The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioners are entitled to an on-site sewage disposal system ("OSDS") permit in consideration of the statutes and rules relating to approval of permits cited and discussed herein, or whether they are entitled to a variance from the strict requirements of those statutes and rules so as to allow the installation of the OSDS on their property near the Suwannee River. See Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners purchased real property located in Levy County, Florida, in 1967. That property is located in the unincorporated community of "Fowlers Bluff" on the east bank of the Suwannee River. The property is more particularly described as the west one-half of Lot 13, and the east three- quarters of Lot 14, Treasure Camp Addition, Unit 3. The lot in question is approximately 100 feet by 125 feet by 197 feet in size. There is adequate unobstructed area available for the subject system's installation, according to Respondent's Exhibit NO. 1 in evidence. The lot is part of a subdivision which was platted prior to 1956. The subject lot has available a potable water source from the public water system. Consequently, the lot is of sufficient size to meet the quarter-acre minimum requirement for the installation of septic tank and drain-field systems in situations where lots have potable water available from a public water system, which is the case in this circumstance. The effective soil depth at the drain-field installation site is greater than 42 inches below the bottom surface of the proposed drain-field trench or absorption bed location. That is, 72 inches of sand, which is a "slight limited soil" and appropriate for such installations, exist at the site. The wet season water table was shown to exist at 26 inches below the grade level. The wet season water table, pursuant to Rule 10D-6.047(2) Florida Administrative Code, must be at least 24 inches below the bottom surface of the drain-field trench or absorption bed. Consequently, the wet season water table in this situation is not sufficient in depth for the proposed installation to meet this provision of the Respondent's rules. The Petitioners seek to gain approval for a system to serve a single- family residence of approximately 2,000 heated and cooled square feet, with a "standard" 350 gallons per day sewage flow. The residence would contain three bedrooms, as presently envisioned. The Petitioners' Exhibit NO. 1 establishes a benchmark elevation for the grade level of the proposed OSDS installation site of 7.48 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"). The actual grade elevation is 0.8 feet below that benchmark elevation. That is, the elevation of the grade of the property is 6.72 feet above MSL at the proposed installation site., The ten-year flood elevation for the proposed installation site, however, is 9 feet above MSL, as verified by a report prepared by the Suwannee River Water Management District, admitted into evidence and which was submitted to the Respondent by the Petitioners in the application process. The property also lies within the regulatory floodway of the Suwannee R for purposes of Rule 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code. Testimony by Mr. Parker, as well as the Respondent's evidence through Mr. May, establishes that the property in the past has had approximately 30 inches of fill placed on it. Because of this, the grade level elevation is in fairly-close proximity to the ten-year flood elevation and because of the prevailing slight limited soil type down to a depth of six feet, the property was shown to be generally amenable to installation of a mounded septic tank and drain-field disposal system, which mounding could raise the property so that the bottom of the drain-field trench or absorption bed would not be within the ten- year flood elevation. As Mr. May indicated by letter dated March 1, 1990 to Mr. Parker, the lot could be filled utilizing slight limited soil so that a mound to contain the septic tank and drain field of no more than the required 36 inches, pursuant to Rule 10D-06.0493(b), Florida Administrative Code, might be utilized. That letter, in evidence, also indicates that if the lot, or a portion of it, is filled, the fill shall extend a minimum of 20 feet in all directions beyond the perimeter of the mound base. The lot was shown to be of sufficient size to accommodate such a perimeter area of fill. In that same letter, Mr. May advised Mr. Parker that he had the right to request a variance from the provisions of Chapter 10D-6 Florida Administrative Code, since his property, in Mr. May's view, did not meet the criteria in that regulatory chapter for the issuance of an actual permit. The record does not reflect that an actual variance application had been filed, however. It would thus seem that this property is amenable to a reasonable alternative solution to a conventional, subterranean septic tank and drain-field system by the use of the "mounding process". That alternative, however, pursuant to Rule 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code, would require the certification of a registered professional engineer to the effect that the installation of such a mound could be done ,in such a way as not to raise the "base flood" level. This is because the property lies within the regulatory floodway of the ,Suwannee River; and under the rule section cited last above, a `certification must be made that the base flood level will not be raised by such a mounded system installation for property lying in the regulatory floodway. The Petitioners adduced no such engineering testimony or evidence to establish that if the system were installed with the mounding process, the base flood level would not be raised. In addition to the evidence culminating in the above Findings of Fact, the Petitioners offered general testimony to the effect that they had purchased the property in question for purposes of both having a "retirement rest egg" and a place to live should they choose to live on the property. The Petitioners established that they, like numerous other OSDS permit applicants in similar proceedings, are undergoing a hardship because they purchased the property for residential purposes or for re-sale for residential purposes and cannot construct a residence and live on the property or sell it for that purpose because of the inability to obtain a permit. The Petitioners' proof, in terms of the variance criteria noted below, is inadequate to show that there are no alternative systems available which will adequately dispose of and treat the sewage to be expected, nor did the Petitioners establish that installation of the system presently proposed would only constitute a minor deviation from the requirements of the Respondent's OSDS permitting rules, in terms of having no adverse effect on the health of the Petitioners, the general public, or upon the surface or ground waters involved in the vicinity of the site. Although the Petitioners did not formally apply for a variance, no adequate proof in these two particulars was offered so as to justify the grant of a variance; however, it was established that the property was platted prior to 1972 for purposes of the relaxed consideration embodied in the variance rule and statute for this circumstance. The Respondent now asserts, however, that the Petitioners should not be accorded the opportunity to avail themselves of the variance procedure because of the Respondent's interpretation of the Governor's Executive Order 90-14, which it opines precludes it from granting any variances or permits for OSDS's within the ten-year flood elevation. The Governor's Executive Order, which incorporated the "Suwannee River Task Force" recommendation to preclude such systems beneath the ten- year flood elevation, was entered on January 17, 1990. The Respondent has, in effect, interpreted that Executive Order as precluding it from exercising its discretion to entertain and grant or deny variance applications.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the application for the subject permit, without prejudice to a later application for a variance or a later application for an OSDS permit based upon additional and changed facts and circumstances. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 20th day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3695 The Petitioners submitted no proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-8. Accepted. 9. Rejected, as immaterial. 10-11. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esquire General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Arnold G. Parker P.O. Box 467 Chiefland, Florida 32626 Frances S. Childers, Esquire Assistant District III Legal Counsel Department of HRS 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) should grant the Petitioner's applications, filed under F.A.C. Rule 10D-6.045, for variances from the F.A.C. Rule 10D-6.046(1)(c) requirement that on-site treatment and disposal systems (OSTDS's) be placed no closer than 200 feet from public drinking water wells serving a facility with a sewage flow of more than 2,000 gallons per day (gpd).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Joseph DiGerlando, owns three lots (1, 2 and 26) in the San Remo subdivision in Hillsborough County, which was platted in 1977. There is a public water well located between lots 1, 2 and 26. The well serves the entire San Remo subdivision, a 55-lot residential development having a total sewage flow much greater than 2,000 gallons per day (gpd) (although the sewage flow from homes built on lots 1, 2 and 26 can be expected to total no more than approximately 1350 gpd.) There is no way for the Petitioner to construct an on-site sewage treatment disposal system (OSTDS) on each of the three lots so that no part of any OSTDS will be closer than 200 feet from the San Remo well, measured horizontally across the ground surface to the well head. Measuring horizontally across the ground surface to the well head: an OSTDS on lot 1 could be placed no farther than 156 feet from the well; an OSTDS on lot 2 could be placed no farther than 184 feet from the well; according to drawings in the Petitioners' application, an OSTDS on lot 26 could be placed no farther than approximately 185 feet from the well. (Although lot 26 is larger than the others, it is contiguous to a surface water body, and the required setback from the surface water body decreases the area available for siting an OSTDS on the lot. The evidence was not clear exactly how far an OSTDS on lot 26 would be from the San Remo well.) HRS concedes: (1) that requiring 200-foot setbacks from the San Remo well will place the Petitioner under a hardship that was not caused intentionally by his own actions; and (2) that no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of sewage on his lots 1, 2 and 26. (It is not clear how or why HRS determined that utilization of a joint OSTDS to serve all three lots through the imposition of cross-easements on the lots would not be a reasonable alternative to at least one or two of the variance applications.) The