The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner's "groundwater monitoring plan," embodied as a condition in the present operating permit, should be modified at the behest of the Department of Environmental Regulation.
Findings Of Fact On October 2, 1985, the Department issued to Charlotte County a permit to operate a Class I Sanitary landfill, pursuant to Section 403.087 and 403.707, Florida Statutes. A groundwater monitoring plan was part of that permit. One of the purposes of the groundwater monitoring plan was to detect any leachate plume of pollutants which might migrate off the site of the landfill in the groundwater. In accordance with the groundwater monitoring plan, as part of its conditions, the landfill has four monitoring wells, MW-1 - MW-4. One of those monitoring wells, MW-1, was established as a background well. Two of the monitoring wells, numbers 2 and 4, were installed as "interceptor" and "intermediate" wells. The fourth monitoring well is a "compliance well." The purpose of the background well at the landfill site is to determine the quality of the groundwater as it comes onto or enters the property subject to the operating permit. Specific condition number 2 of the monitoring plan incorporated, in the permit, required that once a year, beginning with the first quarter, sampling wells MW-1 and MW-2 should be analyzed for certain synthetic, organic compounds. Eight synthetic, organic compounds (SOCs) were tested for in accordance with Rule 17-22.104(1)(g), Florida Administrative Code. Those compounds were as follows: Trichloroethylene; Tetrachloroethylene; Carbon Tetrachloride; Vinyl Chloride; 1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane; 1, 2-Dichloroethane; Benzene; and Ethylene-dibromide. On December 9, 1985, the Department received the results of the chemical analysis performed by its laboratory in Tallahassee on the samples collected by district personnel on August 5, 1985. Those test results indicate the presence of the following compounds in well MW-1: Ethylbenzene at a concentration of 1.0 micrograms per liter, Methylenechloride at a concentration of 4.5 micrograms per liter, Trichloroethane at a concentration of 3.2 micrograms per liter, Toluene at 2 micrograms per liter, Xylene at 2.4 micrograms per liter, and Acetone at 40 micrograms per liter, as well as other "purgables" at an aggregate of 30 micrograms per liter. On the basis of this analysis, the Department informed the County that it would modify the County's groundwater monitoring plan by requiring it to monitor for "purgables", (synthetic, organic compounds) in all four wells on a quarterly basis. The original groundwater monitoring plan had required monitoring for the eight original SOCs in two of the four wells on an annual basis. This proposed modification would thus modify the conditions of the landfill operation permit held by the County. Since the samples taken on August 5, 1985, further tests have been performed on water samples taken from the four subject wells at the landfill site by both the County and the Department. On December 9, 1985, the County obtained water samples from wells MW-1 and MW-2, which were analyzed for the eight primary SOCs enumerated in the original water monitoring plan. That analysis showed the following: MW-1 1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane - 1.8 micrograms per liter MW-2 1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane - 4.1 micrograms per liter 1, 2-Dichloroethane - 1.1 micrograms per liter The Department took water samples on January 16, 1986, from all four wells. Results of the analyses for SOCs showed that as of that date, MW-1, which had been the well testing "positive," which resulted in the proposed change in the permit and monitoring plan was, on January 16, free of synthetic, organic compounds. Wells MW-2 and MW-3 were also free of purgables. The analysis of water sample from well MW-4 showed that it contained 4.67 micrograms per liter of Benzene, 1.58 micrograms per liter of Chlorobenzene, and 8.27 micrograms per liter of 1, 2- Dichloroethane. Sampling the wells MW-1 and MW-2 on March 13, 1986, the County analyzed for the complete list of "purgables" or SOCs with the result that well MW-1 was shown to contain 1.8 micrograms per liter of Ethylbenzene and 2.7 micrograms per liter of Toluene. Well MW-2 contained 1.3 micrograms per liter of Ethylbenzene and 2.0 micrograms per liter of Toluene. Almost two months later, on May 5, 1986, the Department sampled wells MW-1, MW-3 and MW-4, finding that MW-1 contained no purgables; MW-3 contained 1 microgram per liter of Methylenechloride (an isolated occurrence of this compound); and well MW-4 contained 1 microgram per liter of Chlorobenzene, 2 micrograms per liter of 1, 3-Dichlorobenzene, 10 micrograms per liter of Toluene, 2 micrograms per liter of Cis-1, 2, Dichloroethane and 6 micrograms per liter of "other purgables. Thus, it can be seen that in the August 1985 test, the first monitoring well tested, MW-1, contained SOCs. At the later test performed in December, that well contained SOCs in the form of Trichloroethane and yet on January 16, 1986, the well was free of detectable SOCs. On March 13, 1986, however, that well was shown to contain Ethylbenzene and Toluene. On the other hand, on the May 5, 1986, sample, the well contained no detectable purgable compounds. On the December 9 test, it can be seen that well MW-2 contained Trichloroethane and Dichloroethane and yet on January 16 was free of any detectable SOCs. However, on March 13, 1986, well MW-2 contained Ethylbenze and Toluene. Well MW-3 was free of SOCs at the December test, but on May 5, 1986, contained Methylenechloride, although in a very slight concentration, which could have resulted from contaminated testing equipment. Well MW-4 contained, in December, the above-noted concentrations of Benzene, Chlorobenzene, and Dichloroethane. On March 13, 1986, wells MW-3 and MW-4 were not tested. The Department's test of May 5, 1986, sampled MW-1, MW-3 and MW-4. On that date MW-4 contained Chlorobenzene, Dichlorobenzene, Toluene, Dichloroethane, and "other purgables." Thus, in consecutive samples taken and analyzed by the Department and the County since the date of its proposed modification of the groundwater monitoring plan, it has appeared that organic compounds detected in one sampling did not appear or were below the detection limits in subsequent analyses and yet showed up in other monitoring wells. It is especially significant, however, that well MW-4, which is the well farthest "down" the groundwater gradient and is indeed the compliance well for assessing whether the landfill is performing within the regulatory bounds of its operating permit has, whenever tested, demonstrated the presence of the above-noted contaminants. The fact that some wells demonstrate the presence of contaminants and on a later test, test negative for those contaminants was shown by the Department to likely occur because of variables attributable to rainfall. The amounts and occurrence of rainfall' can play a significant role in determining whether the concentrations in any amount exist in the monitoring wells and can determine in part what concentrations are found in samples from those monitoring wells. The compounds move through the soil or reside in the soil and the rainfall may cause certain compounds to be washed or leached out of the soil in varying amounts and at varying rates. Sampling shortly after a heavy rainfall might result in detection of certain compounds not detectable during a dry period or might increase the amounts detectable. The absence or slight concentrations of the subject contaminants in a well which increase with later samples would indicate that the leachate or contaminant "plume" in the groundwater is passing through that well. The down gradient well, MW-4, is the compliance well and is located down gradient from the perimeter ditch around the landfill. On both the samples taken in January and in May, that well was shown to be contaminated with SOCs as depicted above. Thus, it has been established that there are some leachate contaminant plumes moving in the groundwater through the location of that well, which establishes the likelihood that the leachate in the landfill will migrate off site by the flow of the groundwater. Thus, since DER issued the proposed modification of the monitoring plan, four additional groundwater samplings have revealed more SOCs at the landfill site. SOCs have been found in all wells at one time or another in detectable amounts. The presence or absence of SOCs and the varying amounts present at various sampling times at various wells is explained by variations in the migration rate of the contaminants due to variations in frequency and amount of rainfall percolating into and flowing through the substrate in which the wells are located. Groundwater in the area of the landfill is not well-protected from waste contamination. The landfill is located in an area where the groundwater table is one to two feet above the surface level during the wet season and only four to five feet below the surface level in the dry season. The landfill is not lined with clay or another impervious or semi-impervious material which could retard the migration of contaminants from the landfill itself into the groundwater acquifer. Because of this, ground water can migrate upward into the waste in the landfill during the wet season and the waste in the landfill can percolate into the groundwater acquifer in a downward and outward direction during the dry season. Additionally, the south and west slopes of the landfill are exposed and waste is thus exposed to the water contained in the perimeter ditch around the landfill, which water is connected hydrologically to the groundwater acquifer. The landfill is the only public solid waste disposal site in Charlotte County and thus receives all manner of waste, including some hazardous waste. Leachate contaminant plumes have already developed on the landfill site and may be in the process or may already have migrated off the site. This site is the only municipal landfill in the seven-county South Florida District of the Department where the SOCs are being detected in the groundwater. The groundwater in the area outside the landfill is designated as G-II, which is usable as a drinking water source. It is appropriate to sample the groundwater more frequently in the vicinity of such a landfill when that groundwater is designated as a drinking water supply. Although well number 1 was originally designated as a background well to check the background chemical status of the water before it migrates down gradient to the landfill site, that well, although located generally up gradient of the groundwater flow, has been shown to contain SOCs which in all probability emanated from the landfill. This is because the County has periodically added water from the landfill itself into the perimeter ditch around the landfill causing groundwater flow to move in both directions laterally from the ditch. Finally, although the Petitioner contends that some of the contamination found in the samples is a result of improper testing and contamination with laboratory solvents, the potential for laboratory contamination of the samples and sampling equipment is a possible explanation (although not proven) only for those SOCs found that are common laboratory solvents. Only Methylchloride, which occurred in one isolated sample, and the compound Toluene fit into this category of possible laboratory contaminants. The remaining SOCs found in the samples are not common laboratory solvents and therefore are present in the samples due to their presence in the groundwater itself from which the sample was taken.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and 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 the modified groundwater plan proposed by the Department in the December 18, 1985, letter to Charlotte County should be adopted into the groundwater monitoring plan for the Charlotte County landfill. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of November 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November 1986. APPENDIX - CASE NO. 86-0084 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 - 18. Accepted Rejected as not established by the evidence presented. Accepted, but dispositive of the material issues presented. Rejected as to its asserted import. Accepted, but not dispositive of the material issues presented. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as not dispositive of the material issues presented. Accepted, but not in itself dispositive. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but not dispositive of the material issues presented. Accepted, except as to the last clause. Accepted. Rejected as to its asserted import. Accepted, but not dispositive of the materia issues presented. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 - 20. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Matthew G. Minter, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Charlotte County 18500 Murdock Circle Port Charlotte, Florida 33948 Douglas L. MacLaughlin, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mary F. Smallwood, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Handy Food Stores, Inc. (HFS), is a small, family owned corporation that owns and operates a chain of thirty-four convenience stores in Florida, thirty two of which sell gasoline. At issue in this proceeding is Store No. 82 (Store 82 or the store) located on State Road 378 in LaBelle, Florida. The facility has also been identified by respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), as DER facility number 268520172. This controversy concerns an application by HFS for reimbursement of costs and expenses related to cleanup activities at Store 82 incurred after that store site became contaminated with petroleum and petroleum products. The application was preliminarily denied by DER on the ground HFS was "grossly negligent" in the maintenance of the petroleum storage system at Store 82. Because the average clean-up cost per site is $330,000, and HFS denied that it was grossly negligent in its operation and management of the system, HFS requested a formal hearing to contest the agency's proposed decision. The facts in this case are not complicated, and with certain exceptions, are relatively free of dispute. Until February 1988 HFS's director of operations was Ray Collier. On February 2, 1988 Collier ordered the installation of four monitoring wells at Store 82 to determine if any leaks were occurring in two underground storage tanks located on the site. Such wells were required to be installed by DER for monitoring purposes no later than December 31, 1988. The parties have stipulated that the wells were properly installed in accordance with agency rules. When the wells were installed on February 2, the contractor's report reflected no contamination was present. Collier also contracted with Purity Well Testing, Inc. (PWT) to conduct monthly monitor system checks at the store. Such checks are required by DER to determine if any discharges of product are occurring in the storage system. On February 10, 1988 Collier resigned as director of operations to accept a position in Saudi Arabia. Prior to his resignation Collier was replaced by David A. Laughner, who still remains in that position. According to Laughner, he and Collier spent only two weeks together prior to Collier's departure, and Collier did not advise him of the details concerning the monitoring program. Thus, he had no immediate knowledge of the existence of the monitoring wells or the tests being conducted by PWT. HFS's corporate offices are located in an office building at 9330 Adams Drive, Tampa, Florida. Besides three corporate officers and the director of operations, the corporation had only three office employees who worked at the corporate headquarters. The building is owned by B & B Cash Grocery Stores, Inc. (B & B), which operates a chain of grocery stores in southwest Florida. HFS's offices are on the second floor while B & B's corporate offices are located on the first floor. Although the two corporations are legally separate entities, they have certain common directors and shareholders, and the two corporations once utilized a centralized bookkeeping and billing department which was controlled and staffed by B & B. Under that arrangement, bills sent to HFS were actually processed by B & B's accounting department which paid the invoice on behalf of HFS. In addition, the two corporations once shared the same post office box. Under that arrangement, which existed in February 1988 and continued until at least August 1988, all mail sent to HFS at the post office box was initially processed by B & B's mail room rather than being sent directly upstairs to HFS. On April 24, 1988 PWT conducted its first monthly monitor well inspection at the store. That report indicated that three inches of free product was present in monitoring well three. A second monthly monitoring well inspection