health Department when he first installed an ATU at his residence; the Health Department is not enforcing the law regarding ATUs and thus another system would be more appropriate; and the law, as he interprets it, allows him to install another type of on-site sewage disposal unit on his property. Respondent purchased his property in Flagler County in 1997. The property is located in Ocean View Estates Subdivision (subdivision), which has an Urban Single-Family Residential District (R-1b) zoning classification under the Flagler County Land Development Code (Code). Section 3.03.05A of the Code requires that owners within the R-1b classification use "public or community water and sewer facilities," but makes an exception for "[s]mall R-1b subdivisions, fifty (50) lots or less, utilizing a public community water system," in which case residents "may utilize Class I aerobic onsite sewage disposal systems." Further, "[t]he use of individual onsite sewage disposal systems must be consistent with adopted county policies and standards." Because the subdivision has 50 lots or less, and public or private sewer facilities were not available in the area, the subdivision's Plat Agreement recorded in 1995 provided that "[i]ndividual aerobic onsite sewage disposal systems are to be permitted and constructed as each lot is developed." Another type of onsite sewage disposal system is the anerobic system, which has a septic tank and larger drainfield, is far less expensive, but does not conform with "county policies and standards" in this locale. Thus, this type of system requires a variance from the zoning regulations before one can be installed in the subdivision. Even so, Respondent says "all" of his neighbors have installed such a system. Because of the Plat Agreement, the zoning restriction, the difficulty in obtaining a variance, and the lack of a sewer line, Respondent had no choice except to use an ATU system for his residence. This meant that he had to apply for a permit from the Health Department. Once a permit is obtained and an ATU installed, the owner must renew his operating permit annually at a cost of $150.00, and he must enter into a maintenance agreement with a licensed contractor. The $150.00 fee is used to defray the costs incurred by the Health Department in making quarterly inspections and performing annual sampling and laboratory analysis of effluent. The record does not reflect precisely when a sewer line became operational across the street from Respondent's property, but the sewer project was accepted "for service" in April 1998, or before Respondent's ATU was installed in August 1998. Had Respondent known this, he would have obviously chosen that option rather than an ATU. The evidence reflects that in November 1997 Respondent made application for an ATU with the Health Department, a permit was issued in December 1997, and the system was installed and approved in August and September 1998, respectively. In early April 1998, the Health Department was advised by the private utility company that it would accept new sewer connections in a service area that included Respondent's home. However, Health Department representatives made no mention of this to Respondent since they were under the impression that he desired to use the ATU option, they do not normally "counsel" applicants on onsite sewage disposal system options, and Respondent had made no inquiry. Disclosure of this fact would have saved Respondent considerable money (and grief) in the long run; unfortunately, however, while good public relations would dictate otherwise, the Health Department had no legal obligation to do anything other than process the pending application. Likewise, it has no obligation in law to now pay the costs for Respondent to hook up to the line because of its non-disclosure. Respondent has now invested more than $5,000.00 in his ATU. This type of system is operated by a compressor in Respondent's garage, which must be run 24 hours per day, and is very noisy. Because of this, Respondent understandably wishes to change to an anerobic system, which has a traditional septic tank, larger drainfield, no unsightly "mound" in the yard, no annual permits, and is far cheaper than an ATU. Also, it does not require a noisy motor to sustain operations. However, this type of system is prohibited by the Code except where a variance from Flagler County (County) has been obtained. It appears to be unlikely that Respondent can obtain a variance from the County. Because Respondent's property is so low in relation to the sewer line, to achieve the proper gravity, he must install a lift station and pay a connection fee, both totaling $3,540.00, before hooking up to the sewer system. Given these costs, and the considerable investment he already has in an ATU, Respondent does not consider this to be a viable alternative. Respondent pointed out that, despite the requirement that they do so, many ATU owners in the County are not running their systems 24-hours per day because of the noise from the compressor. He also pointed out that the Health Department has consistently found numerous violations of such systems during its inspections. He further asserted that while the $150.00 annual fee is to defray certain sampling and laboratory analysis costs associated with inspecting ATUs, the Health Department has done neither on his ATU. Finally, Respondent pointed out that prior to 1999 the regulations were enforced by sampling the compliance of a very small percentage of total ATU systems (ten percent), rather than all systems, in the County. Given these considerations, Respondent concludes that ATUs are the least effective way to treat sewage, and that existing laws and regulations have not been enforced. Assuming these allegations to be true, and they were not seriously disputed, they are legitimate concerns. However, until the law is changed, they do not constitute a lawful basis for allowing Respondent to switch to an anerobic system. Respondent further contended that under his interpretation of the general law, which was not fully understood by the undersigned, he is not required to use an ATU. But local zoning regulations clearly require that he do so, and until the state or local regulations are changed or waived, he cannot use an anerobic system. Finally, Respondent has cooperated with the Department throughout this process. With his lengthy public health background, Respondent initiated this action with good intentions, seeking to point out the flaws in the ATU systems, and to remedy a problem which none of his neighbors apparently have. Given these considerations, a civil penalty should not be imposed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order sustaining the charge in the Citation for Violation and requiring that Respondent obtain an annual permit for his ATU. A civil penalty is not warranted. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 20th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Charlene J. Petersen, Esquire Department of Health 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Dr. Anthony Massaro 3402 North Oceanside Boulevard Flagler Beach, Florida 32136 Amy M. Jones, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Health (Department or DOH) should fine the Petitioner, Jeffery Benefield, $500 and require him to move the drainfield of his onsite sewage disposal system so that no part of it is within ten feet of the potable water line of his neighbors, the Intervenors, Robert and Wanda Schweigel.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner's home at 10920 Lake Minneola Shores Road (Lake County Road 561-A) was built in 1977. It included an onsite septic tank and drainfield sewage disposal system. On March 31, 2003, the Petitioner personally applied for a permit to repair his existing sewage disposal system by replacing the drainfield. His application did not identify any potable water lines. Department personnel evaluated the site and calculated system specifications, and the Department issued a construction permit on April 3, 2003, based on the estimated size of the existing system. To replace the existing drainfield and meet specifications, 375 square feet of drainfield was required. However, the Petitioner wanted to add 125 square feet to what was required by the specifications, which is acceptable so long as required setbacks are maintained. The Petitioner's drainfield was replaced by a licensed contractor on April 29, 2003. Some work may have been done the following day to complete the job, but it appears that the contractor called for the final inspection on April 29, 2003. On inspection, it was clear that the new drain line closest and (like the other three) parallel to the property line was less than ten feet from a water line, riser, and spigot on the neighboring property, which was owned by Robert and Wanda Schweigel. Specifically, the closest of the new drain lines was estimated to be just five feet from the Schweigels' water line, riser, and spigot. (The next closest was just under ten feet from the Schweigels' water line, riser, and spigot.) As a result, the Department disapproved the installation. The Petitioner disputed the disapproval, initially contending that the Schweigels' water line, riser, and spigot did not convey potable water. It was decided that the new drainfield should be covered while pending a decision as to whether the water line was potable. By the end of July 2003, the Department decided that the Schweigels' water line was indeed potable. In that approximate time frame, the Petitioner's contractor offered to pay to have the Schweigels' water line "sleeved" to a distance at least ten feet from the nearest portion of the Petitioner's drainfield.2 He believed that solution would be much simpler and less costly than moving the Petitioner's drainfield to a distance at least ten feet from any part of the Schweigels' potable water line. This alternative was presented to the Schweigels in that approximate timeframe, but they refused (and continue to refuse.) In August 2003, the Petitioner took the position that, regardless whether the Schweigels' water line was potable, the Petitioner's new drainfield was in the same location as the existing drainfield, and the part of the water line closest to the new drainfield (i.e., the part including the riser and spigot) was not there until after the middle of April 2003 and was recently installed either just before or while the Petitioner's new drainfield was being installed. The evidence was not clear as to the configuration and precise location of the drain lines in the Petitioner's original drainfield. However, it appears to have had three drain lines emanating from the septic tank, starting in the direction of the Schweigels' property and then curving away in the direction of Lake Minneola, which is behind the Petitioner's and the Schweigels' properties, before terminating. The replacement drainfield had pipe emanating from the septic tank and running towards the Schweigels' property line before making a 90-degree turn towards the lake before connecting to the middle of a header pipe. Connecting to the header pipe are four equally-spaced drain lines, one on either end of the header pipe and two in between, that are perpendicular to the header pipe and parallel to each other and to the Schweigels' property line (and potable water line) and run towards the lake. As indicated, it was not clear from the evidence precisely where all of the old drain lines were located, or how close they got to the Schweigels' property (and potable water line.) However, it does not appear that they got as close as two of the four new drain lines in the replacement system. See Petitioner's Exhibits 13 and 21. There was conflicting evidence as to when the Schweigels' potable water line was installed. It is clear from the evidence that there are now three "T's" off the water line from the potable water source near the street. One "T- off" leads to near the front corner of the house, one leads to the middle of the side of the house, and one leads to near the rear corner of the house. The line then extends past the last "T" to the location of the water riser and spigot. The Petitioner's evidence proved that the water line riser and spigot now within ten feet of the Petitioner's drainfield were not there either in May 1999 or on April 14, 2003. But the Schweigels