San Remo well, which is 400 feet deep, has a steel casing from the surface of the well to 100 feet below the ground surface. The steel casing prevents the entry of ground water into the well above the bottom of the casing. If the distances between the proposed OSTDS's and the San Remo well were measured diagonally, through the ground, from the proposed OSTDS's to the bottom of the steel casing of the well: the proposed OSTDS on lot 1 would be 185 feet from the well; the proposed OSTDS on lot 2 would be 209 feet from the well; and the proposed OSTDS on lot 26 would be even farther from the well. (The evidence was not clear exactly how much farther.) In fact, due to the draw-down effect of the well, the path groundwater would travel from the proposed OSTDS's to the bottom of the steel casing of the San Remo well would curve upward somewhat from, and be somewhat longer than, the diagonal line running directly between those two points. (The evidence is not clear exactly how much longer the curved path would be.) If the distances between the proposed OSTDS's and the San Remo well were measured first horizontally across the ground surface to the well head and then vertically down to the bottom of the steel casing of the well: the proposed OSTDS on lot 1 would be 253 feet from the well; the proposed OSTDS on lot 2 would be 281 feet from the well; and the proposed OSTDS on lot 26 would be even farther from the well. (Since the bottom of the OSTDS's will be three feet below the ground surface, the vertical component of the measurement is only 97 feet instead of the full 100 feet between the well head and the bottom of the casing.) When applying the HRS rules on distances required between OSTDS's and existing public water wells, HRS measures from the OSTDS horizontally across the ground surface to the well. The evidence was that HRS's method of measurement is consistent both with the methods used by the federal EPA and with the scientific data on which the technical advisory board based the distances in the HRS rules. The Petitioner's expert witness testified that there is a 17-foot thick layer of sand and clay between 53 and 70 feet below the ground surface in the vicinity of the San Remo well and that the sand and clay layer would prevent contamination from the OSTDS's from reaching the bottom of the steel casing of the well. (He also testified that is a white lime rock layer between 70 and 90 feet below the ground surface and inferred that the white lime rock layer would add some degree of protection.) The opinions of the Petitioner's expert are accepted. Petitioner's expert is a civil, sanitary and environmental engineer, not a geologist or hydrogeologist; however, his experience is in the area of wastewater treatment and disposal is extensive. Meanwhile, HRS presented no competent evidence whatsoever to contradict the Petitioner's expert. The Petitioner proposes to use Norweco Singulair Bio-Kinetic Waste Water Treatment Systems. These systems treat waste better than a standard septic tank system. Instead of the single septic tank, they have three distinct chambers: first, a retreatment chamber; second, an aeration chamber to reduce biological oxygen demand (BOD) and total dissolved solids (TDS); and, finally, a clarification or filter chamber that further reduces BOD and TDS. With the proposed systems, BOD and TDS will be reduced to approximately a fourth of the BOD and TDS levels that would enter the drainfield from a septic tank system. In addition, unlike in a septic tank system, the proposed systems utilize chlorine tablets in conjunction with the clarification chamber to kill bacteria and viruses. It is found that the evidence presented in this case, taken as a whole (and in particular in the absence of any competent evidence to contradict the credible opinions of the Petitioner's expert) was sufficient to prove that the proposed OSTDS's would not adversely affect the health of members of the public. Except for a fleeting reference in its Proposed Recommended Order, HRS has not taken the position that the Petitioner's proposed OSTDS's will significantly degrade the groundwater or surface waters. The reference in the Proposed Recommended Order would seem to reflect that HRS's concern about the impact of the Petitioner's proposed OSTDS's on groundwater quality is limited to its public health concerns.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) enter a final order granting the Petitioner's applications for variances, on the condition that the Petitioner utilizes the proposed Norweco Singulair Bio- Kinetic Waste Water Treatment Systems. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 30th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-6483 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted but conclusion of law, subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. 3.-6. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as to "significantly degrade the groundwater or surface waters"; HRS did not make this an issue, except with respect to public health concerns. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. However, accepted that HRS presented no evidence sufficient to support a finding on the issue. See Section 120.58(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1994). Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as to "relevant criteria"; not proven and as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted but conclusion of law, subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. 3.-7. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as contrary to facts found and as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (As found, HRS did not contend that the Petitioner's OSTDS's would "significantly degrade the groundwater or surface waters." HRS only raised this issue with respect to public health concerns.) 10.-12. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (These were hearsay statements that were not sufficient to support findings as to the matters asserted. See Section 120.58(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1994).) COPIES FURNISHED: Raymond R. Deckert, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 4000 W. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33614 Nelson D. Blank, Esquire Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin Frye, O'Neill & Mullis, P.A. 2700 Barnett Plaza 101 E. Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33601-1102 Robert L. Powell Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Kim Tucker, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondents' Division of Hotel and Restaurants' license should be suspended or revoked, or a civil penalty assessed for alleged violation of Division Rule 7C-4.01(5)(c) and Florida Statute s. 509.221, as set forth in Notice to Show Cause issued by the Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact On April 19, 1977, Johnny Bell, inspector for petitioner's Division of Hotels and Restaurants, received notification from the Health Department of Sarasota County that respondents' place of business, Port-of-Call, resort apartments located at Longboat Key, Florida, was not connected to the sewerage system of Longboat Key. Bell inspected respondents' premises and discovered that a septic tank system was in use at the Port-of-Call. He informed respondents that they must connect to an "approved" sewerage system within sixty (60) days. On June 20, 1977, Bell returned to the premises and found that no action had been taken to connect to the Longboat Key system. Respondent Edward W. Henderson informed him that he should not have to go on such a system because his septic tanks were adequate and functioning properly. Bell did not examine the septic tanks or ascertain if they were, in fact, in proper condition and operating satisfactorily. He proceeded to issue a Notice to Show Cause as to why respondents' license No. 68-606H should not have a civil penalty assessed against it or be suspended or revoked. The stated cause for such intended action was as follows: "Division Rule 7C-4.01(5)(c) ; Florida Statutes 509.221 -- Failure to have sewage system hooked into public sewerage system." The Notice to Show Cause also informed respondents of their right to an Administrative Hearing under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Respondents thereafter requested such a hearing. There is no food operation at the Port-of- Call. (Testimony of Bell, Exhibit 1)
Recommendation That the charges against respondents be dismissed. Done and Entered this 10th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence C. Winson, Esquire Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building, Suite 210 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John W. Meshad, Esquire 100 South Washington Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 33577
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 Whether the Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact District is a governmental agency of the State of Florida created and empowered by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, to regulate permitting and construction of water wells, and to regulate well contractors. William Bedard, Post Office Box 545, Branford, Florida 32208, is a water well contractor with license #2830. Bedard constructed a water well for Wendell Forsythe in Three Rivers Estate, Township 6 South, Range 15 East, Section 25 in Columbia County, Florida. This is within the District. Said well was a four inch water well. Said well was constructed sometime prior to July 11, 1991. Bedard applied for a permit from the District on July 11, 1991. District requested additional information from Bedard by telephone on July 11, 1991, and followed up with a letter which was mailed March 23, 1992. The additional information in the form of a survey was provided to the District on May 22, 1992. The District issued a permit for said water well on June 16, 1992, approximately 11 months after the well was drilled. Bedard had one previous violation for drilling a water well without a permit. He applied for and received an after-the-fact permit in that instance. In mitigation, Bedard offered the following facts: Wendell Forsythe (Forsythe) lives in South Florida and only comes to his property in Columbia County on weekends. Forsythe met with Bedard on the site to discuss the proposed well. Forsythe said he wanted to go forward, and Bedard advised Forsythe that he would begin on Monday after he obtained a permit from the District Office which was closed. Forsythe wanted to see the work done, and told Bedard that he would get another contractor if Bedard would not start the well right away. Bedard constructed the well and applied for a permit on the first working day after construction of said well. Before Bedard constructed the well, Forsythe told him that the site was not within the flood plain and a survey would not be required. The site was within the flood plain, and a topographic survey was required. The District asked Bedard for a survey. Bedard passed the request for the survey on to Forsythe, however, Forsythe did not provide this information until May of 1992 when he became aware that he might be liable. The District's attorney's fees and administrative costs were $970.00.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: A penalty be assessed against the Respondent in the amount of $275, and and Two and one half points be assessed against the Respondent's license, No attorneys fees or costs be assessed through this administrative hearing process. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of November, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The De Soto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Janice F. Bessinger, Esquire 10 North Columbia Street Lake City, FL 32056-1029 William Bedard Post Office Box 545 Branford, FL 32208 Jerry Scarborough, Executive Director Suwannee River Water Management District Route 3 Box 64 Live Oak, FL 32060
