The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP or the Department) should allow the City of Tallahassee to revise its domestic wastewater facility permits for Thomas P. Smith Water Reclamation Facility (TPS) and Lake Bradford Road Wastewater Treatment Plant (LBR).
Findings Of Fact The City of Tallahassee owns and operates a sanitary sewer wastewater collection system that collects and processes everything that is discharged to the City's sanitary sewer collection system. The City's collection system has approximately 900 miles of gravity pipes and 100-200 pumping stations serving approximately 230,000 customers. The City's sanitary sewer wastewater treatment facilities include TPS, LBR, the Tram Road Reuse Facility, the Southeast Farm, and the Southwest Sprayfield. Petitioner resides at 198 Mount Zion Road in incorporated Wakulla County. He contends that the revised permits will result in environmental degradation of Wakulla Springs and the Wakulla River. The City's Sanitary Sewer Treatment System TPS, located at 4505 Springhill Road, is the City’s primary wastewater treatment plant, with a design treatment capacity of 26.5 million gallons per day (MGD). The annual average amount of sewage treated at TPS over the past five years is approximately 17.5 MGD, leaving approximately 9 MGD of unutilized treatment capacity. LBR is an older treatment facility with design treatment capacity of 4.5 MGD. LBR is located at 1815 Lake Bradford Road, approximately 3 miles from TPS. Pipes connect LBR to TPS. Design treatment capacity is the amount of sewage that a treatment facility can adequately handle over a period of time and still easily meet environmental performance standards required for treating wastewater. If a treatment facility reaches its design treatment capacity on an annual average basis, it becomes more difficult to adequately treat wastewater to environmental standards. As currently permitted, the combined effluent from TPS and LBR is transmitted to the Southeast Farm or to the Southwest Sprayfield for agricultural reuse. The biosolids from both TPS and LBR are treated at TPS. The Southeast Farm is a 4,000-acre restricted access reuse facility, with approximately 1,900 acres of non-edible crops under slow-rate irrigation. Reclaimed water that meets DEP's Part II Reuse Standards (Part II reclaimed water), as set forth in Florida Administrative Code chapter 62-610, which apply to slow-rate irrigation of non-edible crops, can be used at the Southeast Farm. Applicable requirements include basic level disinfection and secondary treatment. The Southwest Sprayfield is a 65-acre area at the TPS facility also available for land application of Part II reclaimed water. The Tram Road Reuse Facility, with a capacity of 1.2 MGD, provides public access reuse water meeting Part III Reuse Standards (Part III reclaimed water), as set forth in chapter 62-610, to customers in the Southwood area of Tallahassee. Under chapter 62-610, Part III standards apply to application in areas accessible to the public. Among other things, tertiary treatment and high level disinfection are required. The History of the Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) Project On February 11, 2004, the City applied to DEP to renew its permit to operate the TPS domestic wastewater treatment plant and associated sprayfields. DEP issued its intent to renew the permit on February 13, 2006. Petitioner, along with others, filed petitions for an administrative hearing in March 2006 to contest the renewal permit. The common element emphasized in all of the petitions was a concern that the proposed permit did not adequately protect Wakulla Springs from environmental degradation resulting from nutrients in the effluent applied at the City's sprayfields. In 2006 and 2007, the Florida Geological Survey, the United States Geological Survey, and others conducted studies that traced groundwater flow paths from the Southeast Farm sprayfield to Wakulla Springs. The studies determined that there is a greater hydraulic connection between the Southeast Farm and Wakulla Springs then previously understood. As a result, the City agreed to settle the cases and propose advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) upgrades to its facilities. On December 19, 2006, the parties to the administrative proceeding entered into a Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement was the basis for what the City would include in amended permit applications for TPS and LBR and articulated the process by which DEP would review the amended applications for those facilities. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the City committed "to filing an amended permit application" in which it would seek authorization to "upgrade its entire wastewater treatment system" to meet AWT standards. The permit application would request authorization to implement certain "physical upgrades" at the TPS and LBR treatment plants to meet the specified treatment standards with "continued utilization of the Southeast Sprayfield and Southwest Sprayfield" for land- application of the treated wastewater, and with certain operational changes in the sprayfields and a commitment to evaluate other wastewater reuse opportunities. The Settlement Agreement provided that "[t]he City's amended application will also commit to develop and utilize other additional public access reuse sites in appropriate areas in order to reduce the hydraulic loading at the Southeast Sprayfield and Southwest Sprayfield and distribute the public access reuse water." Under the Settlement Agreement, the City also agreed to