was conducted on May 10, 1988 reflecting the presence of two inches of free product in well number three and twelve inches in well number four. Free product was defined by a DER witness as "material (such as a petroleum product) that will be left on the water table." The presence of a free product, including a refined petroleum product, in a monitoring well is an indication that a discharge or release of the product from a storage tank has and may be continuing to occur. If free product is observed, it is the responsibility of the tank owner to determine the cause of the discharge, and if it is determined that the discharge is coming from the tank, he must empty the tank so that the system can be repaired or replaced. Also, the owner is obliged to notify DER within three working days of discovery of the discharge. The purpose behind these reporting and investigating requirements is to try to decrease the size of the petroleum plume and the area of contamination. The results of the two tests, and the invoices for the charges, were sent by PWT to HFS's post office box. Consistent with existing procedure, B & B's mail room received the reports and invoices and forwarded both to B & B's billing department for processing and payment of the invoices. Rather than forwarding the test reports upstairs to HFS, B & B filed the reports with the invoices in B & B's billing department. The parties have stipulated that no one in the billing department knew or had reason to know of the potential significance of the monitor well inspection reports. Because the bills had been paid, PWT did not contact HFS to determine whether the reports had been received. Consequently, neither Laughner nor any other HFS corporate employee had knowledge that monitor well inspections had been conducted at Store 82 or that inspection reports had been forwarded by PWT. However, it is found that copies of such reports were either forwarded to Store 82 by someone in Tampa or by PWT because they were available for inspection by DER representatives at a store inspection that took place in late June 1988. As the result of an unconfirmed telephonic report received in early February 1988 concerning possible contamination at Store 82, on June 17, 1988 a DER inspector, Jeffrey Gould, sent a letter to Laughner at HFS's corporate post office box advising that Gould would be conducting a stationary tanks compliance inspection at Store 82 during the week of June 27, 1988. The letter also requested that all records associated with the storage tank system be available at the facility for inspection. This inspection is commonly referred to as a "17-61 compliance inspection", meaning that the storage tanks would be checked to see if they met the requirements of Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code (1987). Although the letter was addressed to Laughner, it was forwarded by an undisclosed person to a Store 82 employee, Betty Smith, whose title is area supervisor, and Laughner denies having seen the letter until several months later. 1/ Gould and another DER employee, Alicia Andersen, met with Betty Smith at the store on June 29, 1989. It may be inferred that Smith had copies of the PWT monitoring reports for she produced copies of the same for Gould, who then hand-copied and reviewed the two reports. Gould also made a physical inspection of the four monitoring wells on the site. He noted the presence of free product in two of the four monitoring wells. One had 7/8 of an inch of free product (gasoline) while a second well had fourteen inches of free product. Gould also detected a strong odor and observed sheen in the northeast monitoring well and a strong odor in the southeast monitoring well. These findings are memorialized in a written compliance inspection report received in evidence as respondent's exhibit 2. After the inspection was completed, Gould discussed generally the results with Smith, had her sign the report and gave her a copy. Since Smith was not present at final hearing, Gould's version of their conversation is the only competent evidence of record on the subject. According to Gould, he told Smith that he "had found product and that it is a problem." Gould acknowledged that he did not go into too much detail with Smith concerning the report since she was only an employee, but he specifically recalled advising her "there was a definite problem at this facility" and that he "spent a long time" with her. Finally, after giving Smith a copy of the report, Gould told Smith to "return it to her office." However, Smith did not do so. Gould's version of the events was not credibly contradicted and it is hereby accepted. On July 11, 1988 Gould, over the district manager's signature, sent Laughner by certified mail a "warning" letter and copy of the June 29 inspection report. The documents were sent to the post office box in Tampa. The return receipt was signed on July 15 by one Patty Jackson, whose relationship, if any, to HFS was not disclosed. The letter provided in pertinent part as follows: Free gasoline product was found in two of the compliance monitoring wells. Product thickness in one well exceeded the bailer limitation of fourteen inches. The presence of free product was also noted on monitor well records by Purity Well Testing Company for April 24, 1988 and May 10, 1988. A maximum thickness of twelve inches was measured. Such discharges are in violation of Chapter 376, Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-3. It is required that the discharges be stopped and the integrity of the storage system verified. Records available onsite indicate the 4000 gallon tank failed a tightness test with a leak rate of -0.1057 gallons per hour (gph) on September 26, 1986. The tank however passed the test on October 7, 1986 at +0.027 gph. Please describe all repairs, if any, to the storage system after the initial failure. The Department requests a meeting to discuss entry into a Consent Order to resolve the violations. Please contact Jeff Gould at 813/332-2667 or write the letterhead address within ten (10) days of receipt of this letter to schedule a meeting. Your cooperation is appreciated. (Emphasis added) As noted in the previous finding, the letter and report were received on July 15, 1988 but were not forwarded upstairs to Laughner or any other corporate employee. When Gould received no oral or written response - to his letter, Gould eventually telephoned Laughner on August 26, 1988. During the course of the telephone call, for the first time Laughner became aware of the existence of the contamination problem at Store 82 and the nature of the tests that had been performed that spring by PWT. It is also noted that during the telephone call, Laughner acknowledged that Gould's letter of July 11 had just been routed to his desk. The two agreed to meet at DER's Fort Myers district office on September 1, 1988 to discuss the violations. On August 29, 1988, or three days after Laughner spoke with Gould, HFS filed its incentive program application for Store 82. The application, which noted that the date of discovery of a petroleum discharge at Store 82 was on June 29, 1988, was received by DER on September 6, 1988. On September 1, 1988, Laughner met with DER representatives to discuss Store 82. Laughner was told that certain specific measures should be taken to insure the integrity of the storage tank system. That same day, in a letter to DER, HFS informed DER that a tank integrity test had been scheduled for Store 82 and that HFS was implementing initial remedial action (IRA) to remove any petroleum product and excessively contaminated soils and that an enviromental consultant had been contracted to conduct IRA, site contamination assessment and any necessary remedial action. Until that time, and dating back to June 29, 1988, HFS had only conducted a stick test at Store 82 to monitor the presence of petroleum product. Also, HFS personnel had not reviewed any repair records, monitoring well records, or inventory records during this same period of time. On September 7, 1988, HFS conducted a tank integrity test at Store 82. The integrity test passed under the criteria set by the National Fire Protection Association, which is the acceptable standard under Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code. However, DER did not consider the testing to be a timely response since it considered no more than a week to be a reasonable period of time for testing once a discharge is discovered. On October 7, 1988, DER, through its inspector Gould, conducted an incentive program compliance inspection at Store 82. Although Gould observed two and one-eighth inches of free product in one well and a sheen in another well, the compliance inspection checklist noted that Store 82 was in compliance with Section 376.3071, Florida Statutes. Question 3 on the verification checklist asked if there was "evidence of gross negligence." Gould checked "yes" and made the following notations: See penalty worksheets (draft CO to OGC for review). Major violations failed tank test (enclosed) showed leaks Sept. 1986! - D.E.R. not notified, free product in well treated as a discharge and D.E.R. not notified of product in wells to take action. Gould responded in the above fashion because he concluded that nothing had been done for long periods of time to insure the integrity of the petroleum storage system at Store 82. It should be noted, however, that nothing in the checklist indicated that damages of any kind were caused by HFS's failure to take remedial action until September 1988, and DER representatives admitted they had no proof of such damages. On September 14, 1989, or approximately one year later, DER issued its proposed agency action denying Store 82's eligibility for reimbursement under the incentive program. As later amended on March 16, 1990, the agency's letter recited the following reason for denying the application: Monitor well reports dated April 24, 1988 and May 10, 1988 listed free product in monitoring wells. No report of discharge discovery was made to the Department by Handy Foods as required by Chapter 17-61, F.A.C. On June 29, 1988, an inspector from the Department discovered free product in Petitioner's monitoring wells. Petitioners were sent a warning letter by the Department on July 11, 1988, requesting that Petitioner stop any discharges and verify the integrity of its storage system. Petitioner conducted such tank tightness tests on September 7, 1988, or approximately five months after the monitoring well reports indicated the discovery of free product. Failure to report, investigate and abate where there is evidence of a discharge shall be construed to be gross negligence in the maintenance of a petroleum storage system. In other words, DER contended that HFS was "grossly negligent" within the meaning of the law by failing to "report, investigate and abate" the discharge until almost five months after the leaks were first detected by PWT. DER admits that it has no information to support a contention that, as to Store 82, HFS failed to maintain or falsified inventory or reconciliation records, intentionally damaged the petroleum storage system, failed to make monthly monitoring system checks, or failed to meet monitoring and retrofitting requirements in accordance with chapter 17-61 procedures. Although the incentive and reimbursement programs under section 376.3071 were enacted by the legislature in 1986, the agency has not promulgated formal rules that define or identify "gross negligence" or the criteria for determining eligibility under the incentive reimbursement program. Through the introduction of various agency records received in evidence as petitioner's composite exhibit 6, HFS sought to establish the fact that DER, in at least four prior cases, reached a result inconsistent with that reached in its proposed agency action regarding HFS. However, DER has processed thousands of applications of this nature, and the presence of four contrary results does not establish any binding precedent. Moreover, DER's administrator acknowledged that the agency had either erred in the cited cases or the facts were distinguishable from those presented herein. The parties disagree on the meaning of the words "gross negigence" as it is used in Subsection 376.3071(12(b), Florida Statutes (1987). Both parties presented expert testimony concerning what they perceived to be a proper interpretation of the statute. According to HFS's expert, Howard Ledbetter, he construed the term to mean a willful and reckless disregard for agency regulations that were known and understood by the alleged offender. Ledbetter established that in the spring of 1988 there was no firm understanding by the industry of what was required by DER's underground storage tank rules. Finally, he recalled receiving several different interpretations of the rules from DER personnel. In contrast, a DER expert, John Svek, opined that gross negligence occurs whenever an owner/operator commits a major violation of chapter 17-61. However, Svek conceded that chapter 17-61 does not distinguish or define major or minor violations, and nothing in chapter 17-61 equates a failure to immediately investigate a discharge to gross negligence. Further, he admitted that a lack of knowledge of a discharge is a factor to consider in determining whether gross negligence is present. A second DER expert, Patricia Dugan, acknowledged that not only is there no written document setting forth guidelines for determining when gross negligence occurs but that the term "gross negligence" does not appear in chapter 17-61. However, Dugan maintained that if notices are received by a corporation but are misfiled, as was alleged to have been done here, that conduct equates to gross negligence on the part of HFS.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Handy Food Stores, Inc. for participation in the petroleum contamination clean-up program be approved. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 1990.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Alexis Crlenjak is the owner of an unimproved lot approximately 90 feet by 230 feet in size which abuts Black Creek in Clay County, Florida. (Testimony of Petitioner, Exhibit 2) By application received by the St. Johns River Subdistrict of the Department of Environmental Regulation on September 9, 1980, Petitioner sought a permit to place approximately 1,000 cubic yards of clean fill dirt over an area of 90 by 130 feet to a depth of 3 feet on the southern portion of his lot. The stated purpose for the request was to enable Petitioner to obtain a county permit to install a septic tank and drainfield in the filled portion of the lot. Such a permit previously had been denied by the county for the reason that inadequate drainage for a septic tank existed in the lot's present natural condition. (Testimony of Petitioner, Exhibit 2) Subsequent to receipt of the application, DER's Subdistrict Office solicited comments or objections to the proposed project from adjacent landowners and various governmental agencies. An adjoining landowner, Frederick G. Flagge, filed an opposition to the concept of placement of a septic tank and drainfield next to his land due to the possibility of seepage and contamination. The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, expressed the view that placement of fill material in flood plain wetlands to raise the elevation for a septic tank placement is not in the public's interest and recommended denial of the application, and suggested that the applicant utilize the upland portion of his property for such purpose. The Southeast Regional Office of the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, concluded that the work would adversely impact fishery resources by filling productive wetlands and made a similar recommendation to that of the EPA. A representative of the Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service inspected the area in November 1980, and found that the proposed project would destroy 0.27 acres of wetlands which provide nesting, feed and shelter habitat for various species of birds, maimals and reptiles. The agency therefore recommended that any fill be limited to upland areas. The Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission reviewed the application and recommended denial because the project would adversely affect fish and wildlife resources by eliminating a protective wetland habitat. (Testimony of Tyler, Exhibit 2) Petitioner's lot is bounded on the north by Black Creek, on the east by a dredged canal which terminates at a boat basin immediately south of his property. A filled driveway separates Petitioner' s land from the Flagge property to the west. Although the area surrounding the north bank of Black Creek is still in a natural condition, Petitioner's and Flagge's lots are practically the only ones on the south bank in that area which are undeveloped and still in a relatively natural state. The northern border of Petitioner's property is high and dry due to the berm along Black Creek which has been deposited over the years and