The Issue Whether the Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District's applications for construction of wastewater collection and transmission systems, specifically, Permit Numbers CS50-298013, CS50-301197, and CS50-305990, should be granted by the Palm Beach County Health Department.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Palm Beach County Health Department (Health Department) was delegated the authority by the Department of Environmental Protection to review applications and issue permits for wastewater collection and transmission systems pursuant to the Specific Operating Agreement for Delegation of Wastewater Program Authority From the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The argument specifically referenced Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the successor to Title 17, Florida Administrative Code, which is Title 62. Respondent, Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District (ENCON), is a water control district. Petitioner, Village of Tequesta (Tequesta), is a municipal corporation. Petitioner Bermuda Terrace & Pinetree Drive Concerned Citizens (Concerned Citizens) is a coalition of homeowners of record owning property in Bermuda Terrace and on Pinetree Drive. On December 17, 1996, the Health Department issued Permit No. CS50-298013 to ENCON for installation of sewers in Bermuda Terrace and Pinetree Drive. On March 27, 1997, the Health Department issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Permit No. CS50-301197 to ENCON for the construction of sewers in Country Club Point and Anchorage Point. On June 24, 1997, the Health Department issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Permit No. CS50-305990 to ENCON for the construction of sewers in Tequesta Country Club. Currently the wastewater in the areas for which the sewers are proposed to be installed flows into septic tank systems. There are 835 homes on the Tequesta Peninsula that would be hooking up to the proposed sewer system. The Health Department created a review form for internal use in reviewing applications for sewage collection permits. The Sewage Collection Checklist contains the statutory and administrative rule requirements for permitting sewage collection and transmission systems. The applications submitted by ENCON were reviewed using the review form. All three applications met the criteria contained in the applicable statutes and rules. 11. Robert Mitchell, who supervises the permitting for wastewater collection systems for the Health Department, opined that the permit applications provided reasonable assurances that the construction and operation of the sewage system would not discharge, emit, or cause pollution. A sewage collection system does not emit or discharge pollution and, if constructed and functioning according to the technical requirements of the administrative rules, does not cause pollution. Thus, the applications compliance with the technical compliance with Rules 62-604.400 and 62-604.300, Florida Administrative Code, is reasonable assurance that the proposed systems will not cause pollution. 12 The proposed permits contain the following specific condition: Prior to construction, all required permits or approvals must be obtained for all aspects of the project from the appropriate agencies. Any dewatering required by the construction of the wastewater collection/transmission system will have to meet the permitting criteria for that particular activity, which comes under the jurisdiction of the South Florida Water Management District and not the Health Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting Permit Nos. CS50-301197, CS50-305990, and CS50-298013 to ENCON for construction of sewer systems. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. James Howell, Secretary Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 306 SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 17th day of April, 1998. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 306 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Victoria Coleman, Esquire District 9 Legal Office Department of Health Post Office Box 29 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Scott G. Hawkins, Esquire Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. 505 South Flagler Drive Post Office Box 3475 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3475 Timothy W. Gaskill, Esquire Curtis L. Shenkman, Esquire DeSantis, Gaskill, Smith & Shenkman, P.A. 11891 U.S. Highway One North Palm Beach, Florida 33408
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the applicant, Craig Watson, has provided reasonable assurances in justification of the grant of an Industrial Waste Water Facility permit for a rotational grazing dairy to be located in Gilchrist County, Florida, in accordance with Section 403.087, Florida Statutes, and the applicable rules and policies of the Department of Environmental Protection. Specifically, it must be determined whether the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the operation of the industrial waste water facility at issue will comply with the Department's ground water quality standards and minimum criteria embodied in its rules and relevant policy, including draft permit conditions governing the proposed zone of discharge for the project. It must be determined whether the ground water beyond the proposed zone of discharge will be contaminated in excess of relevant state standards and criteria and whether the water quality of the G-II aquifer beneath the site will be degraded. Concomitantly it must be decided whether the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project will comply with the Department's effluent guidelines and policy for dairy operations as industrial waste water facilities, pursuant to the Department's policy enacted and implemented pursuant to its rules for granting and implementing industrial waste water facility permits, as they relate to dairy operations.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Craig Watson has applied for an Industrial Waste Water Facility permit to authorize the construction and operation of an 850-cow, rotational grazing dairy, with accompanying dairy waste management system, to be located in Gilchrist County, Florida. The system would be characterized by ultimate spray application of waste effluent to pastures or "paddocks" located on a portion of the 511-acre farm owned by Mr. Watson. The rotational grazing method of dairy operation is designed to prevent the ground water quality violations frequently associated with traditional dairy operations. Traditional dairy operations are often characterized by intensive livestock use areas, which result in denuding of vegetation and consequent compacting of the soil, which prevents the effective plant root zone uptake method of treating dairy waste and waste water for prevention of ground water quality violations. Such intensive use areas are typically areas around central milking barns, central feeding and watering troughs, and other aspects of such operations which tend to concentrate cows in relatively small areas. The rotational grazing dairy attempts to avoid such problems by dividing a dairy farm's surface area into numerous pastures which cows can graze upon with constant and frequent rotation of cows between such pastures. This avoids overgrazing or denuding of the cover crop upon which cows graze, which is so necessary to proper treatment of wastes through root zone uptake. A rotational grazing dairy is designed to re-cycle cow manure for use as fertilizer to grow and re-grow the forage established on the site in the paddocks or pastures. The rotational grazing method is based on the theory that nutrients from cow manure can be captured in the root zone and uptaken as fertilizer for the plant upon which the cattle graze. The waste from the barn area is collected in a waste storage pond or lagoon and sprayed as liquid effluent on the grassy cover crops established in the various pastures, as is the sludge or more solid waste removed periodically from the waste storage lagoon. The applicant, the 511 acres and the project itself would use approximately 440 acres of that tract. The site is approximately 6 miles south of the Santa Fe River. The majority of the soil on the site consists of fine sand and clay-sand type soils. The dairy would contain approximately 850 cows. Lactating cows (cows being milked) would be grazed in some 36 pastures divided by fencing. They would be grazed in the pastures approximately 85 percent of the time and lactating cows would be in the milk and feed barn located in the center of the lactating cow pastures approximately 15 percent of the time. The manure from the barn, approximately 15 percent of the total animal waste, would be collected and placed in the collection lagoon for spray irrigation on the forage crops grown in the pastures. The remaining 85 percent of the waste would result from direct deposition on the pastures by the cows. The rotational grazing dairy would contain permanent watering troughs in each of the 36 pastures. This creates the possibility of numerous "high intensity areas" or areas characterized by a high level of cattle traffic. This circumstance can result in denuding the cover crop or grasses around such water trough areas which would result in a failure, for that area, of the root-zone-uptake means of waste treatment of nitrates. In order to minimize that eventuality, the cattle would be rotated on a frequent basis from paddock to paddock in an effort to maintain nitrate balance and maintain the sanctity of the cover crop, as would the option of employing movable watering troughs so that areas of denudment of the grass or forage cover can be avoided. Manure would be flushed from the milking and feeding barn with approximately 2,000 to 5,000 gallons of water after each milking and at the end of each shift. Wastewater would then flow into a sand trap or filter and thence through an underground pipeline into an 80 foot x 84 foot concrete-lined storage lagoon. The final site of the storage lagoon has not been firmly determined. The site proposed in the application is located in part over a depression which is a suspected karst feature or area that may be subject to sink hole formation. Therefore, consideration