propose a specific implementation schedule for enumerated physical upgrades to the LBR and TPS treatment facilities and a schedule of specific nitrogen reductions that would occur over time. More specifically, the amended application would propose achieving a nitrogen concentration of 12.0 milligrams per liter (mg/L) within six months after DEP issued amended permits and further reductions over time that would conclude in meeting 3.0 mg/L within six years. In January 2007, the City submitted amended permit applications as agreed in the Settlement Agreement. On January 29, 2008, DEP issued Permit Nos. FLA010139 (for TPS) and FLA010140 (for LBR), and corresponding Administrative Orders AO051NW (for TPS) and AO050NW (for LBR), which authorized continued operation of the TPS and LBR facilities with substantial modifications to the existing treatment systems and gradual reductions in nitrogen concentrations, as well as other requirements, in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. The permits incorporated by reference the corresponding administrative orders which, among other things, established a schedule for achieving compliance with the permit conditions. All parties to the Settlement Agreement agreed that the permits and administrative orders issued by DEP were consistent with the Settlement Agreement. No party challenged the permits or asserted that they did not adequately implement the Settlement Agreement. Under the January 2008 permits and administrative orders, the City is required to: reduce nitrogen levels incrementally down to 3 milligrams per liter (mg/L) by 2014; meet concentration limits for total phosphorous, carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand, and total suspended solids by 2014; produce all Part III quality reclaimed water; and upgrade its biosolids processing to produce all Part AA biosolids. The AWT Project has a total budget of $227 million. At the time of issuance of January 2008 permits and administrative orders, the effluent applied at the Southeast Farm had a concentration of 13 mg/L of total nitrogen. Under the compliance schedule in the January 2008 permits and administrative orders, total nitrogen concentrations cannot exceed: 12 mg/L annual average daily flow (AADF) beginning in July 2008; 9 mg/L AADF beginning in January 2011; 6.5 mg/L AADF beginning in January 2013; and 3 mg/L AADF beginning in January 2014. In light of these nitrogen reductions, it has been projected that the nitrate load to the land surface at the Southeast Sprayfield will be reduced to approximately 98,000 kilograms per year in 2018, compared with a high of approximately 600,000 kilograms per year in the 1980s. By way of comparison, it has been projected that the nitrate load from septic tanks will be approximately 350,000 kilograms per year in 2018. With regard to biosolids (the solid material separated from the sewage stream during the wastewater treatment process), the January 2008 permits and administrative orders eliminated the City's authorization to land-apply Class B biosolids. All biosolids are required to meet Class AA requirements, with off- specification material sent to an appropriately licensed landfill for disposal. The elimination of land application of Class BB biosolids reduces the nitrate load to the land surface by approximately 200,000 kilograms per year. The January 2008 permits and administrative orders also required the City to undertake a Reuse Feasibility Study and submit the study to the Department. The City did so in 2009. In addition, the January 2008 permits and administrative orders authorized new public access reuse service areas. More specifically, the TPS permit authorized the new public access service area identified as R-006 and the LBR permit authorized R-005. Geographically, the R-005 and R-006 service areas are identical. The permits do not require the City to develop additional reuse sites or additional reuse customers. The LBR permit states that "[t]he construction date of R-005 is to be determined following a feasibility study to ascertain the demand, potential users, and costs for the system," and that "[r]eclaimed water in excess of the demand by the new Part III Reuse Area, can be stored in the Reclaimed Water Storage Tank or diverted to an existing Part II slow-rate restricted access system, the Southeast Farm . . . ." The TPS permit states that the new service area, users, and demand for R-006 "are to be determined." The City's Reuse Feasibility Study did not commit to any specific outcomes concerning development of additional reuse sites or additional reuse customers. While the study recognized the potential environmental benefits of additional reuse sites, it also indicated that "[t]he combined possible impact of the Unified Stormwater Rule and [Total Maximum Daily Load] requirements should be evaluated prior to the implementation/design of any reuse system." The City commissioned the 1.2 MGD Tram Road public access reuse facility in 2008 and is currently expanding the distribution system from that facility. The City has no means to require customers to accept reuse water. At present, the City's 1.2 MGD Tram Road public access reuse facility is approximately ten percent utilized. The Permit Revisions The City filed applications in December 2008 requesting minor revisions to the January 2008 permits and corresponding administrative orders for LBR and TPS. The City requested a 12-month extension of the compliance schedule for upgrading biosolids treatment equipment; a six-month extension for construction of the treatment trains; and a 24-month extension on completion