has become vegetated. However, the southern half is a hardwood swamp area where blackgum is the dominant species, together with other species such as buttonbush, water ash, dahoon, willow, water locust, red maple and sweetgum. Black Creek is classified as a Class III body of water under Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. The type of vegetation on the southern portion of Petitioner's lot is associated with periodic inundation during seasonal rainfall, and is thus deemed to constitute the landward extent of waters of the state pursuant to the vegetative indices of Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. After receiving the application an environmental specialist in Respondent's subdistrict office visited the site and thereafter prepared a Permit Application Appraisal. He identified the various species of plant life located in the area to be filled and determined that it was properly within Respondent's jurisdiction. His appraisal found that the swamp area in question benefits the water quality of Black Creek by filtering sediments and assimilating pollutants generated by upland runoff. He also found that the area is a fish and wildlife habitat, provides flood control, and serves as a primary food source for fish and wildlife. He therefore determined that the proposed project would result in the elimination of those biological resources that aid in maintaining water quality and would further degrade water quality by adding septic tank waste in close proximity to the waterway. He concluded that the project as proposed would induce flooding on the lot to the West by blocking the flow through the swamp which presently is connected by a culvert under the filled driveway to the west. His supervisor subsequently visited the site and agreed with the application appraisal. It was their combined opinion that filling of the land would eventually lead to eutrophication of the adjacent canal and adversely affect the water quality of Black Creek. At the time of their visits, the DER personnel did not observe standing water on Petitioner's property, but did so on the adjacent lot to the west. (Testimony of Rector, Tyler, Exhibit 2) As a result of the adverse application appraisal, Respondent advised Petitioner on December 9, 1980, of its intent to deny the application based on the loss of submerged land, and anticipated water quality degradation by replacing the aquatic ecosystem with a septic tank and drain ield which has a potential for leaking into the adjacent canal. The Notice of Intent to Deny further specified state water quality standards which would be adversely affected, and found that the applicant had not provided the department with affirmative reasonable assurances that the immediate and long-term impacts of the project would not result in a violation of state water quality standards. (Testimony of Tyler, Exhibit 2) At the hearing, Petitioner scaled down his request by stating that he now only wished to fill an area approximately 25 feet by 40 feet in the southwest corner of his lot to serve as the drainfield for a septic tank. However, the DER personnel who had reviewed the project testified that their recommendation of denial would not be changed in spite of the reduced proposed filling activity. They were of the opinion that the same considerations which led to the denial recommendation would still be present, except on a smaller scale. They indicated that Petitioner could still use his land, in spite of the permit denial, for recreational activities, or by erecting a "stilt" house on the lower half of the lot. However, in such an eventuality, the septic tank and drainfield would have to be placed on the upland portion of the lot. As petitioner pointed out, this cannot take place under current health regulations in view of the fact that a well is located on the north side of the adjacent lot, and the spacing distance would be insufficient for state and county permitting purposes. Although Petitioner denied that a culvert existed under the driveway separating the lots, he conceded that he had not visited the property for about a year. (Testimony of Tyler, petitioner, Exhibit 2)
Recommendation That Petitioner's application be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of August, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Victoria J. TSchinkel Secretary, Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Silvia Morell Alderman, Esquire Alexis Crlenjak Assistant General Counsel Route 2, Box 618 Department of Environmental Havana, Florida 32333 Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner's site located at 2188 N.W. 20th Street, Miami, Florida, is eligible to participate in the Early Detection Incentive Program.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the owner of a gasoline service station located at 2188 N.W. 20th Street, Miami, Florida 33142. Tomas Pequeno, Sr., is the President and owner of X.O. # 1 Corporation. International Petroleum currently operates the facility located at 2188 N.W. 20th Street, Miami, Florida 33142 pursuant to a lease agreement with X.O. #1 Corporation. The mailing address of the subject facility and of X.O. #1 Corporation is 12190 S.W. 99th Street, Miami, Florida 33186. Aurelio Rodriguez is part owner of International Petroleum and has been the manager and operator of the facility in question since 1988. Since 1988 Tomas Pequeno, Sr., has delegated authority to his son, Tomas Pequeno, Jr., to act on his behalf with regard to the business of X.O. #1 Corporation and the facility located at 2188 N.W. 20th Street, Miami, Florida 33142. At the subject facility there are six underground storage tanks which receive and dispense petroleum products. These underground storage tanks are owned by X.O. #1 Corporation and constitute part of the property leased to International Petroleum. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, there were functioning monitoring wells on the premises for the purpose of detecting leaks in the underground storage system. At the formal hearing, Tomas Pequeno, Jr., testified that on September 21, 1987, an odor of petroleum in one of the monitoring wells on the subject site was detected during a routine inspection of the premises. Mr. Pequeno, Jr., was advised by the inspector that there might be a leak in the system. On November 17, 1987, Mr. Pequeno, Jr., caused the tanks on the premises to be relined. No leaks were detected by the tests that were conducted following the relining of the tanks. Paragraph 9 of the Pretrial Stipulation filed by the parties on July 24, 1991, is as follows: 9. That the date of discovery of petroleum contamination at this facility was September 21, 1987, as indicated by Tomas Pequeno. On December 9, 1988, Petitioner submitted to Respondent an "Early Detection Incentive Program Notification Application" which was signed by Tomas Pequeno, Sr., as president of X.O. #1 Corporation. This form had been completed by Tomas Pequeno, Jr., and given to his father for his execution. This form represented that contamination at the site was detected September 21, 1987, by a manual test of the monitoring wells, that the number of gallons lost was unknown, that the petroleum contamination was due to leaking storage tanks, and that the system had been repaired. The cause of the leak in the piping and the cause of the leak in the tanks were stated as being unknown. Mr. Pequeno, Jr., testified at the formal hearing that: "There was never a discharge from that site and there is not a discharge right now at this moment." Mr. Pequeno, Jr., also answered in the affirmative to the following question: "Mr. Pequeno, are you testifying there is no contamination at this facility?" 1/ Mr. Pequeno, Jr., testified further that he submitted the Early Detection Incentive Program Notification Application as a precaution in the event contamination was discovered. The testimony of Mr. Pequeno, Jr., at the formal hearing contradicted the representations made on the Early Detection Incentive Program Notification Application. At all times pertinent to this proceeding both Mr. Pequeno, Jr., and Mr. Rodriguez were aware that the primary purpose of a monitoring well is to detect leaks from a petroleum storage system. At all times pertinent to this proceeding both Mr. Pequeno, Jr., and Mr. Rodriguez were aware of the existence of the monitoring wells on the subject site. The Dade County Department of Environmental Management (DERM) had asked the operator of the facility to submit monitoring reports. 2/ Mr. Rodriguez was unable to recall when DERM first requested the monitoring reports, but it is clear from his testimony that the request was made several months before the hearing. The operator knew that monitoring system checks were required and had been requested by DERM to provide reports of those monitoring system checks. The failure to conduct regular, periodic monitoring system checks creates the risk that a leak in a petroleum storage system will continue undetected. Neither the operator nor the owner monitored the underground petroleum storage system on a regular basis until July of 1991, when the operator began to monitor the system on a regular basis and began to keep a log of the results. Since September 21, 1987, Petitioner was aware that a sample of water from one of the monitoring wells (monitoring well #9) at the subject facility consistently contained the odor of petroleum. At the time of the formal hearing, monitoring well #9 still contained the odor of petroleum. On January 26, 1989, Mr. Rodriguez, as the operator of the facility, received a copy of the Pollutant Storage Tank System Inspection Report form completed by a DERM inspector. This report placed the operator of the facility on notice that evidence of a discharge of pollutants had been discovered at the facility. On March 3, 1989, DERM sent to Petitioner by certified mail a letter which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The Department of Environmental Resources Management acknowledges that you have applied for a state administered cleanup under the "Early Detection Incentive Program" ... . However, a review of the Department's records reveals that the source of contamination has not been determined. Therefore, the discharge of hazardous materials from the underground storage system to the adjacent soils or waters may be continuing. * * * ... [Y]ou are required to: Immediately upon receipt of this letter, CEASE and DESIST from any further unauthorized discharges to the ground and/or groundwater of Dade County. Immediately upon receipt of this letter, hydrostatically test, and repair any leaks to all underground tanks and transmission lines at the subject site. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter, submit to this Department certifica- tion that all underground tanks and transmis- sion lines at the subject site are tight and are not discharging contaminants to the environment. ... The letter dated March 3, 1989, was received by Petitioner on March 7, 1989. By that letter, Petitioner was placed on notice that there was a risk that a discharge of hazardous materials from the underground storage system to the adjacent soils and waters was continuing. By that letter, Petitioner was also placed on notice that DERM required that it hydrostatically test all underground tanks and transmission lines at the subject site in order to determine if leaks existed in the tanks and lines. By that letter, Petitioner was also placed on notice that DERM required that Petitioner certify that all underground tanks and transmission lines at the subject site are tight and are not discharging contaminants to the environment. Mr. Pequeno, Jr., believed that by having the tanks relined and repaired in November 1987, Petitioner had complied with the requests made in DERM's letter of March 3, 1989. On March 13, 1989, Mr. Pequeno, Jr., called DERM to determine whether the tests that were conducted following the relining and the repair of the tanks in November 1987, satisfied the requirements contained in DERM's letter of March 3, 1989. When Mr. Pequeno, Jr., did not get a response to his inquiry, he assumed that Petitioner was in compliance. Petitioner took no steps until two years later to hydrostatically test its underground tanks and transmission lines. On March 21, 1991, Petitioner had a tank tightness test conducted at the facility. The tank system tightness test conducted on March 21, 1991, indicated that five tanks did not test tight. There was no evidence that Petitioner has filed a certification with DERM that all underground tanks and transmission lines at the subject site are tight and are not discharging contaminants to the environment. No fuel transmission line tightness test has been conducted pursuant to DERM's March 3, 1989, request. As of the date of the formal hearing, Petitioner had not performed a complete investigation to determine the source of contamination as DERM had requested. The underground storage system at the subject site were continuously used for the storage and dispensing of petroleum products from September 21, 1987, to the date of the formal hearing. At all times pertinent to this proceeding deliveries of petroleum products were made to the tanks which had been identified by Petitioner as leaking. Petitioner's failure to conduct a complete investigation to determine the source of contamination, its failure to repair the tanks which failed the tank tightness, and its continued use of these tanks, create the risk that a discharge of hazardous materials may be continuing at the present time. By letter dated February 13, 1991, Respondent denied Petitioner's eligibility to participate in the Early Detection Incentive Notification Program. This letter provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The Department of Environmental Regulation has completed its eligibility review of your Early Detection Incentive Notification Application. Based upon information given in this application and a compliance verification evaluation, the Department has determined that this site is not eligible for state-administered cleanup pursuant to Section 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes (1986) for the following reasons: Failure to have storage tanks tightness tested. Request was made by the Department of Environ- mental Resources Management (DERM) on March 3, 1989. This shall be construed to be gross negligence in the maintenance of a storage system. According to Section 376.3071(9)(b)3, Florida Statutes, sites shall not be eligible for state- administered cleanup where the owner or operator has been grossly negligent in the maintenance of a petroleum storage system. By Pre-Trial Stipulation filed July 24, 1991, the parties entered into certain factual stipulations and framed the following two issues of law to be resolved: Whether X.O. #1 Corporation was grossly negligent as defined under Section 376.3071(9)(b)3, Florida Statutes, for failing to immediately investigate and abate the source of a petroleum contamination by conducting a tank and line tightness test pursuant to a request by DERM (Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management). Whether X.O. #1 Corporation was grossly negligent as defined under Section 376.3071(9)(b)3, Florida Statues, for failing to make monthly monitoring system checks where such systems are in place.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation which denies the application of Petitioner to participate in the Early Detection Incentive Program for its facilities located at 2188 N.W. 20th Street, Miami, Florida 33142. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of September, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 25th day of September, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Estech proposes to construct and operate a phosphate mine (the Duette mine), beneficiation plant and rock-drying facility on approximately 10,000 acres owned by it in northeastern Manatee County, Florida. No chemical plant will be located at the site. The mine site is located in the watershed of Lake Manatee, which serves as a source of potable water for residents of Manatee and Sarasota Counties. The mine site is situated between the North Fork and the East Fork of the Manatee River, which converge approximately six miles downstream of the mine site. The site is approximately eighteen miles upstream from the Manatee County utilities' drinking-water intake structure. Estech has applied for and received approval of its proposed development pursuant to the development of regional impact requirements of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Estech has also received the necessary air pollution source construction permits for its proposed rock-drying facility from DER and the United States Environmental Protection Agency and a consumptive use permit from the Southwest Florida Water Management District. The master mining plan shows that, after the first few years of operation, reclamation of areas disturbed by mining will proceed concurrently with mining of new portions of the site. The proposed operation of the Duette mine differs in two significant respects from the mining practices followed at other phosphate mines. First, all water from areas disturbed by mining and not yet fully reclaimed will be contained within the plant water system and discharged, if at all, only through permitted discharge points. There will be no uncontrolled runoff from disturbed areas. Second, Estech will use a sand- clay mix in its reclamation program, rather than making separate deposits of sand tailings and dilute waste clays as has been the general practice at other mines. In connection with its mining project, Estech proposes to build one 480-acre, above-grade, initial clay settling area (ISA). Estech applied to DER on May 1, 1980, for the requisite dam construction permit. Supplements to the application were furnished to the Department in April, 1981. The ISA serves two purposes: It operates as an impoundment area for waste materials generated from the initial phases of the mining operation, before mine cuts are available for waste disposal, and it provides one of the storage areas for large volumes of water which are recirculated during the mining and beneficiation process. The design for the earthen dam surrounding the ISA was prepared and evaluated by two Qualified engineering firms, Ardaman & Associates, Inc., and Bromwell Engineering. Estech's application to construct the dam, the dam design, the detailed earthwork specifications, and the construction drawings were certified by professional engineers registered in the State of Florida. The initial clay settling area will be located in the east one-half of Section 6, and the west one-half of Section 5, in Township 34 South, Range 22 East, Manatee County, Florida. Ardaman & Associates, Inc., conducted a detailed investigation to evaluate the suitability of the proposed site. A total of eighty test borings were taken and analyzed to determine the characteristics of the soils present at the site and their suitability as construction materials. On-site inspections were conducted by both Ardaman & Associates, Inc., and Bromwell Engineering. To ensure that the area is not subject to sinkhole activity, a visual inspection was made; aerial photographs, U.S.G.S. maps, and reports of the Florida Geological Survey were examined; and local residents were interviewed. As an additional precaution, test borings were taken in several minor depressions located on Estech and adjacent property. Analyses of these borings verified that the depressions were not sinkholes. Based on the site investigation conducted by Ardaman & Associates, Inc., it is unlikely that a sinkhole would occur either in the general vicinity of the dam or at the specific location of the dam. A soil-testing program was conducted which included thirty-seven standard penetration test borings and forty-three auger borings (i.e., eighty test borings) spaced around the perimeter of the dam, as well as in potential borrow areas. Over 639 soil samples were taken and returned to the laboratory where they were analyzed. Field tests included 606 penetration resistance tests, and six in situ permeability tests. Laboratory tests included 234 grain- size analyses, thirty-four permeability tests, ten triaxial shear tests and two compaction tests. Estech's proposed ISA dam will provide a minimum freeboard of five feet below the inside crest. The outside crest of the top of the dam is six inches higher than the inside crest, which will force all crest drainage to the inside of the dam. Both inside and outside slopes are no steeper than two horizontal to one vertical. Although most phosphate dams have a crest width of twenty feet, Estech's dam will have a crest width of twenty-five feet. The additional width helps to protect against erosion and assists in the maintenance and the overall stability of the dam. Dam inspection and maintenance roads are provided. The dam design provides several positive seepage control features: As a zoned dam, relatively impervious materials will be placed in the upstream section of the dam to retard seepage. More pervious materials will be placed in the downstream sections so that any seepage can be conducted away and not build excessive hydraulic pressures within the dam. A blanket drain will be installed within the dam itself in order to collect seepage that comes through the dam. A downstream gravel drain will be installed in the return water ditch which will collect any seepage that goes through the foundation soils. The downstream slope will be flattened to a four-to-one ratio so that even if seepage were to get past the drains, the slope would remain stable. As a final check on the effectiveness of these safeguards, the dam will be filled with approximately fifteen feet of clear water prior to introducing any sand-clay mix. Piezometers will be placed at various locations around the dam to monitor the water level. Flow from the drain and in the ditch will be monitored and the dam will be inspected. The data will be checked to determine if the seepage pattern is performing according to design assumptions. A seepage analysis (using flow nets) and stability analyses were conducted using a worst case scenario which assumed the pond was filled with clear water to its maximum pool elevation. In fact, the maximum clear water depth in the pond will be only fifteen feet, rather than the more severe condition of twenty-five feet used for purposes of analysis. In addition, the least desirable engineering properties for the foundation and embankment soils were selected for these analyses. The flow nets were used to determine the location of the phreatic surface, flow lines, and lines of equal head within the foundation and fill being designed. The Estech dam design exceeds all the minimum safety factors required by Section 17-9.03(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code. The proposed dam site will be prepared by stripping all vegetation, organic detritus and any other undesirable materials from under the foundation, the drain and toe ditch. Loose surficial sands will be compacted prior to placement of fill materials, and prepared surfaces will be scarified and wetted or dried as required to obtain proper compaction. Filling operations will be completed prior to the initiation of any construction activities associated with the ISA. The general earthwork specifications prepared by Ardaman & Associates, Inc., require materials that will be satisfactory for use in the dam and exclude the use of extraneous matter which could affect the compactibility, density, permeability, or shear strength of the finished dam. Water level within the dam will be controlled by the use of three spillway structures which will be more than adequate to maintain a five-foot freeboard and to accommodate twelve inches of rainfall on the watershed during any twenty-four-hour period. Estech's proposed dam will be constructed in accordance with the general earthwork specifications and design prepared by Ardaman & Associates, Inc. All conduits through the dam will have two or more seepage collars spaced in accordance with good engineering practices pertinent to the material used for the fill. Two collars will be installed within the core of the dam. Estech has committed to provide four additional safeguards in excess of those required by Chapter 17-9, Florida Administrative Code. The additional safeguards include: Conducting an independent review of all aspects of the Ardaman & Associates, Inc., design and construction plans. Such an independent review was conducted by Dr. Leslie Bromwell and Bromwell Engineering. Proof testing the dam with clear water prior to impounding any waste materials by placing fifteen feet of water into the dam before commencing actual operations. In addition, piezometers will be installed around the dam to monitor the performance of the darn with regard to seepage through the foundation and through the dam itself. The proof test and monitoring will provide an indication of how the dam will perform under full design load. Carrying out a comprehensive instrumentation, surveillance and inspection plan, which will include the instrumentation installed during the clear water test and any additional instrumentation indicated as a result of that test. The dam will be inspected by a representative of the design engineer once a month during the first year of operation. In addition, qualified, trained personnel of Estech will conduct inspections of the dam three times a day. Estech will use sand-clay mix inside the initial settling area rather than dilute clays alone. This will provide additional protection for the Lake Manatee reservoir in that if a dam failure were to occur, the sand-clay mix would only flow a few miles from the point of the breach in the dam and would not reach the Lake Manatee reservoir. Although the most likely cause of dam failure would be piping, protection against piping through the dam is provided by the selection of materials and their method of placement. Adequate compaction of the correct materials into various zones in the dam will ensure that piping does not occur. In addition, the internal drain and the downstream drain will collect seepage that might otherwise cause erosion, which in turn could result in a piping failure. The use of sand-clay mix will further reduce any possibility of a piping failure through the foundation soils. The sand-clay mix forms an impervious layer along the floor and sides of the ISA dam, and whatever small amount of water might pass through the ISA dam will be collected by the drainage system. The design of Estech's dam will meet or exceed applicable requirements of Chapter 17-9, Florida Administrative Code; and provided that it is properly maintained, it should remain structurally sound in excess of one hundred years. The area proposed for the location of the beneficiation plant and ---- currently contains several small ponds, streams and ditches connected to the East Fork of the Manatee River. DER asserts "dredge and fill" permitting jurisdiction under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, over certain of these ponds, ditches and streams. DER also asserts jurisdiction over the portion of an unnamed tributary that will be impacted by construction of the southern part of the ISA. The property included within the ISA and plant site was purchased by Estech from the Turner family in the mid-1960's. The Turner family had purchased the property in 1939 from timbering interests. Prior to the Turner purchase, the land contained some isolated depressions that collected water during the rainy season. There were no channelized watercourses. In order to enhance the use of the land as pasture, the Turners dug numerous agricultural drainage ditches in the 1940's. These ditches connected the various isolated depressions located on the property with the river. This ditch system allowed for the more rapid transport of standing water out of the pasture area so that the grass would not "sour" in the hot summer months. The ponds and the connecting drainage ditches are not currently susceptible to navigation for commerce by boats or other forms of customary water travel because they are too shallow and the flows are too intermittent. It is clear that the area in question was not susceptible to navigation before the ditches were artificially created in the 1940's. There is no physical indication in the ISA area of the existence of any channel capable of navigation that might have been in existence as of 1845. In 1975 and 1976 the ponds and drainage ditch system began to receive runoff and irrigation drainage from a row-crop operation operated to the north of the ISA area. This flow is dominated by irrigation water from a ten-inch well. Approximately seventy percent of the flow through the ponds and drainage ditches is made up of this agricultural water. Row-crop farming operations are scheduled to terminate at the latest in May of 1982. The land will then be planted in permanent pasture, and virtually the entire source of the agricultural runoff to the system will no longer exist. Only a very small portion of the northernmost pond area (Pond No. 3 on Figure 2 of Estech Ex. 3D) has been mapped as a flood-prone area by the U.S. Geological Survey. This indicates that the area is of a relatively high elevation not subject to continuous water flow. The total area of DER-claimed "dredge and fill" permitting jurisdiction involves approximately 13.8 acres. Some portion of this area contains water at times of the year and contains lands on which the dominant species are one of, or a combination of, those species listed in Section 17- 4.02(17), Florida Administrative Code, as indicators of the "landward extent of waters of the state." The ponds and connecting ditches ultimately connect to the unnamed tributary, which in turn connects to the East Fork of the Manatee River. Estech proposes to fill the areas located within DER's jurisdiction with overburden materials (sand, random fill and silty sand) taken from upland areas located on site. The fill materials will raise the low-lying areas to an elevation at or above that of the current landward extent of DER's jurisdiction. This filling will be completed before any other construction activities associated with the ISA or plant site are commenced. A water-quality sampling program demonstrated that, when present, the waters contained in the ponds and connecting ditches are derived largely from irrigation return water which is of lower quality than the waters in the East and North Forks of the Manatee River. The wetlands areas in question simply are not of a size or quality sufficient to provide any significant water quality benefit. The drainage area served by the ponds and connector ditches is small. The quantity of water from this area contributed to the East Fork of the Manatee River is insignificant. Filling of the ponds and connecting ditches will not cause or contribute to a long- or short-term violation of water-quality standards in waters of the State outside of the ISA area, nor would it reduce the quality of waters of the State outside the ISA area below the Class IA classification of the river as long as adequate turbidity control measures are employed during construction activities. Estech has committed to the use of such turbidity control measures. Estech applied to DER for permits to construct two discharge points through which excess water within its system could be discharged into the East Fork (discharge point 002) and North Fork (discharge point 003) of the Manatee River. In its original applications, Estech proposed almost continual discharge of excess water from its system. Subsequent to that time, the proposal was modified in a number of ways to reduce or eliminate the frequency and volume of discharges, as follows: The usage of river water from the East Fork of the Manatee River was eliminated, thus eliminating the need for an intake structure. An in-process water treatment plant will be built to eliminate the need for using up to 4,100 gallons of deep-well water per minute in the flotation process, except during periods of low rainfall, thereby decreasing the amount of potential excess water in the system. The storage capacity of the below-grade reservoir will be increased by constructing a dike around it. A comprehensive water balance study for the Duette mine was performed to determine the amount of storage necessary to contain all of the excess water predicted to be accumulated over the life of the mining operation and to develop a plan for controlling any predicted discharges so as to minimize their impact on the receiving water bodies. Whether or not there will be a discharge from the system depends on the amount of storage available and the amount of excess rainfall which must be stored. For the system to be in balance, the amount of water coming into the system must equal the amount leaving the system. If more water enters the system than leaves, then the amount of water stored increases. If the needed storage exceeds the maximum storage available, an overflow or discharge will occur. Conversely, if the water leaving the system exceeds the water entering the system, then the water stored in the system will be depleted. If the water in storage is depleted below the level needed for operation of the mining and beneficiation process, then "make-up" water must be added to the system by pumping from permitted deep wells. Because the amount of water entering and leaving the system varies from time to time, the amount of storage needed must be calculated on the basis of cumulative inflows and outflows over the life of the system. The sources of water entering the Duette mine system, in order of importance, are rainfall, water in the ore being mined (matrix), net seepage into the mine cuts, and water from shallow wells. An additional source would be any make-up water pumped from deep wells. Water is consumed or leaves the system through evaporation, disposal as part of sand-clay mix and sand tailings, shipment off site as part