should be given locating the waste lagoon so as to avoid that depression and the permit should be conditioned on installation of the lagoon so as to avoid known karst features. Effluent from the storage lagoon would be applied to 245 acres of pasture with a movable spray gun. The settled sludge from the lagoon would be spread on the same land periodically. The primary grass crop on the site intended for cattle forage would be Coastal Bermuda grass. Coastal Bermuda grows through a large part of the year and is normally dormant, in the climate prevailing in the Gilchrist and Alachua County area, from mid-October until early March. There would thus be little nutrient uptake during that time but to off-set that dormant state rye, wheat, rye grass, sorghum and other small grains could be grown on the site during the winter months in order to continue the waste treatment function of the cover crops. MANAGEMENT PLAN The Department currently does not have in effect a specific rule requiring dairies in north Florida to obtain permits to construct and operate per se, although such a rule does prevail for dairies in the Okeechobee Basin in south Florida. Since 1990, however, the Department has, by policy, required permits for new dairy facilities in the Suwannee River Water Management District as industrial waste water facilities. This policy is derived from the general regulatory authority contained in Section 403.087, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 62-670, Florida Administrative Code.1 The Department policy is described in a letter in evidence from the Department to applicant Watson containing the required conditions on any grant of the permit, to which the applicant has agreed. Those requirements are as follows: Management Plan A site-specific plan, with design calculations, providing for collection, storage and disposal of all wastewater from milking parlor and of runoff from the 25-year 24-hour storm event from all "high intensity" areas within the dairy farm. The calculations should include stormwater computer model SCS TR-55 or similar. Supporting documentation for the plan shall include but not be limited to the following: Water budget and balance, detailed and itemized. Nutrient budget, including wastewater and solids management. Crop management plan with projected crop nutrient uptake rates. Herd management plan, including locations of barns, travel lanes, feed areas, pastures, and management of dry cows and heifers. Treatment and disposal system details, construction details and methods, pumping systems and capacities, irrigation system details, lagoon design and capacity, and site plans. Ground Water Monitoring Plan Determination of ground water depth, variability and direction(s) of flow. Topographic site plan which includes the location of facility property boundaries, sinkholes and cooling ponds. Ground penetrating radar (GPR) if located within Suwannee River Water Management District. Site borings for determination of soil properties, depth and extent of low permeability zones, and confirmation of GPR results. Proposed locations, construction, and development criteria for monitor wells. Inventory of potable wells within 1/2 mile of site. Determination of current ground water quality and compliance. Such plan shall be prepared in accordance with the standards of the USDA NRCS, at a minimum, and shall include detailed instructions for construction, operation, and maintenance of wastewater/runoff collection, storage and disposal systems. DEP Exhibit 1. The various expert and fact witnesses for the Respondents described in their testimony the constituency of that Management Plan and the reasons, within their various scientific discipline areas and their personal factual knowledge concerning why it should be required for the site and project at issue. The 850-cow herd which would be contained on the proposed dairy consists of 550 lactating cows which are milked on a daily basis but also contains 80 dry cows and 220 heifers. Thus some 300 cattle on the dairy will not be milked at any given time and consequently will not contribute to use of the high intensity barn area and the waste collected in the anaerobic lagoon to the extent that those non-milking cattle are not fed and watered in the central barn area. Their waste would more typically be deposited directly on the pastures by those cattle themselves. 10 The project is proposed to provide for on-site containment of all wastes generated by the dairy. There will be no discharge of effluent or other pollutants from the dairy to "waters of the state." The proposed permit requires that no surface water runoff be permitted from the dairy site. The anaerobic or waste collection lagoon is designed to contain all effluent from the milking barn and other high intensity cattle areas in the event of a 25-year, 24-hour storm occurrence. Additionally, a safety factor of one-foot of "free-board" or additional wall height on the anaerobic lagoon is to be provided as an additional safety factor over and above the level expected to be achieved by the above-referenced storm event. The adequacy of the design capacity of the lagoon system is not in dispute. The proposed project and design calls for four monitoring wells to be located along the northern boundary of the property, which is essentially co-extensive with the boundary of the discharge zone at issue. There would be three compliance wells and one background sampling well. The Department's expert geologist, Mr. Davis, was of the belief that an intermediate monitoring well would not be necessary since the four wells would in his view be sufficient to enforce water quality standards. Those wells are located down-gradient according to the known direction of the ground water flow underneath the site, as required by Rule 62-522.600(6), Florida Administrative Code. Although no intermediate wells are provided for by the plan, they have been required at the other two rotational grazing dairies already permitted by the Department in the Suwannee River Water Management Region at least one of which was within a mile of the outstanding Florida water of the Suwannee River. Intermediate monitoring wells at other dairies have shown increased levels of nitrate, although there is no evidence to show that nitrate levels have exceeded state standards at the boundaries of those dairies or their discharge zones. In any event, however, the totality of the expert testimony demonstrates that intermediate wells would provide an efficacious early warning system to predict increases in nitrate contamination. Thus adjustments in the waste and commercial fertilizer nitrate application could be made so that prevention of violation of nitrate standards, by the time waste water migrated to compliance wells around the boundary of the site, could be effected. This would have a substantial predictive value to avoid future nitrate contaminant violations before they occur and they should be installed as a condition on permitting. The proposed dairy design and operation involving rotational grazing is undisputed to be more beneficial to environmental water quality considerations than a traditional cattle confinement type of dairy. The rotational grazing dairy is characterized by cattle spending minimal time in high intensity milking, feeding, and watering areas. Additionally, there will be a significantly lower level of nutrient loading on the pastures with little accumulation of effluent on the land surface. In fact, the deposition of waste through spray irrigation and through the urination and defecation of the cattle directly will still result in a deficit in nitrates needed for adequate plant growth of the grass, and other crop, ground cover necessary for feeding the cattle and making the operation succeed in a waste treatment sense as well. Consequently, it will have to be supplemented by the addition of some commercial fertilizer, the costs of which will result in a natural incentive for the farmer/applicant to ensure that the nutrient loading on the pastures is at a low, environmentally acceptable level in terms of potential contamination of ground water. The proposed dairy has been demonstrated to be consistent with the Natural Resources Conservation Services' requirements and policies concerning dairies and rotational grazing dairies. It is also undisputed that phosphorus is not of an environmental concern with this application and project. There is sufficient iron and aluminum coating on the soils involved so that excess phosphorus will be retained on the site and it is undisputed that nitrogen is the only limiting factor in the design of the dairy. NITROGEN BALANCE The specific concern with regard to the application and the dairy operation is nitrate leaching below the root zone of the crops grown on the surface of the dairy. The dairy is designed to use nitrogen and nitrates by growing crops in the pastures which will then be eaten by the dairy cows, so that the nitrogen is re-cycled with the resulting animal wastes being used as fertilizer for the same grass or crops which the cattle continuously graze. It is anticipated that the amount of nitrogen produced by the dairy cows will be insufficient to optimize that plant growth. Therefore, additional fertilizer will be required to be applied to the land surface in the pastures at times. The additional nitrogen fertilizer will only be applied when testing of soil, and particularly plant tissue analysis, which will be done a regular basis, shows that application of commercial fertilizer is needed to supplement the natural cattle-waste nitrogen. Nitrogen is a concern because if too much of it is applied to the land surface, it may leach below the plant root zone and eventually migrate to ground water. Nitrogen in high concentrations can be potentially harmful to human health, so state drinking water standards have been established for nitrogen with regard to the issuance of industrial waste water permits. The state drinking water standard for nitrate is ten parts per million at the zone of discharge, that is, the zone of discharge into the ground water aquifer. The dairy is designed in such a way that nitrate levels will not exceed water quality standards. The design is determined by reviewing nitrogen balances and making sure that excess nitrogen will not leach past the root zone. The engineers evaluating and designing the project for the applicant, and testifying concerning it, arrived at a "mass balance" to estimate the nitrogen amounts on the site. This mass balancing is required by the Department in the required estimating of the pounds of nitrate leachate. Nitrogen can be removed from the dairy operating system through atmospheric losses or "volatilization" particularly from the urine component of nitrogen application. It can be removed through milk losses, whereby nitrogen is removed from the digestive system of the cattle through its being bound up to some extent in the milk produced by the cattle and sold off the dairy site, as well as some minimal leaching of nitrate through the soil. The nitrogen that is not removed by volatilization to