and start-up of the LBR facility. The requested revisions were largely a result of damage to the City's system from Tropical Storm Fay. The City did not request any changes to the environmental performance requirements contained in the 2008 permits. In March 2009, DEP issued a Consolidated Notice of Permit Revision approving the City's applications for minor revisions. No third party challenged those revisions. The City applied for the minor permit revisions at issue in this proceeding on March 24, 2010. The City requested the following revisions to the compliance schedules: (1) a 12-month extension to install the new biosolids dryer; (2) a 12-month extension to each of the installation dates for the new treatment trains; and (3) indefinite deferral of the construction upgrades at LBR. The City also identified differences in the final design from what was outlined in the TPS Preliminary Design Report submitted to DEP in 2007. On May 14, 2010, Petitioner filed a complaint in circuit court asserting that the Settlement Agreement was still a controlling document that prohibited revisions to the permits unless the City first obtained Petitioner's agreement in writing. On January 25, 2011, the court entered a final summary declaratory judgment finding that the December 2006 Settlement Agreement "is moot having been satisfied upon the issuance of the permits and administrative orders at issue." With regard to the revisions at issue in this proceeding, the City's request to indefinitely defer the upgrades at LBR is based on: (1) the City's re-assessment of forecasted wastewater flow projections; (2) updated cost projections for the upgrades at LBR; and (3) a technical evaluation concluding that the City can achieve the 4.5 MGD of treatment capability previously provided by LBR through more cost-effective means at future date. More specifically, in 2009, the City analyzed its forecasted flow projections for its wastewater treatment system. Based on that analysis, the City determined that, for planning purposes: (1) the per capita to daily wastewater flow rate should be adjusted downward from 100 to 94 gallons per capita per day; and (2) the population forecasts should be reduced based on the latest population forecasts prepared by the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department. Given these new population growth and water use rate projections, the City determined that the 4.5 MGD treatment capacity of the smaller LBR facility is not necessary at this time. The 26.5 MGD TPS facility has the capacity to handle and meet all of the area wastewater needs for the reasonably foreseeable future. The City's wastewater flow projections were independently confirmed and represent sound engineering practice. In addition, as the engineering efforts progressed on the AWT project, the City identified that, as an alternative to upgrading LBR to AWT, the same treatment capacity and treatment levels could be achieved at TPS at a savings of over $30 million. The City has proposed that it will move forward with design, permitting, and construction of the additional 4.5 MGD of capacity at TPS in the future, closer to the time when the capacity is needed. The City requested the 12-month extension to install the new biosolids dryer because of financial and construction scheduling concerns. Similarly, the 12-month extension to the treatment train construction schedule is a result of construction schedule projections from the project contractor showing completion of the upgrades outside of the current dates in the TPS permit and administrative order. The identified design differences from the preliminary design report are largely a result of additional knowledge gained as the design of the Project progressed. Several of the revisions relate to upsizing infrastructure at TPS to allow for future capacity increases at TPS to replace the treatment capacity associated with the LBR facility if and when that capacity is needed. The City did not ask to alter the total nitrogen reduction requirements in the January 29, 2008, permits and administrative orders. Thus far, the City has achieved the total nitrogen reductions ahead of schedule, reaching an annual average below 9 mg/L (the currently applicable interim limitation) more than one year ahead of the January 2011 compliance deadline. The City has not asked to change any of the other environmental performance requirements in the TPS and LBR permits and administrative orders. The permit revisions at issue do not ask to change the presently-permitted hydraulic loading rates at the Southeast Farm or Southwest Sprayfield. The Department issued its Consolidated Intent to Issue Minor Permit Revisions on April 7, 2011. The City published newspaper notice of the Department's Consolidated Notice of Intent in the Tallahassee Democrat on April 9, 2011. Effects of the Permit Revisions The City provided reasonable assurances that, with the requested revisions, it will continue to efficiently and reliably meet the environmental performance requirements in the January 2008 permits and administrative orders. The City provided reasonable assurances that the permit revisions will not adversely affect the City's compliance with the nitrogen concentration limits and other environmental performance requirements in the January 2008 permits and administrative orders, or increase hydraulic loading rates. Biowin modeling demonstrated that the nitrogen limits and other concentration limits in the January 2008 permits and administrative orders can be achieved despite deferring upgrades at LBR and postponing the construction of the