of the wet phosphate product or evaporation in the rock dryer as wet product is dried for shipment, and seepage losses. In addition to being the largest contributor of water to the system, rainfall is also the most variable. Twenty-four years of rainfall data are available from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) records for 1956 to 1979 for the Fort Green rainfall station, which coincidentally is located at Keentown almost in the center of the Duette mine site. Average annual rainfall at the Fort Green station is 54 inches per year, but has ranged from a low of 38 inches in 1974 to a high of 84 inches in 1960. Monthly rainfall has similarly varied from a low of zero inches in April, 1967, to a high of 19.11 inches in July, 1960. If the average annual rainfall of fifty-four inches per year occurred evenly on a daily basis over the life of the mine, the water consumed by the system would exceed the approximately 9,000 gallons per minute contributed to the water system by rainfall at the Duette site. Thus, the system would never discharge. However, because rainfall varies significantly from year to year while water consumption remains more constant, storage is required to hold the water from long-term, above-average rainfall until it can be used in the system. To evaluate the impact of variations in rainfall, a series of computer analyses were performed which matched the twenty-four-year rainfall record from Fort Green with the water consumption during the mine life to produce a "worst case" analysis in which years having the highest rainfall were matched with the mining years having the lowest water consumption. These analyses show that under the "worst case" rainfall, 16,620 acre feet of storage would be adequate to prevent any discharge during the mine life. Under this "worst case" scenario, if only 10,000 acre feet of storage were available and discharges were not controlled in any way, there are predicted to be approximately thirty days of discharge from the system out of a mine life of over 8,700 days (twenty-four years). Without any control, the discharges from the system would not necessarily coincide with periods of peak receiving stream flow. Rainfall records covering a longer period of time are available from the NOAA rainfall station at Bartow, located several miles from the site. While there have been twenty-four-year periods during which the average rainfall recorded at Bartow exceeded the twenty-four-year average rainfall recorded at Fort Green, the Fort Green station has experienced a four-year accumulation of rainfall which is very similar to the highest four-year accumulation at Bartow. Since potential overflows of the Duette system are more dependent on the accumulation of several years of heavy rainfall than on a single year's rainfall event or long-term averages, the use of the Fort Green data in producing the "worst case" rainfall scenario was appropriate. However, as a double check, an analysis was done combining the highest twenty-year rainfall record from Bartow (1921 to 1940) with the highest four-year record from the Fort Green station. This "worst-worst case" analysis produced a twenty-four-year simulated accumulation of 1,411 inches of rainfall, i.e., an average of 58.8 inches a year for the twenty-four-year period. When this larger rainfall simulation was compared with projected water usage of the mine, it showed slightly less storage would be required to prevent any discharge during the mine life (16,491 acre feet) than the storage required under the arfalysis using only the historical Fort Green data (16,620 acre feet). This apparent anomaly of higher rainfall requiring less storage occurs because the timing of the simulated rainfall based on the NOAA records reduced the need for deep-well, make-up water coming into the system prior to the critical years of the rainfall cycle. Two aspects of the water-balance calculation were the subject of conflicting expert testimony: the effect of possible slower consolidation of sand-clay mix in the initial clay settling area on the available storage capacity of the system, and the amount of mine cut seepage which can be expected. Based on experience with consolidation of dilute clays, which start with a smaller percentage of solids and can be expected to consolidate more slowly than the flocculated sand-clay mix to be used by Estech, the consolidation rate used in the Estech water-balance calculations is reasonable. Moreover, it is clear that the rate of consolidation of sand-clay mix does not directly impact the volume of available storage. No water enters the system as a result of consolidation. As the sand-clay mix consolidates, water which had been trapped within the sand-clay mix is freed and rises to the surface. However, the total volume occupied by the combination of the sand-clay mix and its associated water does not change; therefore, the amount of available water storage area does not chance. Further, the estimate of mine cut seepage into the system used in calculating the water balance is also reasonable. The total water storage available on site varies from year to year throughout the life of the mine. Excluding the two active mining areas, the Duette mine system has a minimum storage capacity after the fifth year of mining of approximately 10,000 acre feet, consisting of 3,500 acre feet in the below- grade reservoir, 4,000 acre feet in the sand-clay reclamation areas, and 2,500 acre feet in the initial clay settling area. If the two active mining areas (excluding active dragline cuts) are used for additional water storage, then after the fifth year of mining, the available storage fluctuates between a low of approximately 16,682 acre feet and a high of approximately 27,149 acre feet. Not included in the above calculations are an additional 1,000 acre feet of storage located in the active dragline cuts which is available for use on an emergency basis. Estech did not initially propose to use active mining areas for water storage. Instead, it proposed to use only the 10,000 acre feet of storage available in other areas. However, there is one chance in twenty-five that 10,000 acre feet will not be sufficient to store the predicted accumulations of water and that overflows would occur if only 10,000 acre feet of storage were used. To prevent uncontrolled overflows, Estech originally proposed to make controlled discharges at a rate of no more than fifteen percent of stream flow whenever necessary to avoid the risk of an overflow. Therefore, the recirculation system and discharge points were designed to control discharges so that they will not exceed fifteen percent of stream flow at the time and point of discharge. This is accomplished by measuring the flow in the receiving streams and metering the amount of discharge to stay at or below fifteen percent of the stream flow. To control discharges in this manner requires that discharges commence before the storage system is completely filled, so that surge capacity remains available to prevent an overflow while controlled discharges are being made. An analysis of the historical Fort Green station daily rainfall data and historical daily stream flow data for the Manatee River demonstrates that if discharges are made at a rate of fifteen percent of stream flow whenever storage in the system exceeds 8,500 acre feet, the accumulated water would never exceed 10,000 acre feet; and, therefore, there would be no uncontrolled discharges. However, even more storage is now available. Based on the availability of 16,682 to 27,149 acre feet of storage during the critical years of the mining operations and the demonstration that 16,620 acre feet of storage would be sufficient to prevent any discharge from the system under the predicted worst case rainfall scenario (which has less than one chance in 1,000 of occurring), there is a reasonable certainty that no process water will be discharged from the system over the life of the mine provided that Estech is required to use the two active mining areas (excluding active dragline cuts) for additional storage if needed. Estech has agreed to take all measures necessary to prevent surface water discharges from the Duette mine, including the construction and utilization of the maximum available storage area. Included within the maximum available water storage area are the initial waste disposal area (ISA); the 210- acre surge/storage reservoir; the sand-clay reclamation areas; the ditch system; the plant water ponds (i.e., storage within the recirculation system); the two active mining areas; and, on an emergency basis only, the active dragline cuts wherein the draglines are physically operating. Estech has further agreed to construct an earthen embankment pursuant to Chapter 17-9, Florida Administrative Code, standards around the 210-acre reservoir so that it can contain an additional 3,500 acre feet of storage. Further, Estech has agreed to not construct the stream intake structure previously planned to be located at the site of the 210-acre reservoir on the East Fork of the Manatee River. Based on the availability of 16,682 to 27,149 acre feet of storage during critical years of mining operations, Estech's stipulations regarding its management of on-site water, and the demonstration that 16,620 acre feet of storage is sufficient to prevent any discharge from the system, Estech has provided reasonable assurance that no process water will ever be discharged from the Duette mine during its lifetime and that operation of the Duette mine, which is a potential source of pollution, will not ever result in pollution. Three of these consolidated cases involve the water quality of any potential discharges of the process water from the Duette mine site. Specifically, these three cases involve permits for discharge points 002 and 003; the state certification for the NPDES permit; and Estech's request for mixing zones, zones of discharge, permit conditions, and site specific alternative criteria. The water-quality impact of discharges depends on a combination of the quality of the discharge, the quantity of the discharge, and the quality of the receiving water body. There is a great deal of evidence in the record as to the expected quality of the process water which could potentially be discharged from the mine's water storage system. The methods used by Estech's consultants to predict the quality of the process water included: (1) a laboratory-scale simulation of the Duette beneficiation process using Duette water and matrix, (2) a simulation of the Duette process which subjected sand and clay slurries from the Watson mine to the sand-clay mixing process proposed for Duette, and (3) an analysis of data from a small-scale simulation of the Duette process performed by Estech at the Watson mine. Because a laboratory-scale simulation may not be indicative of the expected results of full-scale operation, a laboratory simulation of the Watson mining process was compared to actual data from the Watson mine to use as a guide in scaling up the results of the laboratory simulation of the Duette process. Estech's substantial "water-quality" evidence is inconclusive. Many of the opinions of its experts are based upon or incorporate the results of the tests described in the preceding paragraph. Those tests fail to demonstrate scientific accuracy. The laboratory-scale simulation of the Duette process involved two components: (1) water from the Duette site which was accidentally contaminated with isopropyl alcohol used to disinfect the barrels in which the water was transported, and (2) Duette matrix samples obtained from a warehouse where they had been stored approximately a year earlier. The "full-scale" Watson test used Watson matrix, not Duette matrix. All experts agree that phosphate matrix varies from location to location. Estech's experts testified that the "Watson process" constituents and the "Duette process" constituents are not comparable. The laboratory-scale Watson process utilized water obtained from the Watson mine over only one four-day period. The water used was a single, composite sample. Further, during the laboratory testing, the water was contaminated by high suspended solids due to "scalping" the water too closely. The unreliability of Estech's water-quality studies is further verified by the number of reports and "supplemental" reports issued over a short period of time, between the initial schedulings of these cases for final hearing and the final hearing. Some of the "supplemental" information changed the data contained in the prior reports, whether sponsored as more accurate data or typographical errors.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED THAT a final order be entered: In Case No. 80-1486 approving Estech's application for a permit to construct the initial settling area, subject to the applicable conditions set forth in the initial Notice of Intent to Issue Permit and including as an additional condition that no discharge be made through Estech's proposed discharge points 002 and 003; In Case No. 81-040 approving Estech's application for a fill permit for the initial settling area and plant site area, subject to the applicable conditions set forth in the initial Notice of Intent to Issue Permit; In Case No. 81-039 dismissing Estech's application for permits for discharge points 002 and 003 for the reason that they are note subject to permitting jurisdiction; In Case No. 81-335 dismissing Estech's request for state certification of Estech's proposed National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for discharge points 002 and 003 on the ground of mootness; and In Case No. 81-995 dismissing Estech's request for mixing zones, zones of discharge, permit conditions, and site specific alternative criteria on the ground of mootness. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: E. N. Fay, Jr., Esquire Mann and Fay, Chartered Post Office Box 959 Bradenton, Florida 33506 William L. Earl, Esquire William F. Tarr, Esquire Peeples, Earl, Moore & Blank, P.A. One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3636 Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Richard M. Goldstein, Esquire One Biscayne Tower, Suite 1980 Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Robert C. Apgar, Esquire Peeples, Earl, Moore & Blank, P.A. 300 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard L. Smith, Esquire Richard E. Nelson, Esquire Nelson, Hesse, Cyril, Weber, Smith & Widman 2070 Ringling Boulevard Post Office Box 2524 Sarasota, Florida 33577 Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 123 Eighth Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 David M. Levin, Esquire Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lawrence E. Sellers, Jr., Esquire Robert L. Rhodes, Jr., Esquire Holland & Knight Post Office Drawer BW Lakeland, Florida 33802 Wade L. Hopping, Esquire Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams Suite 420, Lewis State Bank Bldg. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Calvin J. Livingston, Esquire Holland & Knight Post Office Drawer 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ms. Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION MANATEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, Petitioner, and SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND MANASOTA-88, INC., Intervenors, CASE NO. 80-1486 vs. STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Respondent, and ESTECH GENERAL CHEMICALS CORPORATION, Intervenors. / ESTECH GENERAL CHEMICALS CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 81-039 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Respondent, and MANATEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA; and MANASOTA-88, INC., Intervenors. / MANATEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, Petitioner, and SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA, and MANASOTA-88, INC., Intervenors, vs. CASE NO. 81-040 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, and ESTECH GENERAL CHEMICALS CORPORATION, Respondents. / ESTECH GENERAL CHEMICALS CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 81-335 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Respondent, and SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA; MANATEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; and MANASOTA-88, INC., Intervenors. / ESTECH GENERAL CHEMICALS CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 81-995 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Respondent, and SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA; MANATEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; and MANASOTA-88, INC., Intervenors. /