maintained, and the evidence as a whole was persuasive, that the potable water lines currently in place were installed in 1996 or 1997, but were cut and moved to enable the Schweigels to install footers for construction of a concrete privacy wall in approximately 1999. After installation of the footers, the water line had to be moved several inches closer to the Schweigels' house when replaced, and the "T's" were reconnected to the line. In approximately April 2003, the water line riser and spigot were damaged (the evidence was not clear how) and had to be replaced. The evidence was that the Schweigels got a permit to build their privacy wall but did not get a permit for the plumbing work that was necessary in conjunction with the installation of the footers for the wall. Although it appears from the evidence that a plumbing permit was required, the Schweigels did not think a separate plumbing permit was necessary. It is not found that the Petitioner participated in this proceeding for an "improper purpose"--i.e., "primarily to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or for frivolous purpose or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation, licensing, or securing the approval of an activity."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order that the Petitioner pay a $500 fine and either: (1) pay the reasonable cost of having the Schweigels' potable water line "sealed with a water proof sealant within a sleeve of similar material pipe to a distance of at least 10 feet from the nearest portion of the system," so long as no portion of the Schweigels' potable water line "within 5 feet of the drainfield shall be located at an elevation lower than the drainfield absorption surface"; or (2) move or relocate his drainfield to meet the setback requirements of the current Rule 64E-6.005(2)(b). DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner's application for a Class B waste water treatment plant operator was received by Respondent on September 20, 1991. Ms. Setchfield who is in charge of reviewing and approving and/or denying all applications, reviewed Petitioner's application. Based on the documentary evidence submitted by Petitioner, he was given constructive credit for 58 months and actual credits received was 27.6 months for a total credit time of 85.6 months. To receive credit for educational experience, an applicant must demonstrate that his major area of study is in science or biology. Alternatively, an applicant may receive credit provided he furnish Respondent a transcript which would delineate the areas of his studies he successfully completed and the credits received. However, in such instances, an applicant only receives partial credit. Petitioner has been advised (by Respondent) that if he furnish a copy of his transcript, it will be reviewed and if it demonstrates that he is entitled to credit for courses he successfully completed, he would be awarded such credit. Petitioner steadfastly refuses to provide a transcript to Respondent. To be eligible for certification as a Class B waste water treatment plant operator, an applicant must demonstrate, at minimum, that he/she has the required minimum of 96 months total creditable time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for certification as a Class B waste water treatment plant operator, as he has failed to satisfy the minimum total time requirement for such certification. 1/ DONE and ENTERED this 29th Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. day of May, 1992, in 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 29th day of May, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Respondent/applicant, Kensington Park Utilities, Inc. (applicant), is a public utility located in Sarasota, Florida. On October 12, 1984, applicant filed an application with respondent Department of Environmental Regulation (DER); seeking approval to construct a domestic wastewater treatment and disposal system in an unincorporated area of Sarasota County Florida. 1/ More specifically, the project will be located on a thirty-five acre tract of land lying west of Tuttle Avenue and north of 27th Avenues just northeast of the City of Sarasota. It is directly east of a housing development known as Newtown Estates. A drainage ditch separates the two properties. Petitioners, Eddie Lee Rosier, Sr. and Ernest Dubose, either live in or near the Newtown subdivision. Petitioners, Alfred W. Jones and Mary James did not testify at final hearing and their interest in this matter is not of record. Petitioner, Newtown Homeowners Association, Inc., is a nonprofit corporation made up of homeowners or residents in the Newtown housing development. In this proceeding petitioners oppose the manner in which the project will be constructed as well as its location. Applicant proposes to construct a 175,000 gallons per day capacity expandable extended aeration wastewater treatment system with effluent disposal to two percolation holding ponds of 125,000 square feet each and spray irrigation of a 3.2 acre site. The 3.2 acre spray area will serve as a backup to the percolation ponds. There will be total retention of effluent onsite, and none will be discharged to the ditch which separates Newtown and Kensington's property. The estimated cost of the project is $500;000. The project is designed to serve the present population of 1,750 until regional sewage treatment becomes available, at which time this plant will be shut down or tied into the regional system. If constructed, this plant will serve the western portion of its franchise area including Newtown Estates, Windmill Villages and Rolling Green. The entire plant site will be fenced with a locked gate in accordance with a Sarasota County ordinance. Applicant is subject to the regulatory control of both DER and Sarasota County (County). The County has established a local pollution control program pursuant to Section 403.182, Florida Statutes. As such, applicant is required to obtain permitting approval from both the County and DER. In this regard, applicant's plans and specifications were reviewed by both DER and County personnel and both made on-site inspections of the property in question. All