treatment train upgrades by 12 months. The City provided reasonable assurances that the permit revisions at issue will not increase the nutrient concentrations or the volume of effluent applied at the City's Southeast Farm or Southwest Sprayfield. For this reason, it is not necessary to conduct studies evaluating the impacts of these permit revisions on Wakulla Springs. The permit revisions will not impact Wakulla Springs or the Wakulla River. The deferral of upgrades at LBR will not result in an increase in effluent applied at the Southeast Farm or Southwest Sprayfield. Whether or not the City upgrades at LBR, the unutilized Part III reuse water would have to be transported to the Southeast Farm for agricultural reuse, which is authorized by the existing LBR permit. The deferral of upgrades at LBR will not hinder the City's ability to provide public access reuse water. By September 2011, the City will produce Part III public access reuse water from TPS just as it would have at LBR. The required water quality will be available should customers be identified in the future. Regardless whether the reuse apply comes from LBR or TPS, the City will need to install new public access reuse distribution facilities when customers are identified. The distance between TPS and LBR does not affect the City's ability to provide public access reuse water when customers are identified. Depending upon where a future reuse customer is located, it could prove easier and more cost- effective to provide the reuse water directly from TPS. If a new customer is identified near the LBR facility, the existing pipes connecting TPS and LBR can be used to deliver the reuse water to the LBR facility for ultimate distribution to the reuse customer. The City provided reasonable assurances that the 12-month extension in the deadline for installation of the biosolids dryer will not have any adverse environmental consequences for Wakulla Springs. The City has purchased the new biosolids dryer, and it has been delivered to the site. The City's existing biosolids dryer is performing well and making Class AA biosolids. In the infrequent cases when the existing dryer is not performing as desired, the City disposes of the off-specification biosolids in an appropriately-licensed landfill in accordance with the 2008 permit requirements. F. Petitioner's Contentions Petitioner essentially raised two issues in this proceeding: (1) the proposed revisions to the permits are substantial revisions rather than minor revisions; and (2) the City has not provided reasonable assurance that the proposed permit revisions (in particular, delaying compliance schedules for treatment process upgrades, abandoning commitments to treatment process upgrades, and retreating from the commitment to reduce hydraulic loading of up to 4.5 MGD) will not "cause or exacerbate" pollution of Wakulla Springs and the Wakulla River. Regarding the first issue, the proposed revisions extend compliance dates and are not expected to lead to a substantially different environmental impact. In any event, DEP processed the minor permit revisions at issue using essentially the same process used for substantial permit revisions. For example, the Department requested additional information prior to deeming the application complete and required newspaper publication of its proposed agency action with actual notice to interested parties. With the exception of the application fee, the minor revision was processed in the same manner as a substantial revision. Petitioner made no demonstration that he was adversely affected by the distinction between a minor and major permit revision. With regard to Petitioner's second issue, Petitioner put on no testimony or evidence demonstrating adverse impacts associated with the permit revisions at issue. Two hydrogeologists testified regarding groundwater studies they conducted in 2006 and 2007, which identified a connection between the City's Southeast Sprayfield and Wakulla Springs. As a result of this work, the City agreed to the more stringent AWT standards in the 2008 permits and administrative orders. This testimony did not address whether the permit revisions at issue would adversely affect Wakulla Springs or Wakulla River. Petitioner did not demonstrate how the permit revisions at issue would impact Wakulla Springs. The permit revisions will not increase the hydraulic loading at the Southeast Farm or change the quality of the effluent being applied for irrigation at the Southeast Farm. Petitioner's contentions that delaying the schedule for treatment upgrades at TPS and deferring upgrades at LBR will impact Wakulla Springs or the Wakulla River are not supported by the evidence. Deferring the upgrades at LBR and delaying the schedule for the treatment upgrades at TPS, as proposed in the minor permit revisions, will not adversely impact the City's ability to meet the environmental performance requirements in the existing permits and administrative orders. Petitioner's contention that the minor permit revisions will adversely impact Wakulla Springs and the Wakulla River because they represent a retreat from a commitment to reduce the hydraulic loading at the Southeast Farm by 4.5 MGD is unsupported by the evidence. Petitioner's argument is based on his assertion that the January 2008 permits and administrative orders require the City to divert 4.5 MGD of effluent from the Southeast Farm by distributing all of the treated wastewater from LBR to public access reuse customers. The January 2008 permits and administrative orders authorized a new public access reuse area; they did not require the