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations as set forth in the Citation for Violation, Onsite Sewage Program/Sanitary Nuisance dated April 28, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is authorized and given the jurisdiction to regulate the construction, installation, modification, abandonment, or repair of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems, including drainfields, by septic tank contractors. At all times material hereto, Respondent was a registered septic tank contractor and, as such, he was authorized to provide septic tank contracting services, including the installation and repair of drainfields. On or about November 2, 1995, Petitioner issued a permit (Permit No. RP648-95) to Wilmar Rodriguez for the repair of a septic tank system at 417-421 Perry Avenue, Greenacres, Florida. The property was a triplex, which was purchased by Mr. Rodriquez in 1981. Mr. Rodriguez has no knowledge as to whether any drainfields were installed or replaced on the property, prior to 1981. The Permit included the installation of a new multi- chambered septic tank, a dosing tank, a lift station, and a new drainfield. The Permit was also for a filled system and called for the drainfield to be 700 square feet. Respondent was indicated as the "agent" on the Permit. Respondent and/or his employees performed the work under the Permit. Respondent was the septic tank contractor for the repair of the septic tank system under the Permit. On November 9, 1995, the construction of the septic tank system was approved by one of Petitioner's inspectors, who was an Environmental Specialist I. Petitioner's inspectors are not present during the entire construction or repair of a septic tank system or drainfield. Usually, inspections are made after the completion of the construction or repair of the septic tank system. Additionally, the inspection of a drainfield is usually performed after the rock has been placed on top of the drainfield. On February 2, 1996, the same inspector performed the inspection after the completion of the construction of the septic tank system, including after the placing of the rock on top of the drainfield. Even though the Permit reflects a filled system, the filled/mound system section on the inspection sheet was crossed out. The inspector considered the system to be a standard system, not a filled or mound system, and, therefore, inspected it as a standard system. In inspecting a drainfield, the inspection by an inspector includes checking to ensure that a drainfield has 42 inches of clean soil below the drainfield. An inspector uses an instrument that bores down through the rock and brings up a sample of the soil, which is referred to as augering. Augering is randomly performed at two locations. For the instant case, the inspector performed the augering in two random locations of the drainfield, which were in the area of the middle top and the middle bottom. The samples failed to reveal anything suspect; they were clean. On February 2, 1996, the inspector issued a final approval for the septic tank system. Final approval included the disposal of "spoil" and the covering of the septic tank system with "acceptable soil". The inspector mistakenly inspected the system as a standard system. He should have inspected the system as a filled system.1 After the repair and installation of the septic tank system by Respondent, Mr. Rodriguez continued to have problems with the septic tank system. He contacted Respondent three or four times regarding problems with the system, but the problems persisted. Each time, Respondent was paid by Mr. Rodriguez. Sewage water was flowing into the street where the property was located and backing-up into the inside of the triplex. Having gotten no relief from Respondent, Mr. Rodriguez decided to contact someone else to correct the problem. Mr. Rodriguez contacted Richard Gillikin, who was a registered septic tank contractor. On October 14, 1999, a construction permit was issued to Mr. Rodriguez for the repair of the septic tank system. Mr. Gillikin was indicated as the agent. Mr. Gillikin visited the property site of the triplex and reviewed the problem. He determined that the drainfield was not properly functioning, but he did not know the cause of the malfunctioning. With the assistance of Petitioner's inspectors, Mr. Gillikin and Mr. Rodriguez attempted to determine the best method to deal with the problem. After eliminating options, Mr. Rodriguez decided to replace the drainfield. To replace the drainfield, Mr. Gillikin began excavating. He began removing the soil cover and the rock layer of the drainfield. Mr. Gillikin also wanted to know how deep he had to dig to find good soil. After digging for that purpose and for 10 to 12 inches, he discovered a drainfield below Respondent's drainfield. The drainfield that Mr. Gillikin discovered was a rock bed 12 inches thick in which pipes were located and, as indicated, 10 to 12 inches below Respondent's drainfield. Mr. Gillikin also dug a hole two to three feet deep, pumped the water out of the hole, and saw the old drainfield. Mr. Gillikin determined that the old drainfield extended the full length of Respondent's drainfield. As a result of Mr. Gillikin's determining that the old drainfield was below Respondent's drainfield, both drainfields had to be removed and the expense of a new drainfield increased. Leon Barnes, an Environmental Specialist II for Petitioner, who was also certified in the septic tank program, viewed the drainfield site. He determined that the old drainfield was below Respondent's drainfield and that, therefore, Respondent had not removed the old drainfield. On or about November 6, 1999, Mr. Barnes' supervisor, Jim Carter, and co-worker, Russell Weaver, who is an Engineer, also visited the drainfield site. Mr. Weaver determined that the old drainfield covered a little more than 50 percent of the area under Respondent's drainfield. On November 8, 1999, a construction inspection and a final inspection of the system installed by Mr. Gillikin were performed. The system was approved. Respondent admits that a new drainfield is prohibited from being installed over an old drainfield. However, Respondent denies that he installed a new drainfield over the old drainfield on Mr. Rodriguez's property. In 1995, Respondent failed to completely remove the old drainfield before he installed the new drainfield. The soil and rocks from the old drainfield, which was not functioning, were contaminated spoil material. Because the old drainfield was not completely removed, the contaminated spoil material remained in the drainfield and was used as part of the material in the installation of the new drainfield. Leaving the contaminated spoil material in the new drainfield, prevented the sewage water from being able to percolate through the ground, which is a method of cleansing the sewage water. Without being able to percolate through the ground, the sewage water remained on the surface of the drainfield, creating a serious sanitary nuisance and health hazard. The sewage water spilled onto the street and backed-up into the triplex. Respondent was issued a Citation for Violation, Onsite Sewage Program/Sanitary Nuisance by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Palm Beach County Health Department, enter a final order: Affirming the Citation for Violation, Onsite Sewage Program/Sanitary Nuisance and finding that Noel Sanfiel violated Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes (1995), and Rule 10D- 6.0571(4), now Rule 64E-6.015(6), and Rule 10D-6.0751(1)(l)1, now 64E-6.022(1)(l)1, Florida Administrative Code. Imposing a fine of $500. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 2001.
The Issue This case concerns the entitlement of Petitioner to be granted a permit to operate a .0075 MGD wastewater treatment facility with reclaimed water applied through spray irrigation. See Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17- 610, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The exceptions filed by Cordes are deficient either in lacking materiality or in failing to cite to any Support in the record. The Department cannot substitute its interpretation of the facts unless a review of the whole record shows that the findings made by the Hearing Officer are not supported by competent and Substantial evidence. See, e.g., Tuveson v. Florida Governors Council on Indian Affairs, Inc., 495 So.2d 790, 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), rev. denied, 504 So.2d 767 (Fla. 1987). A review of the record in this case shows that, with one exception, competent and substantial evidence does support each of the findings of fact to which Cordes takes exception. Exception 1 objects that contrary to the finding in paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order, Cordes submitted the information requested by the Department, on time. The exception also urges that the Department misled Cordes, because the additional information requested by the Department to complete the first application (the short form) for renewal differed from the bases ultimately relied on by the Department in denying the application. The Hearing Officer found that the Department had denied the first application for renewal because of a delay in providing the additional information. Cordes points to no evidence in support of his exception to the finding that there was a delay. The transcript of the hearing in this matter reveals that Cordes's own witness admitted that there was a delay in providing the requested information, leading to the denial of the short-form application and a request for submittal of the long-term application, instead. As for the charge that the Department misled Cordes, Exception 1 confuses the two permit proceedings. The request for information on the short-form application is irrelevant to the denial of the long-form application at issue. The alleged discrepancy between the additional information requested and the bases for ultimately denying the application is also immaterial. The Department cannot estop itself from denying an application on one ground (on which the information originally submitted with the application is adequate) merely by requesting additional information on another ground. See generally State Department of Revenue v. Anderson, 403 So.2d 397 (Fla. 1981). I therefore reject all of Exception 1. Exception 2 attacks the findings in paragraphs 9-12 of the Recommended Order on pollution problems resulting from Cordes's Spray irrigation System. Cordes argues that because the Department (and a complaining neighbor) allegedly suggested that Cordes change his method of spray irrigation to a garden hose and sprinkler system, the Department should be estopped from denying the permit. The testimony on whether a Department representative suggested the use of a garden hose is conflicting. Likewise, although Cordes's engineer testified that no pollution problems had resulted from using the garden hose for Spray irrigation, the engineers from the Department testified that ponding and consequent nutrient-loading problems would result from that method and had actually been observed at the facility in question. Because competent Substantial evidence Supports the findings in paragraphs 9-12 of the Recommended Order, I will not disturb them. As for the estoppel argument, that is addressed below, in the rulings on the exceptions to conclusions of law. I therefore must reject Exception 2. I accept Exception 3, which challenges the Hearing Officer's finding in paragraphs 15-18 of the Recommended Order that Cordes' expert witness stated in the first application for permit renewal that the system had a storage capacity of three days, yet testified at the hearing that the Storage capacity was Sixteen hours. Neither the exception nor the finding, however, is material to the decision in this case, because other grounds form the basis for the decision, as explained below. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Cordes's exceptions to the conclusions of law fare no better. At the outset, I note that Cordes did not number his exceptions to the conclusions of law. I shall take them up in the order in which Cordes presented them. The first such exception to the conclusions of law conclusorily asserts that the decision in State Department of Revenue v. Anderson, 403 So.2d 397 (Fla. 1981), is distinguishable but fails to identify the specific basis for distinguishing it. See Fla. Admin. Code Rule 17-103.200(1) (requiring that the grounds for exceptions be bet forth with particularity). The Hearing Officer cited the Anderson case in support of his conclusion that the Department did nothing to estop it from denying the application at issue. The court in Anderson noted that estoppel will be applied only rarely to the state and only in exceptional circumstances. The court set forth the general test for finding such an estoppel, requiring (1) a representation of material fact contrary to a position asserted later by the person or entity to be estopped, (2) reasonable reliance on that representation by the person claiming the estoppel, and (3) detriment to that person as a result of relying on the representation. Id. at 398. The court specifically pointed out that the state cannot be estopped through mistaken statements of the law. Id. (citing Department of Revenue v. Hobbs, 368 So.2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA), appeal dismissed, 378 So.2d 345 (Fla. 1979); Austin v. Austin, 350 So.2d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 357 So.2d 184 (Fla. 1978)). Even assuming (contrary to the finding of the Hearing Officer supported by competent substantial evidence) that a representative of the Department told Cordes at some point that the use of a garden hose would satisfy the legal requirements for spray irrigation as asserted by Cordes, that mistaken statement of law would provide no basis for estoppel. Moreover, the inadequate storage capacity of the system and its proximity to a potable well provide other grounds that require disapproval of the application. In any event, the complaint that the Department misled Cordes is contrary to the Hearing Officer's well-supported findings of fact. I reject this exception. Cordes then attacks the Hearing Officer's conclusion of mixed fact and law that the evidence presented by Cordes at the hearing did not overcome the showing of the problems associated with the lack of sufficient capacity of the storage system and the proximity of the irrigation field to a potable well. Cordes argues that the Department allows an exemption from the storage capacity requirement in some circumstances and implicitly granted Cordes such an exemption by approving the permit for the facility in 1983. But the record does not show that Cordes ever requested an exemption or even addressed the issue at the hearing. Moreover, the provision of exemptions by rule for applicants in general (who comply with the requirements for the exemption) does not demonstrate the adequacy of the storage system at Cordes's facility. Nor does the granting of a permit for the facility in 1983 necessarily imply that the Department granted any exemption for the facility. Rather, the Department may well have made a mistake of law in issuing the permit then without addressing the question of an exemption. On the record before me, and in light of the well-settled law as explained above, I cannot conclude that Cordes has shown any basis for estopping the Department on this issue. The complaint by Cordes that the Department never advised him that it would require a larger storage tank until he received the permit denial letter overlooks the existence of the rule requiring three days storage capacity. See Fla. Admin. Code Rule 17- 610.414(2)(c). The complaint that the Department did not request additional information on this point is immaterial. The information submitted with the permit application and confirmed at the hearing showed clearly that the storage capacity (sixteen hours) failed to satisfy the rule, in the absence of an exemption. I reject the exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion on the adequacy of the storage capacity of the facility. Likewise without merit is' Cordes's exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the spray irrigation field is located too close to a potable well to meet the requirements of rule 17- 610.421(3) of the Florida Administrative Code. The evidence showed that the field is only 200 feet from a potable well. Cordes's complaint that the application form did not request information about the proximity of the field to potable wells but only to shallow water supply wells of any kind is immaterial. Regardless of the form of the application, an applicant must meet the requirements of the rules to show entitlement to a permit. The Department did not deny the application for lack of information but for lack of a sufficient buffer zone between the irrigation field and the potable well. The information submitted was sufficient for the Department to determine that the facility would not meet the buffer zone requirement. Without explication, Cordes quotes from a letter granting his nursing center an exemption from monitoring requirements in 1983. Cordes fails to show the relevance of that exemption from monitoring to the adequacy of the buffer zone in question, given the specific requirements of rule 17-610.421(3). I therefore reject this final exception.