DER and County rules, regulations and standards were found to be met. Specifically, applicant has given reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not discharged emit or cause pollution in contravention of DER standards or rules. Further, the proposed groundwater discharge will not cause significant adverse effects to the designated uses of the adjacent groundwaters. This was not controverted by petitioners. Petitioners' objections fall into four broad categories. First, they challenge the location of the project, and particularly its placement on the most westerly portion of a tract of undeveloped land which lies immediately adjacent to Newtown and a recreational area. Because of this, they fear that spray from the spray irrigation site will drift onto their homes and picnic area when easterly winds prevail. However, a 150 foot setback has been established in accordance with agency rules, and "downsprays" will be used to prevent such an occurrence. Second, they are concerned that in the event of an "emergency , raw sewage containing virus and bacteria may be dumped into the drainage ditch adjacent to their property. However this concern is unfounded. If an unanticipated emergency arose, only overflow water from the percolation ponds would be discharged into the ditch, and by that time the water would be 90 percent free of contaminants. Moreover, in the event of an emergency, applicant's facility is capable, with only minor modifications, of discharging effluent to another plant approximately two miles away. Third, petitioners are concerned that the plant will emanate a noxious odor which because of petitioners' proximity, will make living conditions in the Newtown area most undesirable. They point out that a city-owned sewage plant on 12th street which is a mile away emits noxious odors that can be detected in the Newtown area. However, petitioners' own expert concedes the plant's design is the "best design" possible for eliminating odors, and only through an unplanned malfunction could an odor occur. Moreover, applicant's plant is far superior to the city's; and is designed to eliminate the type of odor that is emitted from that facility. Finally, petitioners suggest that if raw sewage is dumped into the drainage ditch, it may eventually seep into "the underground water system" and endanger the well water of persons living immediately south of the project. But since no raw sewage will be discharged, this concern is without merit. This finding is corroborated by expert testimony of witness Suttcliffe who concluded that the treatment process posed no threat to surrounding groundwater. Other contentions relating to the utility's hookup policy its potential for accidents involving neighborhood children, and the alleged diminishment of property values in the immediate area, while well intended are not within the purview of DER's regulatory scheme.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the agency issue a permit to applicant as reflected in the agency's notice of intent to issue dated March 17, 1985. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings Hearings DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 23rd day of July, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Robert W. Hall, Certification Officer for Respondent, reviewed the application. As indicated by Hall's testimony and notations on Petitioner's application, Respondent gave Petitioner credit for work and training experience in Vietnam, but determined that Petitioner was only qualified to be a Class C water treatment plant operator. Respondent certified Petitioner as a Class C operator on February 4, 1982. Hall's testimony established that although Petitioner met Class B operator education and experience requirements, he had not taken or successfully completed an approved training course as described in Section 17-16.03(9), Florida Administrative Code (FAC). A list of approved training courses was introduced as Exhibit 3. The required length of time for the training course is 120 hours, and courses are available in the vicinity of Petitioner's residence and by correspondence course. In response to Hall's testimony, Petitioner stated that he had taken an equivalent course for four months in Vietnam, as indicated on the second page of his application to the Respondent. The application was, however, inconsistent with Petitioner's resume (Exhibit 2), which listed training from July, 1972 to August, 1972 at the National Water Supply Agency in Saigon, Vietnam. Furthermore, Petitioner presented no evidence, documentary or otherwise, to establish course content, the number of hours involved, or the certification, if any, granted. Respondent also presented the testimony of Mr. William Johnson, Director of Public Utilities for the City of Saint Petersburg. Johnson is certified as a Class A water treatment plant operator, which is the highest level of certification. He has an extensive professional background in the area of water and wastewater treatment, and is involved in teaching and curriculum development in these areas at Hillsborough County Community College. He was a member of a task force established in 1975 when Respondent first implemented the above cited rule. The task force established various criteria and standards to be applied in developing curricula for water plant operator training courses, based upon accepted national practices. Johnson's testimony established the distinction between Class C, B and A operators. A Class C operator is typically a line employee at a water treatment plant who is able to make repairs, but works at the direction of a supervisor. A Class B operator has sufficient managerial capabilities to manage a shift at a major treatment plant, and has extensive familiarity with the mechanics and engineering of the treatment plant processes. A Class A operator has additional theoretical knowledge as well as administrative and budgetary skills, and can take charge of a major water treatment plant.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying the petition. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Hinh van Nguyen 445 11th Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