City to locate sufficient public access reuse customers to take all or any portion of the 4.5 MGD from LBR. Moreover, reuse water is as readily accessible from TPS as from LBR. Petitioner relies on the following clause in the attachment to the LBR administrative order (AO050NW) to support his argument that the permit revisions will increase hydraulic loading at the Southeast Farm: "All or part of the influent flow can be directed to the T.P. Smith Water Reclamation Facility or Treatment." Petitioner argues that this authorization implies that the City cannot direct flow from LBR to the Southeast Farm beyond the 36-month compliance timeline in the LBR administrative order. This argument ignores the plain language of the LBR permit itself, which expressly allows land application at the Southeast Farm of all effluent from LBR in excess of public access reuse demand. Petitioner also relies on language in the 2006 Settlement Agreement as imposing an obligation on the City to identify additional public access reuse customers. The 2006 Settlement Agreement was fulfilled upon issuance of the permits and administrative orders in January 2008 and is now moot. Further, the permits and administrative orders do not impose public access reuse requirements on the City beyond submittal of the Reuse Feasibility Study.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order issuing the minor permit revisions at issue in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of October, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr., Secretary Department of Environmental Protection The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Beason, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 James S. Alves, Esquire Brooke E. Lewis, Esquire Hopping, Green & Sams, P.A. 119 South Monroe Street, Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph Glisson 198 Mount Zion Road Wakulla, Florida 32327
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.300(6) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because the rule is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, or vests unbridled discretion in the agency.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state agency authorized under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, to regulate discharges of industrial wastewater to waters of the state. Under a delegation from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Department administers the National Pollution Discharge Elimination (NPDES) permitting program in Florida. The Department promulgated the rules in Florida Administrative Code Title 62 that are applicable to the permitting of wastewater discharges. FOPB is a non-profit Alabama corporation established in 1988 whose members are interested in protecting the water quality and natural resources of Perdido Bay. FOPB has approximately 450 members. About 90 percent of the members own property adjacent to Perdido Bay. James Lane is the president of FOPB. Jacqueline Lane and James Lane live on property adjacent to Perdido Bay. IP owns and operates a paper mill in Cantonment, Escambia County, Florida. IP is the applicant for the Department authorizations that are the subject of DOAH Case Nos. 08-3922 and 08-3923. Background When this rule challenge was filed, DOAH Cases Nos. 08-3922 and 08-3923 (the permit cases) involved challenges by these same Petitioners to four Department authorizations for IP: an NPDES permit, a Consent Order, an approved exemption for the experimental use of wetlands pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-660.300, and a waiver related to the experimental use of wetlands. IP later withdrew its request for the experimental use of wetlands exemption and the related waiver. Petitioners were ordered to show cause why their claim regarding the invalidity of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 660.300 was not rendered moot by IP’s withdrawal of its request for the exemption. Subsequently, the challenge to the validity of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-660.300 was dismissed as moot. At the commencement of the final hearing on June 22, 2009, FOPB and James Lane announced that they were withdrawing their rule challenges except with respect to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.300(6), and that the only legal ground being asserted for the invalidity of the rule is that it is vague and vests unbridled authority in the Department. Petitioners’Standing Jacqueline Lane, James Lane and a substantial number of the members of FOPB swim, boat, and make other uses of Perdido Bay. Perdido Bay would be affected by IP's wastewater effluent. The challenged rule was applied by the Department to determine that IP's proposed industrial wastewater discharge was in the public interest. The Challenged Rule Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.300, is entitled "Findings, Intent, and Antidegradation Policy for Surface Water Quality." Subsection (6) of the rule states: Public interest shall not be construed to mean only those activities conducted solely to provide facilities or benefits to the general public. Private activities conducted for private purposes may also be in the public interest. Most of the permits that are issued by the Department are issued to private entities whose primary purposes are personal uses or the production of private incomes and profits, rather than solely to provide facilities or benefits to the general public.
The Issue Should Respondent be fined $500.00 for initiating repairs to an on-site sewage treatment and disposal system before obtaining a permit?