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts and the conclusions of law, it is, recommended that a Final Order be entered which denies the permit to operate a .0075 MGD wastewater treatment facility with reclaimed water applied by spray irrigation. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-4461 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties. Petitioner's Facts All sentences in Paragraph 1 save the second sentence are not necessary to the resolution of the facts. The second sentence is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 2 is subordinate to facts found. In Paragraph 3 the suggestion by Dr. Nayak that he does not believe that the treatment plant is polluting at present begs the question. What is incumbent upon Petitioner is a requirement that the facility meet the rules. It does not. Likewise, remarks attributable to Mr. Reining to the effect that he saw no problems at the time of his visit does not supply an adequate answer to address reasonable assurances. Paragraph 4 in discussing the opinion held by Mr. Morrissette about whether he would have permitted operation in 1983 is not relevant. What is relevant is whether the most recent application should be granted. It should not. Paragraph 5 is subordinate to facts found except to the extent that it suggests that reasonable assurance has been given. In that respect, it is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 6 is recitation of testimony. It is not fact-finding. Paragraph 7 is unacceptable in that it does not address inclement conditions. It also fails to recognize that the present disposition of the effluent is not uniform. Paragraph 8 has been addressed by consideration of the testimony de novo. This clarified that the purposes of the final hearing was to consider the case de novo as opposed to appellate review of the agency's preliminary response to the application. Likewise, in Paragraph 9 although it would have been advantageous to have the wetted area better described in the attached map, that was clarified at hearing and has been reported in the fact-finding set forth in the Recommended Order. As to Paragraph 10 the explanation of the use of Rule 610.423, Florida Administrative Code, is set out in the fact-finding and conclusions of law in the Recommended Order and puts to question the applicant's response to the requirements in that rule. As to Paragraph 11 the reference to Rule 610.423, Florida Administrative Code, is not the critical rule that pertains to potable water wells. That requirement is announced at Rule 17-610.421(3), Florida Administrative Code. Concerning Paragraph 12 in the same way that it would have been helpful for the applicant to designate the wetted area, it would have been helpful for the [agency to remind the applicant to make that designation. That failing does not preclude consideration of those matters at hearing and that was done. Paragraph 13 is subordinate to facts found with the exception of reference to Mr. Morrissette in his lack of licensing in Florida. That lack of license does not preclude his testimony. Paragraph 14 is subordinate to facts found with the exception that suggestion by Dr. Nayak that there is an even distribution by the use of a hose is rejected. Paragraph 15 as described in the fact-finding the resort to the above- ground spray heads can be had absent problems with the sizing in the reclaimed water storage system. Paragraph 16 is addressed in the Recommended Order. Paragraph 17 is addressed in the Recommended Order as is Paragraph 18. Paragraph 19 is subordinate to fact found. The reference at Paragraph 20 to the exemption set out in Rule 17- 610.414(1), Florida Administrative Code, was not spoken to at hearing. The project does not contemplate the use of an alternative system which discharges surface water through deep wells. Paragraph 21 is contrary to facts found. The requirements in the rules are not site specific. Concerning Paragraph 22, while DER issued a permit under similar conditions in 1983 that does not preclude them refusing to issue the permit in 1988. Concerning Paragraph 23. The issuance of the permit in 1983 is seen as not being an exemption. It is seen as an oversight. Paragraph 24 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 25 is subordinate to facts found as is Paragraph 26. Paragraph 27 has been spoken to in the Recommended Order as has Paragraph 28. Concerning Paragraph 29, while the application does not indicate that the buffer zone must be drawn per se, it could be fairly inferred that the designation is contemplated by the rule which requires the establishment of the buffer zone. Concerning Paragraph 30 see discussion of Paragraph 29. Paragraph 31 is subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 32, whatever the application form may say the requirements of Rule 17-610.421, Florida Administrative Code, must be complied with. The same response pertains to Paragraph 33. The suggestion that the exemption from monitoring that was granted on September 2, 1983, relieves the applicant of the requirements of Rule 17-610.421, Florida Administrative Code, is rejected. Respondent`s Facts Paragraphs 1-27 are subordinate to facts found, with the exception that any suggestion that the applicant is limited in its proof to those matters set forth in the application is rejected. The applicant is allowed to present necessary evidence in furthering the request for permit at final hearing. Paragraph 28 is not accepted in that the evidence indicated that the soaker hose was the principle method but not the sole method of effluent distribution. In Paragraph 29 it is acknowledged that the Petitioner claims that the change in the method of distribution was at the instigation of a neighbor's complaint. It is also acknowledged that there was no reference to a written communication from the Respondent to the Petitioner concerning the use of the alternative means of distribution. The problems associated with this communication are spoken to in the Recommended Order and they would attend the suggestions made in Paragraph 31. As set forth in Paragraph 32 it is acknowledged that the employees cannot create the authority for changes. Nonetheless, they may mislead an applicant into a course of conduct in pursuing the application. Any problems of that sort associated with this project have addressed in the Recommended Order. Paragraphs 33-56 are subordinate to facts found with the exception that suggestion to the effect that the application constitutes the sole basis for considering the entitlement to permit is rejected in favor of a consideration of evidence presented at the hearing de novo. The discussion in Paragraphs 57-59 as to the nature of the potable water well is acknowledged. The exemption from monitoring in 1983 does not preclude the agency's ability to examine the issue in the 1989 application. It is found that the potable well is a deep well. In Paragraph 60, while it is acknowledged that the preliminary intent to deny was based upon an examination of the permit in association with applicable statutes and rules, the decision reached in this Recommended Order was based upon the evidence presented at hearing. That decision is not reached in an attempt to appease concerns by neighbors as alluded to in Paragraph 61. Paragraph 62 is considered to be argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven K. Hall, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Baya Harrison, Esquire 400 North Meridian Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Gar-Con's revised application for a permit to construct a sewage plant, and soakage trenches to dispose of the effluent, should be granted?
Findings Of Fact Eight to ten miles south of Melbourne Beach and 8.3 miles north of Sebastian Inlet, Gar-Con plans to develop a parcel of land stretching west from the Atlantic Ocean, across Highway A1A, to the Indian River. Gar-Con expects to build a motel and residential complex complete with tennis courts, parking garage, water treatment plant and the sewage treatment facility for which a construction permit is sought in these proceedings. The sewage treatment plant would be built on a site 480 feet west of Highway A1A and 90 feet south of Gar-Con's northern property line, at an elevation of 11 or 12 feet above mean sea level. Ocean Way Water and Sewer Association, Inc. is to be organized as a nonprofit corporation to own and operate the wastewater treatment facility. The Public Service Commission, through the director of its water and sewer treatment, has taken the position that the proposed "sewer system will fall within the exemption described in Section 367.022(7), Florida Statutes." DER's Composite Exhibit A. PACKAGE PLANT PROPOSED The facility Gar-Con proposes is designed to treat 100,000 gallons of sewage daily, which is the estimated "total flow" (T. 75) the sanitary engineer who designed the system anticipates from the development. Sewage generated by the development would flow to the plant, through a bar rack designed to remove rags and other large objects, and into aeration tanks where, over a 24 hour period, interaction with air and a biological mass would supply oxygen and cause the formation of biological floccules. The flocculant sewage would then move to a clarifier hopper. During its five hour stay there, solids which were not earlier segregated as the sewage moved over a weir into the clarifier, would be precipitated and removed. The clear, residual liquid would be pumped through one of two sand filters (each of which would also have granular activated carbon and be capable of filtering 100,000 gallons daily) into one of two chlorine contact chambers where a gas chlorinator would introduce chlorine for an hour. Under ordinary circumstances, the chlorinated effluent would then be pumped into one of two soakage trenches. The soakage trenches, each designed for use every other week, are to be gravel-filled ditches covered over first with felt paper, then with compacted fill. The gravel would lie at least one foot beneath the surface of the ground in a space ten feet wide and three feet deep stretching the 940 foot length of each soakage trench. Punctured like sieves, two six-inch PVC pipes would run through the gravel, sweating effluent from their pores. There is also a plan to dig a percolation pond or grassed swale five feet deep, 120 feet long and 80 feet wide near the wastewater treatment plant, which could serve as a receptacle for effluent, in case of "a 1:10 year storm or when the filters are down and/or if soakage trenches would need repair." Gar- Con's Exhibit 2-A. It would hold about 100,000 gallons. The solids caught by the weir, those extracted in the clarifying process, and those recovered from backwashing the filters would serve as catalyst for the aeration process as needed. Excess sludge, about 3,000 pounds monthly, would undergo "aerobic digestion," before being removed to Brevard County's Central Disposal Facility on Adamson Road, for disposal there. Gar- Con's Exhibit No. 7. Primary and secondary drinking water standards would be met by the effluent as it left the plant (although the engineer who designed the system would not drink the effluent himself), except that, from time to time, nitrate concentrations might reach 12 milligrams per liter, and except in the "event that a homeowner might put some type of [inorganic toxic or carcinogenic] material into the sewer system." (T. 86) The biological oxygen demand (BOD) would be ten milligrams per liter; suspended solids would probably amount to about five milligrams per liter; pH would probably be slightly under seven; nitrates would average approximately eight milligrams per liter but would "peak out at certain times during the year, for maybe extended periods up to two months, at twelve milligrams per liter," (T. 80); and there would be a chlorine residual after 60 minutes of two milligrams per liter. AMBIENT WATERS There would be no direct discharge to the Atlantic Ocean, Indian River or any other body of surface water, nor would any indirect effect on surface waters be measurable. No body of surface water lies within 500 feet of the site proposed for the plant and soakage trenches. Potable groundwater underlies the site; the groundwater table slopes toward the Atlantic Ocean, 9.5 to 12.5 feet below ground. "[D]uring the traditional rainy season," Gar-Con's Exhibit 2B, Attachment, p.3, the groundwater may rise to within seven feet of the surface. The PVC pipes in the soakage trenches are to be placed two and a half feet deep. As effluent percolated through the sandy soil, there would be "mounding" of the groundwater underneath the soakage trenches, and dispersal in all directions. Surface flow is to be diverted from the soakace trenches so that only rainwater falling directly on them would percolate down through the gravel beds. Taking soil characteristics into account, and assuming a "water table depth" of 20 feet, an engineer retained by Gar-Con predicted that "the maximum expected groundwater rises beneath the east and west trenches are 2.4 and 2.1 feet, respectively under a loading of 100,000 gpd for a period of 7 days." Gar-Con's Exhibit No. 3. The water table depth, "the height, the top of the groundwater from the first restrictive layer," (T. 172), is probably more like 40 feet than 20, which accounts in part for the "conservatism" of the mounding predictions. Under very severe weather conditions (a 100 year storm), groundwater would rise as high as the bottom of the trenches making them unavailable to receive effluent, but the effluent would not be forced above ground. In a 100 year flood, water would be expected to rise to seven feet above mean sea level. Under such conditions, people could be expected to evacuate the area. In a 25 year storm, the system could be expected to continue to function. Groundwater to the north and east of the proposed site was sampled, and the samples were analyzed. The water to the north had 380 milligrams of chlorides per liter and the water to the east had 450 milligrams of chlorides per liter. As it left the proposed treatment plant, the effluent would contain approximately 150 milligrams of chlorides per liter. SOUND AND LIGHT Lights like those used as street lights are to be installed at four places in the wastewater treatment plant. A timer, which can be overridden, would turn the lights on at dusk and off at eleven o'clock at night. The lights would illuminate the plant adequately. Pumps would move sewage to and through the proposed plant. Most of the pump motors would be submerged and unable to be heard. Two electric blowers, a flow meter and a totalizer would also have electrical motors. The blowers and the blower motors are to be equipped with