the atmosphere (excluding the small amount re-deposited by rainfall) will be cycled through the cows and the crops along with any supplemental nitrogen applied from time to time in order ensure optimal plant growth. The mass balance, or amount of pounds of nitrate in the leachate, was determined by considering the amount of water flowing through the system. The re-charge rate was established by the applicant's engineer Mr. Holloway to be 17 inches. This means that there will be 17 inches of rainfall leaching below the root zone of the cover crops to reach ground water. The re-charge rate can be determined by computing the average of the evapo-transpiration and average rainfall and subtracting the difference. It can also be calculated by employing computer models such as the "GLEAMS" model. Mr. Holloway, the applicants engineer, used both sources or methods and reached the figure 17 inches. The GLEAMS model is a computer model that uses local data to determine water budgeting and recharge rates. Mr. Holloway also used a 50 percent volatilization rate for the nitrate losses when determining his mass balance. The applicant's experts also considered the plant uptake rates and concluded that the uptake rate would be between 500 and 700 pounds of nitrogen uptaken per year, per acre, by the plant cover. In order to be conservative and to install a sufficient safety factor in the system to avoid overloading it with nitrates and endangering ground water quality, they employed a lower uptake rate in their calculations and recommendations to the applicant, and thus to the Department, as to the amount of nitrogen applied per acre, per year, from all sources to only be 400 pounds. The conditions imposed by the Department in the "free-form" consideration process and draft permit thus limits the total pounds of nitrogen permissibly applied to this site to 400 pounds per acre, per year. Those 400 pounds of nitrogen are represented by 260 pounds applied from manure from the livestock and no more than 140 pounds applied from commercial fertilizers purchased by the farmer, Mr. Watson. The 400 pounds of nitrogen per acre, per year, as a condition on the permit is less than that allowed at the other rotational grazing dairies previously designed by Mr. Holloway and approved. Additionally, Mr. Cordova of the Department established that there are no rotational grazing dairies that have a higher nitrogen deficit than the Watson dairy. This further provides a significant safety factor not present in other approved dairies. Atmospheric losses of nitrogen up to 80 percent have been documented with similar dairy operations. Atmospheric losses can occur through both volatilization and de-nitrification. Volatilization is the process where nitrogen is removed from the system by the ammonia in the waste products, changing into a gaseous state and migrating into the atmosphere as a volatile gas. De-nitrification is the process where microbes, principally in the absence of oxygen (anaerobic) reduce nitrates to nitrogen gas and to possibly N2O, which is a volatile, and then allow it to escape into the atmosphere. The applicant has agreed, as a condition to the permit, to apply soil testing and crop tissue analysis as well as quarterly reviewing of the monitoring wells before he determines to supplement the natural fertilizer deposited from the animals with additional commercially purchased fertilizer. The commercially purchased fertilizer would represent a substantial investment in purchase costs and in labor costs for its application. This is an additional safety factor because the applicant clearly would not have an interest in applying any more fertilizer than was absolutely needed to secure optimum plant growth for grazing purposes and nitrogen uptake or waste treatment purposes. This is a further method which will prevent excessive nitrate nutrients from being deposited on the site and possibly into the ground water. Dr. Bottcher, an expert witness for the applicant, testified that he expected nitrate levels at the zone of discharge within the boundaries and beneath the surface of the dairy farm to be between 4 and 6 parts per million. Mr. Holloway expected within a reasonable degree of certainty that on a long term average, with about 4,000 pounds of nitrate leaching below the root zone system, that the concentration directly below the farm beneath the root zone would be between 2 and 3 parts per million. Indeed, the proposed operation would be similar to the existing condition at the Watson farm involving grazing beef cattle on a system of pastures, with row crop operations. Row crops typically have a higher impact of nitrates than the proposed dairy operation would have and beef cow grazing would have a similar impact, although it would be slightly less. Thus the proposed operation is similar in its nitrate impact to the existing conditions at the site. Moreover, the applicant is limited by the permit conditions already agreed to, to spray manure on the spray field area at the rate of less than one half of an inch. The spraying to that limitation would probably take from two to five hours per week. One of the important safety mechanisms in achieving a nutrient balance on the dairy site and in its operation, so as to ensure that ground water quality violations do not occur, is the application rate of nitrate to the land surface. As shown by Dr. Bottcher's testimony, the farmer may increase crop production by applying more fertilizer during seasons of heavy growth of the plant cover. The application rate can then be decreased when there is less growth and, therefore, less need for nutrients to grow the cover crops. A smaller application rate will increase the volatilization rate by avoidance of the infiltration of the nitrate bearing effluent into the soil through hydraulic action and through the saturation mechanism, since a smaller amount of application would tend to leave more of the effluent within less than one inch of the land surface, or on the land surface, thereby allowing it to be volatilized more readily. This circumstance will decrease the amount of nutrient leaching below the root zone and thus prevent the nitrates from being transmitted to the ground water. A number of crops can be grown successfully and appropriately on the site in order to provide the grazing forage needed for the operation of the dairy. Examples, depending upon the season of the year, are rye, wheat, grain sorghum, and various grasses, including Coastal Bermuda grass. Coastal Bermuda is a perennial grass, high in protein available for livestock and is already established on the site. The various other crops can be grown as well and some that grow in the winter months, such as rye, will be grown by Mr. Watson. The growing of the various cover forage crops are limited by the limitation in the permit which is conditioned on maintaining a cover crop growth situation where the average annual uptake is at least 400 pounds per acre (the evidence reveals that in reality it would be more on the order of 500 to 700 pounds per acre, per year). Dr. Pollman and Dr. Upchurch, expert witnesses for the Petitioners, question the nitrogen balancing and leachate predictions arrived at by the applicant's expert witnesses, as well as those of the Department. Neither Drs. Pollman nor Upchurch had any prior experience or expertise with testing for a nitrogen balancing on rotational grazing dairies. Instead they utilized various models to attempt to predict leachate amounts. Dr. Pollman's modeling utilized formulas prepared by the applicant's experts. His modeling showed a high percentage of the predicted outcomes to be actually within regulatory standards for nitrates, even though all of his estimates failed to take into account the variable inclusion or application rate for nitrogen through commercial fertilizer which will only be applied on an as needed basis after appropriate plant tissue and soil tests show that commercial fertilizer should be applied. Likewise, Dr. Upchurch's modeling results were also mostly within acceptable standards for nitrate concentrations unless one assumes that the nitrogen application rates exceed the amounts allowed under the permit, which will not be the case in reality because obviously the permit limits must be complied with. Dr. Upchurch also utilized a model, "NLEAP," which was neither designed nor calibrated to be used for predictive capabilities and is still considered experimental by the NRCS. WASTE LAGOON The applicant proposes to construct a waste storage lagoon designed to hold seven days' waste water generation capacity or 26,000 gallons per day. In addition to that required storage for a 25-year, 24-hour storm event, an additional safety factor of one foot of free board has been designed into the lagoon system. The lagoon will be constructed with 6 inch thick, fiber-reinforced concrete. No evidence was offered by the Petitioners that the lagoon design itself was faulty or inappropriate, rather the Petitioners contend that there is a chance that a surface failure beneath the lagoon, by the result of a sink hole developing, particularly in the present preliminary location proposed for the lagoon, could cause the lagoon to crack. The applicant will, however, in order to ensure that the area is suitable for the lagoon have the appropriate engineer "over-excavate" the site in order to minimize the change of a sink hole developing. Additionally, soil borings will be done beneath the surface to provide additional assurance that the lagoon will not fail due to voids or sink holes being present beneath it. Because the lagoon is presently preliminarily located in an area that appears to embody an old, inactive karst depression, consideration should be given to altering the site of the lagoon slightly so as to avoid this area, after soil borings and other investigation is done to ascertain whether the area poses a risk of lagoon failure. Additionally it must be pointed out that because the applicant would need to expend a substantial investment to rebuild the lagoon in the event of such a failure, he has a strong incentive to locate the most suitable geological placement for the lagoon in any event. GEOLOGIC SITE CHARACTERISTICS It is undisputed that the geology underlying the surface of the dairy site is karst in nature: that is, it is characterized by a sub-strate of limestone which can, through the dissolution process caused by percolating water, be susceptible to fissures, voids, underground conduits and sink holes. This, however, is true for essentially all areas used for agriculture in the Suwannee River Area Water Management District, the area to which the subject above- referenced policy concerning installation and permitting of dairies applies. Because of the karst nature of the area, sink holes and other potential surface openings to the ground water could occur at the site. It is most significant, however, that both Mr. Holloway's and Dr. Kwader's testimony established that the soil layer at the site was more than sufficient to protect the ground water. In fact, the soil layer averages from 45 to 50-feet thick over the