Findings Of Fact Respondent is engaged in the septic tank contracting business as a contractor licensed under Chapter 489, Part III, Florida Statutes. He does business as "Alpha." In association with his business Respondent provided services to residents at 224 North Orange Avenue, Orange City, Florida. This was related to a failed on-site sewage treatment and disposal system at that residence. To assist in providing repair service to the residence in Orange City, Florida, Respondent engaged Andy Trapp. Mr. Trapp's business is to assist septic tank contractors in obtaining necessary permits to perform septic tank contracting services. Mr. Trapp's occupation includes field work involving soil testing, measurements, and completion of necessary paperwork to assist the septic tank contractor in obtaining necessary permits. As permitting agency, usually Petitioner would accept applications submitted by Mr. Trapp in relation to the application for a permit to repair on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems, in that Mr. Trapp is recognized by Petitioner as being sufficiently qualified to submit information in support of an application for permit. On March 27, 1998, Mr. Trapp submitted an application for a permit to repair the on-site sewage treatment and disposal system at the Orange City, Florida, address, to include supporting information concerning the results of soil testing. That application was accompanied by the necessary fee to obtain a permit. The application was delivered to Petitioner's Daytona Beach, Florida, office as a matter of convenience to Mr. Trapp. Mr. Trapp realized that the actual processing of the permit application would be conducted by Petitioner's Deland, Florida, office. In that connection, Mr. Trapp realized that the application that he had submitted to the Daytona Beach office would be forwarded by interoffice transmittal to the Deland office, which would cause a delay in the processing of the application. In his experience Mr. Trapp has filed applications with the Daytona Beach office to be subsequently transmitted to the New Smyrna Beach office of the Petitioner, which ordinarily can be done late on the same day that the application was presented or by the next day. James McRae is an environmental supervisor for the Volusia Health Department, Environmental Health Office in Deland, Florida. It is his office that had ultimate responsibility for considering, and if appropriate, issuing a permit allowing Respondent to conduct necessary repairs of the failed on-site sewage treatment and disposal system at the Orange City, Florida address. Mr. McRae confirmed that the permit application, as submitted by Mr. Trapp for the repairs, had been received by the Deland office on March 30, 1998. In addition, the accompanying $57.00 fee had been transferred from the Daytona Beach office to the Deland office, as was customary, the custom being that the funds in support of an application would ultimately be received in the office from which the application would be processed and a permit number assigned, as applicable. Upon receipt of the application in the Deland office, a receipt was generated. Information concerning the permit application was placed in the computer. Assessment of the application was assigned to William Vander Lugt, Environmental Specialists II, who is part of the field staff for the Petitioner's Deland office. Beyond Mr. Vander Lugt's assignment to consider the application for the permit for the Orange City, Florida project, it was expected that he would do any necessary field work involving an inspection and any necessary soil analysis. If satisfied that the site was appropriate to effect repairs to the failed on-site sewage treatment and disposal system, Mr. Vander Lugt would issue a permit subject to approval by Mr. McRae. Mr. McRae identified that the usual turn around time for issuing permits is two to three days, assuming that the permit was applied for at Petitioner's office which would be responsible for assessing the application. In this instance the permit had been applied for at another office which delayed consideration of the permit application by the Deland office. The permit was approved on April 2, 1998, within three days of its receipt by the Deland office. Before the permit was issued, Respondent, through his employees, had commenced the repairs at the Orange City, Florida, address. The commencement of repairs was verified by an on-site inspection performed by Mr. Vander Lugt, on March 31, 1998. Although the supporting information presented by Mr. Trapp was in order and the fee had been paid, and there was no indication that any other problems existed which would prohibit the repairs from being conducted, Respondent was premature in commencing the work before the permit issued, and was unjustified in that choice.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be issued which imposes a $500.00 fine against Respondent for initiating a repair of an on-site sewage treatment and disposal system without first obtaining a permit to do the work. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Charlene Petersen, Esquire Department of Health 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Michael J. Jedware Post Office Box 390073 Deltona, Florida 32739-0073 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner is entitled to a permit permitting installation of an on-site sewage disposal system (OSDS) on his property located in Dixie County, Florida, in the vicinity of the Suwannee River and whether he is entitled to seek a variance from the statutes and rules concerning permitting of such systems.
Findings Of Fact The department hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the findings of fact set forth in the Recommended Order.