insulated fiberglass covers and the blowers would also have intake and double outlet silencers. Four feet from the plant the noise of the motors would be comparable to that of a home air conditioning unit. At the nearest residence the noise level would scarcely exceed background noise. At hearing, Gar-Con revised its application and agreed to install an emergency generator which would also be encased in insulated housing and is to be equipped with a muffler. AEROSOL AND ODOR Unless the proposed plant loses electric power for 24 hours or longer, no offensive odors would emanate from it. The bar rack and weirs would be regularly hosed down. Against the possibility of a power failure, Gar-Con agreed at hearing to install permanently an emergency generator with sufficient capacity to keep both the wastewater treatment plant and the water treatment plant it plans to build operable. No aerosol drift is foreseen. The surface of the liquid In the aeration tanks would be 1.4 feet below the top of the rim. Walkways four feet wide along the inside perimeters of the aeration holding tanks would prevent dispersal of most of aerosol. A decorative hedge around the treatment plant, which would eventually be 15 feet high, is a final fail-safe. WELLS To the north are two shallow wells within 500 feet of the site proposed for the wastewater treatment plant. Both wells belong to Kel Fox, who wrote Gar-Con that he had no objection to their proposed wastewater treatment facility in light of Gar-Con's agreement to furnish drinking water to existing facilities on his property and reimburse him expenses incurred in disconnecting the two shallow wells. Gar-Con's Exhibit 2E. There is a deep well within 500 feet to the south. DER and Gar-Con have entered into the following stipulation, dated September 2, 1983: Existing Wells. Prior to the operation of its waste water treatment plant, Gar-Con will offer to supply drinking water at a reasonable cost to owners of property on which are located operational or approved shallow drinking water wells that are within 500 feet of Gar-Con's land application site. Gar-Con will make this offer to all such owners known to it prior to the operation of its plant. Gar-Con will further offer to provide reasonable compensation to such owners to disconnect their shallow wells. Gar-Con will endeavor to arrange for provision of drinking water to these owners and the disconnection of those wells prior to the operation of its plant. Future Wells. Should nearby individual (non-corporate) property owners propose to construct shallow drinking wells located within 500 feet of Gar-Con's land application site after Gar-Con begins operation of its waste water treatment plant, Gar-Con also will offer to supply them with drinking water at a reasonable cost and to provide reasonable compensation to them to disconnect those wells. However, Gar-Con shall have no obligation to make any such offer to owners of future wells if sampling of monitoring wells located at or near its external property line indicates that the groundwater meets the primary drinking water standards and, after July 1, 1985, the secondary drinking water standards listed in Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-22.104. Gar-Con agrees to record a master notice of restriction barring future owners of lots within the Ocean Way development, which are owned by Car-Con at the time of permit issuance, from installing shallow drinking water wells on such property or otherwise using the shallow aquifer beneath their property as a source for irrigation or for potable water, so long as use of the proposed sewage disposal system continues, and the Department has not found that this restriction is unnecessary. This restriction, which shall be a covenant running with the land, further shall require future owners to purchase water from Gar-Con or any successor owner of the development's water system if Gar-Con or the successor provides water service. These restrictions also shall be contained in all other appropriate documents of title. In addition, Gar-Con plans to create a non-profit water and sewer association to own and control the development's water and sewer system. Gar-Con will include in the Articles of Incorporation of this association a requirement that all property owners served by the system must be members of the Association. Gar-Con is entitled to a zone of discharge extending to its current property line with the exception that the zone of discharge shall not include the area contained within a 100' radius of Gar-Cons's proposed water supply wells. DER Staff concurs that the above conditions, in conjunction with the sewage treatment and disposal system and the groundwater monitoring program proposed by the applicant, to meet the requirements of Chapter 17-4, F.A.C. will provide reasonable assurance that existing and future off-site and on-site property owners will be protected from any adverse effects that might result from the operation of the proposed sewage treatment disposal system. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10. There are to be a half dozen monitoring wells to allow sampling of the groundwater at strategic points in the shallow aquifer. NATURAL RESOURCES Turtles nest in the general vicinity but off the site of the proposed project. Construction and operation of the proposed waste water treatment facility would have no impact on the turtles apart from making it possible for more people to live closer to where they nest.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for a septic tank permit application should be granted?
Findings Of Fact On July 29, 1987, Petitioner applied for a septic tank permit for a proposed individual sewage disposal system to serve a single family residence on Lot 40, Block P, Killearn Lakes Unit I (Unit 1), in Leon County, Florida. A septic tank system consists of a tank and a drainfield which is wholly or partly underground. The decision of whether to grant a septic tank system permit is greatly influenced by the elevation of the wet season water table in the area where the septic tank system will be located. Under normal circumstances, the elevation of the wet season water table can be determined by taking a boring of the ground in question using an auger. If water is found at the time the boring is conducted, that is an indication of where the water table is located. If no water is found, the elevation of the wet season water table can be determined by examining the soil removed from the ground for signs of mottling. Mottling is the discoloration of the soil caused by the interaction of water with the minerals in the soil. The process of mottling takes place over hundreds of years. Therefore, a rapid change in conditions may cause the elevation of the wet season water table to be different than what would be indicated by mottling. Because of the development of Unit I and the drainage method used in Unit I (sheetflow), the elevation of the wet season water table in Unit I is estimated to be between 12 and 20 inches higher than what is indicated by mottling. On July 7, 1987, a boring was taken on an indeterminate area on Lot 40, by Certified Testing, Inc., a private engineering firm. The evaluation of the boring resulted in mottling being present at a depth of 60 inches. On August 3, 1987, Ms. Teresa A. Hegg, an Environmental Health Specialist with HRS, took two borings on Lot 40. The first boring was taken in an area other than where the septic tank system's drainfield would be located. This boring resulted in mottling being present at a depth of 45 inches. The second boring was taken in the area where the septic tank system's drainfield would be located. This boring resulted in mottling being present at a depth of 22 inches. Based on the boring taken at the proposed site for the septic tank system, showing mottling at 22 inches, and the estimate that the wet season water table in Unit I is from 12 to 20 inches higher than mottling would indicate, the estimated wet season water table for Lot 40 is between 2 to 10 inches below the ground surface. Unit I has a history of septic tank system failures. Unit I was platted prior to January 1, 1972. There exists a very high probability that any septic tank system, even a mound system, installed in Lot P-40 will fail.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent issue a final order denying Petitioner's application for a septic tank permit. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4085 The Respondent has submitted proposed findings of fact which are addressed below. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RO ." The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection First phrase accepted. Remainder of paragraph supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. First two sentences accepted. Third sentence supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. Accepted. Accepted. 5,6,7,8,9,10 Supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. Accepted. Accepted. 13,14 Supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. 15. First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected; the wet season water table on Lot P-40 is from 2-10 inches below grade. Third sentence accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Salvatore A. Carpino, Jr., Esquire One Urban Centre, Suite 750 4830 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609 John R. Perry, Esquire Assistant District II Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2639 North Monore Street Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a variance for a reduced setback of four feet from Petitioner's well to a building pad treated with pesticide should be denied by the Department of Health.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner resides on property consisting of 7.5 acres at 3665 Darby Road, New Smyrna Beach, Volusia County, Florida. Since Petitioner receives no public utility service at his home, he has a septic system and potable drinking water well on his property. However, Petitioner's family does not drink the water from the well. The family purchases bottled water for drinking purposes. The well water is used for other household purposes, such as cleaning and bathing. There are other locations on Petitioner's property for a well. The evidence demonstrated that Petitioner has or had alternative locations for the well. Petitioner built a 1681 square foot barn utilizing an old concrete foundation from a previous barn. Petitioner's well is located in the southwest corner of the old barn's foundation and four feet from the new barn's foundation. The building plans for the barn, submitted to Volusia County, clearly indicated the location of Petitioner's well within four feet of the new barn's foundation. Even with this information Volusia County issued a building permit for the new barn. There were other locations for the barn on Petitioner's property which Petitioner would have utilized had he known of the setback requirements when he first permitted his barn. Volusia County required the new barn's foundation to be elevated. In order to elevate the sub-floor for the new barn's foundation, Petitioner placed a layer of visqueen on the sub- floor, or old concrete floor of the old barn, then added a layer of sand and poured concrete on top of the sand layer. The sand layer is encased in concrete. The concrete encasement does not necessarily prevent leaks from above given the porous nature of concrete. Additionally, the condition of the old barn floor, i.e. whether it has cracks, is not known. The Volusia County building code requires that the soil under a foundation be treated for termites. After Petitioner's contractor added the sand layer, he spread one four-pound bag of 90 percent Sevin dust, a common garden pesticide, on top of the sand. The application rate was within normal application rates for the barn area. The Sevin dust was not applied with any pressure to force penetration into the soil. More than seven days later the contractor poured the new concrete foundation on the pesticide-treated sand layer. The label on the Sevin dust package indicates that 10 percent Sevin dust may be applied to vegetables up to the day of harvest and in some instances 3 to 7 days before harvest, depending on the type of crop. However, the package does not indicate that a treated crop is edible for human consumption without first washing the crop or other processing of the crop. Therefore, a lack of danger from contamination has not been shown. Indeed, the evidence did not show that health would not be adversely affected by use of Petitioner's well given this major deviation from the setback requirements and the soil in the area. A Volusia County building inspector informed Petitioner's contractor that the close proximity of Petitioner's potable well to the area treated with pesticide was a violation of state health codes and could not be approved because the well did not meet the requirement of having a 25-foot separation from soil treated with pesticide. The contractor informed Steve Baur, a Department of Health employee, about the violation. The deviation of 21 feet from the 25-foot setback requirement is a major deviation. Petitioner applied to DOH for a variance to allow him to utilize his potable drinking water well. Petitioner's variance application was denied by the variance committee and Dr. Sharon Heber, Department of Health Environmental Health Director, for the following reasons: Section 64E-8.009(2), F.A.C., allows the granting of variances to 'prevent excessive hardship only in cases involving a minor deviation from established standards when the hardship was not intentionally caused by the applicant, where no reasonable alternative exists, and where proper use of the system will not adversely affect public health.' According to information supplied by the Volusia County Health Department, the treated slab is located 4 feet from the existing well. This is a major deviation from the established standards. The well completion report for the existing well indicates coarse shell starting at 10 feet and continuing down to 60 feet. This material provides no filtration and/or confinement for the pesticide.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for a variance. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 14th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Charlene J. Petersen, Esquire Department of Health 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Edward N. Pollack 3665 Darby Road New Smyrna Beach, Florida 32168 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 William Langue, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health Bin A00 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