underlying limestone sub-strate of the Ocala Formation. Further, the proposed permit and its conditions would require a management plan which, with the conditions already placed on the permit and recommended herein, will adequately deal with the possibility of sink holes, "pipes" or "chimneys" developing on the site. The dairy design success is derived essentially from the sufficient nutrient uptake in the root zone of the plant cover, balanced with careful control of the application rates of both the natural fertilizer from the cows and the commercial fertilizer which will supplement it from time to time. Any possibility that the treatment zone for nitrates associated with the plant root zone would be by-passed by the effluent as a result of sink holes or other types of fissures developing can be resolved by proper management practices, which the conditions proposed for the permit and those recommended herein will insure are implemented. For instance, if sink holes, other depressions or holes develop in the site, they will be filled with soil to a depth of five feet, with an impervious clay cap on top of that and then a layer of top soil to allow for re-establishment of the root zone on the surface. The permit should be so conditioned. Moreover, if sink holes or other voids develop that are too large to be so filled and pose a risk of migration of effluent below the root zone to rapidly to the ground water, they will be fenced off and cows will not be allowed in the area. The area will be removed from the irrigation application process until repairs are made, under the presently proposed conditions on the permit. An additional condition should be imposed whereby any sink holes or other voids or similar breaks in the ground surface which pose a risk of effluent rapidly migrating to ground water should be bermed around the circumference to prevent effluent or stormwater laden with nitrates from the land surface from entering the fault or cavity. The applicant is required under the proposed conditions on the permit to report to DEP any sink holes which develop within a certain period of time in the barn area. Cows are not to be permitted to enter into any of the sink hole areas by additional fencing, if necessary. If sink holes develop in the spray field there can be no discharges of fertilizer or irrigation on those areas until the sink holes have been repaired in the manner referenced above. The phosphate pits on the site will also be fenced to prevent discharges past the root zone potentially caused by cattle entering the pits. Additionally, berms are required to be constructed around the phosphate pits to prevent surface water from storm events or other means by which nitrates from the ground surface can be transported into the pits and then possibly to ground water. Any holes which may develop, also called "piping failures," around the periphery of the phosphate pits should be treated in a similar manner to prevent the migration of surface water into those holes whether or not they communicate with the phosphate pits themselves by fencing and berming. These arrangements coupled with the fact that the phosphate pits are characterized by a sufficient soil layer in the bottom of the pits between the bottom surface of the pits and the water table or aquifer will constitute reasonable assurance that the pits will not result in a conduit or path for nitrate-laden, surface water to migrate past the root zone directly into the ground water aquifer. Mr. Holloway, an engineer, testifying for the applicant conducted soil borings on the site to verify the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) surveys as accurate and to ensure that an adequate root zone for treatment purposes existed. Additionally, the NRCS did a ground penetrating radar survey or study on the property. The Petitioners also did a separate ground penetrating radar study performed by Mr. Windschauer. The Petitioners study identified a number of karst-type "anomalies" on the property. The number of anomalies located by Windschauer was not unusual for a such a karst geologic area, but, in any event, all of them had adequate soil depth to support the crops necessary to establish the root zone and maintain the nitrogen balancing. Soil borings were conducted, as well on four of the anomalies, under Dr. Upchurch's supervision. They confirmed that there was adequate soil depth to support crops and protect groundwater. The conditions already imposed on the permit to which the applicant has agreed, require a minimum of five feet of soil depth to ensure adequate treatment including the soil below the root zone and that soil depth and plant cover will have to be maintained even if repairs are necessary to karst anomalies or "sink holes," or the dairy will have to cease operation. The soil depth on the dairy is approximately 45-50 feet and the water table is approximately 55 feet below the ground surface. While the Department's expert, Mr. Davis, is satisfied that the location of the monitoring wells and the number of wells are adequate to monitor compliance with water quality standards for groundwater at the site, the draft permit conditions allow for a change in the number and the location of the monitoring wells. The evidence in the case, including that which shows that an intermediate well at another similar dairy site has shown elevated nitrate levels (although it has not been shown that other conditions are similar to those proposed in this permit application and in the evidence) would indicate that it would be prudent to install intermediate monitoring wells, upgradient, within the dairy site to serve as an early warning, predictive mechanism to avoid water quality violations at the boundary of the zone of discharge. This will allow time for steps to be taken, through various adjustments in the operation, to prevent any violations of the ten parts per million nitrate groundwater standard. The permit is recommended to be so conditioned. Dr. Kwader performed a photolinear trace analysis. He indicated that he did not find any particular linear features such as fractures. A fracture in the limestone stratum is significant in that it can provide a conduit or preferential pathway through the sub-surface rock and thus transfer contaminants from one point to another at a more rapid rate than simple percolation through soil and pores in the rocks. This could result in excessive nitrates being deposited in the groundwater aquifer before an adequate treatment time and mechanism has had its effect on the nitrates. A fracture or conduit flow will, however, cause dilution and Mr. Davis, for the Department, testified that he did not expect a higher concentration of nutrients in a fracture than in the surrounding rock. Additionally, there will be substantial dilution once the nutrients reach the aquifer and begin moving laterally. The dilution will be proportional to the water moving through the conduit, meaning that if the fracture is relatively large, then the concentration of nutrients will be proportionately smaller because of the higher volume of water. Such linear features or fractures are difficult to observe through 50 or more feet of soil existing at the site above the rock stratum and the top surface of the aquifer. Dr. Upchurch, for the Petitioners, also performed a photolinear trace analysis and identified two areas as being highly probable, in his belief, for linear fracture features beneath the farm and surrounding area. He believes there is a possibility of a number of other fractures beneath the Watson property, although the evidence does not definitely identify such nor the measures or precise locations of any such postulated fractures. The Watson property, however, is not unlike any of the surrounding karst terrain with respect to such potential linear fracture features and, in fact, much of north Florida can be so characterized. Moreover, Dr. Upchurch himself agreed that only a limited area of the Watson farm would be impacted by such features, and further, if they are present, they will not impact the nutrient balance aspect of the dairy design because it will perform above many feet of soils separating it from the fractures, if they exist. Limestone pinnacles protruding to the land surface can provide preferential pathways for water to migrate downward to the groundwater aquifer in a manner similar to that posed by a sink hole. They can also function as a break in the soil and plant root zone covering the spray effluent treatment area if allowed to remain exposed. Limestone was observed within one of the mine pits and in a sink hole. It is not clear whether it is a pinnacle which leads down to the sub-strate containing the aquifer or is merely a remnant boulder. In any event, these pinnacles or limestone outcroppings or boulders, whatever they prove to be, will not result in a preferential pathway for water to migrate to the aquifer because the management plan conditioning the permit requires that any limestone protruding to the surface be sheared off and replaced with top soil and vegetation. The permit conditions require that at least five feet of soil overlaid by vegetation must be present for all areas in the spray field. No exposed groundwater was observed in any of the sink holes. In fact the aquifer water level would be at least ten to twenty feet below the bottom of any pit or sink hole observed on the property. An additional 50-foot buffer from the property boundary surrounds all of the paddocks, providing an additional safety factor before the outside boundary of the zone of discharge is reached. The proposed dairy is located approximately six miles south of the Sante Fe River at its nearest point. The Sante Fe River is an outstanding Florida waterway in accordance with Rule 62-302.700(9)(i)27, Florida Administrative Code. The dairy site is not within the flood plain of the river and there will be no surface water discharged from the dairy, including none to the Sante Fe River. Any impact the dairy might have on a water quality in the Sante Fe River would come from groundwater flowing from the site to river. Groundwater beneath the dairy site flows first in a northeasterly direction thence apparently swinging more northerly in the direction of the river, more or less in a "banana shape" flow pattern and direction. Current permitting requirements for such a dairy require that the groundwater leaving or flowing from the zone of discharge must meet "drinking water standards." Those standards are codified in Rules 62-520.400 and 62-522.400, Florida Administrative Code. Those standards require that nitrates not exceed the standard or level of ten parts per million. Dr. Bottcher's expert opinion, which is accepted, is that the dairy design and operation will provide adequate protection to the Sante Fe River with that perameter in mind. He also established that reasonable assurances exist that the river will be adequately protected and not significantly be degraded alone or in combination with other stationary installations in addition to the dairy in question. The dairy waste management system has been established by