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 a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for an OSDS permit, without prejudice to the applicant applying for and seeking a variance from the statutory and rule requirements related to permitting for the reasons found and concluded above, and without prejudice to applying for and pursuing an OSDS permit application should the applicant, at a later time, be able to demonstrate that alternative methods of treatment and disposal of the sewage effluent at issue can feasibly be performed, within the bounds of the standards enunciated in the above-cited statutes and rules concerning on- site sewage disposal permitting. DONE and ENTERED this 21st of December, 1990 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-2487 PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS-OF FACT Accepted. Accepted. 5-14. Accepted. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT 1-7. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esquire General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John K. McPherson, Esquire 22 South Main Street Gainesville, FL 32601 Frances S. Childers, Esquire Assistant District III Legal Counsel Department of HRS 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609 =================================================================
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMENDED that the application of Jay Hall for a septic tank permit at Lot 1, Deerwood Estates, Baker County, Florida be DENIED. However, applicant should be given thirty days from date of the final order in this cause to raise the height of the system to Department recommended specifications. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 29th day of April, 1983.
The Issue Whether Respondent illegally and without permit removed a drain field and now has an unapproved septic system on a structure intended for human occupancy, and if so, what is the appropriate correction and fine.
Findings Of Fact On June 17, 2009, Department of Health employee Stephanie Daughtery was driving down Lake Erie Road in Groveland, Florida, past Respondent’s residence located at 6345 Lake Erie Road, when she noticed the sand mound that had held the septic system drain field for Respondent’s home was no longer there. Ms. Daughtery was familiar with the mound that had been located on Respondent’s land because, in her capacity as Petitioner’s employee, she had previously conducted a stabilization check on the mound. A sand mound for Respondent’s drain field was required under applicable law and regulations because, during the rainy season, the water table in the area of Respondent’s home was ten inches “below grade,” which means that the water level was just ten inches below ground level during the rainy season. Therefore, a sand mound was necessary for proper filtration of the raw sewage (effluent) entering the septic system. A septic system without a proper drain field will allow effluent to escape and constitute a public health risk. Upon returning to her office at the Lake County Health Department that same afternoon, Ms. Daughtery told her supervisor, Elias Christ, of her observation. One of Respondent’s neighbors had already reported the situation involving the removal of Respondent’s drain field to Mr. Christ. The next day, one of Petitioner’s inspectors, Daniel McColley, went out to Respondent’s property and met with Respondent. Respondent told the inspector that the mound which had been removed was just a pile of dirt. Contrary to Respondent’s assertion, the mound that was removed had been part of the drain field for Respondent’s septic system. Respondent was responsible for the removal of the mound and drain field. On June 22, 2009, Petitioner sent, by certified mail to Respondent, an Official Notice to Abate a Sanitary Nuisance, which advised: On 06/18/2009 an onsite investigation disclosed that an approved drain field had been removed and either not replaced or replaced without a permit, which violates Chapter 386.041(1)(a)(b)(e)(f) of Florida Statutes. You are hereby directed to contact this Department within 24 hours of this notice to discuss corrective action. A repair permit must be applied for and a system installed with Department approval. Approximately a week to ten business days later, after Respondent had failed to apply for a permit, Petitioner again sent an inspector to inspect Respondent’s septic system and found it to be still in nuisance condition, with no drain field. In addition to being in an area with water just ten inches below grade during rainy season, Respondent’s property is adjacent to a lake. Since the sand mound was removed, there is no proper drain field and Respondent’s septic system is a sanitary nuisance. As explained by Mr. Christ at the administrative hearing, Respondent’s septic system without a drain field is a threat to public health: Because we have untreated sewage that we have no idea where its going to. He has - - he also has a lake behind his property, so we don’t know if he’s somehow plumbed it into dumping into the lake or if it’s just dumping out on the ground. Respondent told one or more of Petitioner’s employees that he had connected his septic system to an old septic tank in an adjacent house on the property. He did not, however, obtain a permit to do so, and the old system was inadequate, without renovation, to handle the additional effluent. In addition, although Respondent further claimed that a septic contractor had pumped out his old system, Respondent would not give the name of the alleged contractor. On July 6, 2009, Petitioner sent, by certified and regular mail, a “Notice of Intended Action” to Respondent which advised: You have not yet come to apply for a permit to replace this system you removed. Failure to do so will result in legal action and possible revocation of your CO and further Lake County