preponderant evidence to abate and prevent pollution of the groundwater to the extent required by the applicable statutes, rules and policies, in that water or pollution will not be discharged from the dairy in violation of the above-referenced standard. Especially because of the great thickness of soil cover and because of the conditions and protective measures designed into the draft permit, and the project and recommended as conditions herein, in order to prevent effluent from bypassing the root zone treatment area due to karst features the preponderant, credible geological and hydro- geological evidence, including that of Mr. Davis, shows, within a reasonable degree of professional certainty, that there are not conditions concerning the hydro-geology or geology in the area of the site as to make it unsuitable for the proposed dairy operation in the manner conditioned and recommended herein. SECTION 120.57(1)(E) - FINDINGS The specific permitting requirements for the rotational grazing dairy at issue are embodied in a policy followed by the Department as far back as 1990. Those requirements are not contained in a Department rule. Rather, the policy is presumably enacted pursuant to the statute referenced by the parties, including the Department, in this case as the general pollution abatement statute, Section 403.087, Florida Statutes. The action of the Department in announcing its intent to grant the permit may be deemed an agency action "that determines the substantial interest of a party and that it is based on an un-adopted rule . . ." to the extent that one might deem this policy, consistently followed in a substantial area of the state since 1990, an un-adopted rule for purposes of Section 120.57(e)(1), Florida Statutes. In that context, the agency must demonstrate that the un-adopted rule comports with the statutory definitional of characteristics of a valid rule. Thus the agency must present proof that its un-adopted rule or "policy" would be valid as a rule. In that context the evidence adduced by the Department and indeed by both Respondents, since they presented a joint case, shows that the policy at issue is within the powers, functions and duties delegated by the legislature in Section 403.087,Florida Statutes, which is a generalized grant of authority designed to give the Department the power to regulate in a way to abate the pollution of waters of the state, including groundwater. It has also been adequately shown that the policy or un- adopted rule does not enlarge, modify or contravene the specific provisions of that law being implemented but rather provides sufficient regulatory details so that the general principals, stated in that statute, can be carried out in terms of the installation, regulation and operation of the subject dairy project. It has been adequately proven that the rule is not vague and that it establishes adequate standards for agency decisions on whether or not to permit such a rotational grazing dairy. It does not vest unbridled discretion in the agency nor constitute an arbitrary or capricious act or policy imposition, because the standards and requirements advanced by the Department as being necessary under this policy or un-adopted rule, for a permit to be granted, must, of legal and factual necessity, be predicated on competent, scientific expert and factual evidence. That has been shown, which likewise meets the requirement that the un-adopted rule be supported by competent and substantial evidence. Likewise, the evidence shows that under the circumstances, given the great public necessity in protection of the groundwater and the Floridian aquifer, that the requirements placed upon a grant of a permit for this project and the conditions placed upon its construction and operation do not impose, under the circumstances, excessive regulatory costs on the regulated person, Mr. Watson, or the governmental entity where the project is located, in other words, Gilchrist County.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered granting the permit requested by Craig Watson to construct and operate the proposed dairy waste management system in accordance with the draft permit proposed by the Department, including the general and specific conditions attached and incorporated therein and also including the general and specific conditions recommended to be adopted and implemented for the proposed system in this Recommended Order, based upon the preponderant, persuasive, credible evidence. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 1999.
The Issue The issues for determination in this case are whether Respondent Jeffrey Hill should pay the administrative penalty and investigative costs, and should undertake the corrective actions that are demanded by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (“Department”) in its Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action, and Civil Penalty Assessment (“NOV”).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the owner and operator of a community water system and its associated piping, designated PWS No. 2124409, located on parcel ID No. 03-4S-17-07486-001 on Country Club Road, in Lake City, Columbia County, Florida (“the property”). Respondent is a “person” as defined in section 403.852(5), Florida Statutes. Respondent is a “supplier of water” as defined in section 403.852(8). The water system is a “public water system” and a “community water system” as defined in sections 403.852(2) and (3), respectively. The community water system is a Category V, Class D water system with a capacity of 28,800 gallons per day that supplies between 25 and 3,300 people, using groundwater as its source. Count I Count I of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to sample for nitrate and nitrite in 2012 and 2013, which was admitted by Respondent. Count II Count II of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to sample for primary inorganic contaminants for the 2011-2013 compliance period, which was admitted by Respondent. Count III Count III of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to analyze for secondary contaminants in the 2011-2013 compliance period, which was admitted by Respondent. Count IV Count IV of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to sample for volatile organic contaminants in the 2011-2013 compliance period, which was admitted by Respondent. Count V Count V of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to sample for synthetic organic contaminants in the 2011-2013 compliance period, which was admitted by Respondent. Count VI Count VI of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to sample for total coliform from June 2013 to date, which was admitted by Respondent. Count VII Count VII of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to employ an operator for the system since May 2013, which was admitted by Respondent. Count VIII Count VIII of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to submit test results required by Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-550, and failure to file a monthly operation report since April 2013, which was admitted by Respondent. Count IX Count IX of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to issue Tier 3 notices in May 2013 and March 2014, advising customers of the failure to monitor for certain contaminants, which Respondent admitted. Count X Count X of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to provide a consumer confidence report to his customers in 2012 and 2013, which was admitted by Respondent. Count XI In Count XI of the NOV, the Department states that it incurred $530 in investigative costs related to this enforcement matter, which is admitted by Respondent.
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted a water pollution operation permit for the Bennett Road Sewage Treatment Facility under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns and operates a sewage treatment plant known as the Bennett Road Sewage Treatment Facility in Orlando, Florida. The plant was originally built in the 1950's and its method of treatment has been modified and improved over the years. At the present time, the plant serves about 60 percent of the sewage treatment needs of the city. The sewage is first treated for the removal of biological compounds by means of trickling filters, followed by chemical treatment for removal of BOD, suspended solids, and phosphorus. In the latter process, aluminum sulfate is used, together with a polymer to assist in forming larger particles for more rapid settlement. These processes are followed by final settling, clorination and discharge through an outfall pipe approximately five miles to the Crane Strand Creek and thence to the Little Econlockhatchee River (Little Econ) which meets the Big Econlockhatchee River approximately twelve miles downstream and flows into the St. Johns River twenty- seven miles downstream. About 60 percent of the flow from Crane Strand Creek into the Little Econ is derived from the Bennett Road plant and there is no other significant source of pollutants from the remainder of the discharge. (Testimony of Jewett, Matthes, Petitioner's Composite Exhibits 1,2) In 1973, Respondent's predecessor, the State Department of Air and Water Pollution Control, issued a temporary operation permit to Petitioner, subject to certain conditions, for the Bennett Road plant. The permit was effective until June 1, 1976, "or sooner pursuant to the permittee upgrading his facility to provide 90 percent treatment and obtaining an operation permit in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Department Of Pollution Control." On May 7, 1976, Petitioner submitted an application for an operation permit wherein it was stated that the facility would be abandoned as soon as the Orlando Easterly Regional Facilities were constructed with a new treatment plant to be located in the vicinity of Iron Bridge Road. Respondent's manager of the St. Johns River District advised Petitioner by letter of July 21, 1976, of the Department's intent to deny the application for an operating permit. The reasons given were that (1) available data was insufficient to show sustained secondary treatment as defined in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17- 3, Florida Administrative Code; and (2) the facility's discharge caused violation of Section 17-3.09(3), F.A.C. The latter provision establishes one of the criteria for classification of Class III waters and provides generally that the concentration of dissolved oxygen in all such surface waters shall not average less than 5 mg/l in a twenty-four hour period and never less than 4 mg/l. Class III waters are designated in Rule 17-3.09 as "Recreation - propagation and management of fish and wildlife." In its above-mentioned letter, Respondent suggested that the Petitioner apply for a temporary operation permit. Petitioner chose to request an administrative hearing on the proposed denial and did so by petition filed herein on August 5, 1976. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties orally stipulated that Petitioner has been meeting the statutory and regulatory requirements as to secondary treatment so as to warrant withdrawal of Respondent's objection to granting the permit on that ground. The parties also agreed that the only matter remaining in issue is the question of whether Petitioner's discharge violates water quality criteria. (Petitioner's Exhibits 6,7) Petitioner began consideration of the need to replace or expand the Bennett Road plant about 1968. These plans have reached a stage where the Petitioner is now in the process of purchasing land and concluding a planning study required under federal law to construct a regional facility to service the eastern part of Orlando and a few of the northerly communities, including some in Seminole County. Such regionalization of sewage treatment facilities is encouraged by the federal government which provides 75 percent of the funding necessary for construction under Public Law 92-500 . It is anticipated that the proposed facility will be completed in 1980 at which time the Bennett Road plant will cease operations. The regional facility is to be located at Iron Bridge Road and its discharge would flow into the Little Econ several miles downstream of the present Bennett Road discharge. (Testimony of Matthes, Schneider, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2) Operation permits have been granted from 1971 to 1976 to a number of sewage treatment plants that will tie-in to the proposed regional facility. These permits were issued even though the discharge of most of the plants did not meet water quality standards. However, practically no secondary treatment plant can meet water quality standards in Central Florida without an extensive mathematical "modeling." These calculations made by Respondent are formulated from surveys of the body of water in question and result in what is termed "a waste load allocation." This term deals with a treatment standard that is computed to ascertain the assimilative capacity of a receiving body of water to take in pollutants from a particular source in order that water quality standards in terms of dissolved oxygen levels may be maintained. The waste load allocation is the standard which the treatment from the source must perform before it can be discharged. None of the above-mentioned plants nor the Bennett Road plant had been provided an assigned waste load allocation at the time of Respondent's adverse action on Petitioner's application. Neither had it been a past requirement of Respondent to require information concerning dissolved oxygen from an applicant in order to issue an operation permit. However, a preliminary survey of the Little Econ had been completed by Respondent by February 1976, and from this, a mathematical model was later computed based on chemical analysis of water samples taken from designated areas in that body of water. In the aforesaid permits that were granted, a clause provided that the plants would have to work with the City of Orlando in resolving discharge problems and cooperate in the achievement of a regional system. Although water quality criteria had not changed in recent years, they had not been enforced because Respondent had had insufficient background water data. At the time Petitioner's permit application was recommended for denial, the primary basis therefor was the fact that the Bennett Road plant had not then reached 90 percent treatment capability over a sustained period. The question of water quality was incidental in view of the fact that that office did not then have the final determination of water quality as evidenced by the intensive survey of the Little Econ and the final math modeling. (Testimony of Jewett, Davenport; Petitioner's Exhibit 4) By interoffice memorandums from the Respondent's Director of the Division of Environmental Permitting to district and subdistrict managers, dated January 28 and April 13, 1976, Subject: Temporary Operating Permits, the said managers were instructed that no operating permits should be issued for any source not achieving secondary treatment of its wastes or not meeting water quality standards. In such cases, only temporary operating permits were to be issued. Further, it was stated in the April 13 memorandum that enforcement action would be initiated against municipal facilities if they were either not achieving 90 percent removal Of BOD and suspended solids or not meeting water quality requirements, and had either (1) not applied for a federal grant, (2) was not following up to ensure receipt of the grant, or (3) had received a federal grant but was not expeditiously accomplishing the grant requirements. It was stipulated at the hearing that the memorandums had not been promulgated as rules by Respondent under Chapter 120, F.S. (Respondent's Exhibits 1, 2, Stipulation) Although the Little Econ is a highly degraded body of water, upstream of the Bennett Road discharge point it has a dissolved oxygen level of over 6 mg/l. After mixture with the Bennett Road discharge, the level drops to about 2 1/2 mg/l. Based upon the intensive survey taken by the Respondent in 1976, it was determined that water quality violations existed below the Bennett Road plant's discharge point but not above that point. It was further determined that the Bennett Road facility was contributing about 89 percent of the oxygen demanding substances in the system. In fact, the dissolved oxygen levels downstream from the Bennett Road discharge reached as low as one milligram per liter at several points. They ranged from that level up to approximately four and one-half milligrams per liter throughout the entire 27 miles of the system. The foregoing was the conclusion of Respondent's environmental specialist based on field data taken on August 30, 1976, at a time of the day when the dissolved oxygen levels would be at their highest. However, the drop in dissolved oxygen level to an even greater extent at certain points occurs in Respondent's mathematical model prediction that does not take into account any discharge from the Bennett Road plant. In fact, in such a "no discharge" situation, Respondent's prediction is that the dissolved oxygen level at points immediately following several control structures in the waters will produce an even greater drop than with the Bennett Road discharge taken into consideration. Although the control structures do not affect the actual oxygen demand on the system, they do increase the residence time of the water and permit substances to settle out. However, when the water flows over the dam, it creates reaeration that increases the oxygen level again. Therefore, although the control structures aggravate the problem, the Bennett Road discharge is in turn further aggravating the situation because some of the pollutants continue downstream. Part of the problem is due to the effect of deposits already on the bottom of the system and it is unknown to what extent they would be eliminated if the Bennett Road facility were taken out of the system. Although it is not anticipated that there would be a great rise in dissolved oxygen levels if the Bennett Road plant discharge were to be discontinued, Respondent's experts are of the opinion that there would be a definite increase in dissolved oxygen levels overall. Further, the field data and model predictions were based on high flow conditions but the 89 percent figure for pollutants from the Bennett Road facility was based on a low flow condition where it would be of more significance. Although the field data showed that at no point in the 27 mile course did the dissolved oxygen level of the water reach state standards of 5.0 milligrams per liter dissolved oxygen for Class III waters, the model prediction with no discharge from the Bennett Road facility shows that the dissolved oxygen level still would not meet state standards under high flow conditions. Under low flow conditions, though, the dissolved oxygen level without discharge from the Bennett Road plant would reach the state standards roughly halfway down the system. High flow conditions are more representative of an average of dissolved oxygen level during the year than under low flow conditions. The Bennett Road plant contributes approximately 60 percent of the total water flow reaching the St. Johns River. Even if the plant were to achieve advanced waste treatment standards, it still would not meet water quality standards. No evidence was presented as to the possibility of Petitioner using alternative methods of waste disposal, such as deep well injection, land irrigation, or the use of lakes and ponds. In fact, no discharge from the Bennett Road plant could be such as to raise the entire stream to meet the state requirement of 5.0 milligram per liter dissolved oxygen. (Testimony of Sawicki, Davenport, Armstrong, Horvath, Brown, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2, Respondent's Exhibit 3) An interoffice memorandum of Respondent's Grants section, dated October 28, 1976, pointed out that enforcement action had been shown to be a "great motivator in the area of bringing awareness to governmental agencies of their responsibilities in the field of pollution abatement." The memorandum sought compliance investigations of the various governmental entities within the area where the proposed regional sewage treatment system for East Orlando was to be undertaken, with recommendations that enforcement action be taken in the case of any violations of state standards. The memorandum further stated that enforcement action was already underway against the City of Orlando. The author of the memorandum denied that it was an attempt to force Respondent to proceed more vigorously with the regional system. (Testimony of Schneider, Petitioner's Exhibit 5) The Orange County Pollution Control Board requires variances from its rule that no treated effluent shall be discharged into the surface waters of the county. The Bennett Road plant operates under such a variance and at the present time is meeting county standards for sewage treatment. On May 19, 1976, the Orange County Assistant Pollution Control Director advised Respondent that the Bennett Road plant was meeting current state performance requirements and recommended approval of the operation permit. Although the county maintains records of the Little Econ River at various points, it has not used a mathematical model to determine whether the Bennett Road plant causes water quality violations. (Testimony of Sawicki, Petitioner's Exhibit 3)
Recommendation That the application of Petitioner City of Orlando, Florida for a water pollution operation permit for the Bennett Road sewage treatment facility be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Vance W. Kidder, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2562 Executive Circle East Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida Gretchen R. H. Vose, Esquire Assistant City Attorney 16 South Magnolia Avenue Post Office Box 793 Orlando, Florida 32802 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION CITY OF ORLANDO, FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 76-1573 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Respondent. /