Code Enforcement Action. Please contact this office within 24 hours of receipt of this notice to discuss a corrective action plan at (352) 253-6130 or FAX (352) 253-6133. If this sanitary nuisance is not abated and a proper septic tank repair permit applied for and work is completed in a satisfactory manor, inspected by this department, you may be subject to fines up to $500.00 per day authorized therein accordance with the authority outlined in Section 381.0065(5) Florida Statutes(F.S.). If you have further questions please call Elias Christ or Russ Melling at 352-253-6130. Respondent came into the Lake County Health Department on July 22, 2009, and was given an application and a checklist for permitting the repair of his septic system. During that visit, Respondent told Mr. Christ that the cows had destroyed the mound. He also told Mr. Christ that he had been trying to sell his house and that the mound had been an eye-sore that was interfering with the sale. Later, in a telephone conversation with Mr. Christ, Respondent advised that he really did not have the money to replace the drain field, but he would be happy to have it replaced if the county would pay for it. By September 25, 2009, Respondent still had not applied for a permit or repaired his septic system. On September 25, 2009, Petitioner issued a Citation for Violation Onsite Sewage Program/Sanitary Nuisance to Respondent (Citation). Part 1 of the Citation alleges that Respondent is in violation of Section 386.041(a), (e), and (f), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 64E- 6.001(2) and 64E-6003(1), on the grounds that Respondent “[h]as illegally and without any permits removed his drain field and now [has] an unapproved system on a structure intended for human occupancy.” The Citation further provides: The person named in this citation is hereby ordered to correct the violation(s) listed in Part 1 within 10 days [from] the service of this citation. The person identified in this citation is hereby directed to pay a fine in the amount of $500 plus $100 per [day] additionally from receipt of this citation until the drain field is repaired legally for the violations listed in Part 1. Payment must be made to the LAKE County Health Department within 21 days of the receipt of this citation, or you may choose the option listed on Part 9. Part 9 of the Citation provides for a request for an administrative hearing and warned Respondent that if he requested a hearing and then failed to appear to contest the citation, he would waive the right to contest the citation. By his signature dated October 1, 2009, in Part 9 of the Citation, Respondent requested an administrative hearing. This administrative hearing followed. Respondent failed to attend or present any evidence at the final hearing. Prior to the hearing, Respondent indicated to Petitioner’s counsel that he was not financially able to put the drain field back the way it was and that he did not see the point in appearing at the administrative hearing. On the other hand, the evidence presented by Petitioner at the administrative hearing, as outlined in the findings above, clearly and convincingly demonstrated that Respondent removed a mound and drain field required by applicable law and regulations for his septic system, and that Respondent’s septic system has not been repaired as required to comply with the law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a Final Order finding that Respondent illegally and without permit removed a drain field and now has an unapproved septic system on a structure intended for human occupancy, and ordering Respondent to pay a fine in the amount of $500.00 for deposit into the county health department trust fund, obtain a septic system repair permit, and effect repairs on his septic system to correct the violations of Section 386.041(a)(e)(f), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 64E-6.001(2) and 64E-6.003(1), within forty-five (45) days from the Final Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 2010.
The Issue The issues presented in these cases are whether a 1987 Settlement Agreement entered into by the parties to this proceeding prohibits the issuance to Pasco County of a general permit for spray irrigation at the Embassy Hills facility on property adjacent to that owned by Marie Cook Matis, and whether discharge of wastewater into ponds at the Embassy Hills facility should be discontinued pending installation of a single media filtration system.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is charged with the regulation and enforcement of state statutes and rules governing construction and operation of wastewater treatment systems. The DEP is the successor agency to the Department of Environmental Regulation. Pasco County (County) is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Pasco County owns and operates a wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system that includes the facilities at issue in this proceeding. Marie Cook Matis (Matis) owns and resides on property located on Denton Avenue adjacent to the treatment facilities at issue in this proceeding. THE SPRAY IRRIGATION ISSUE The parties to this proceeding litigated the issuance of permits for construction and operation of the Embassy Hills and Hudson wastewater treatment and disposal facilities. The County had initially planned construction of 14 water disposal ponds at the Embassy Hills facility. Some of the ponds were located adjacent to property owned by Matis. By written settlement agreement between the parties dated December 18, 1987, the construction permit cases were resolved. As a part of the resolution of the dispute over the construction permits, the County agreed to eliminate the five ponds closest to the Matis property. Paragraph 1(c) of the 1987 settlement agreement provides as follows: The County agrees to reduce the number of ponds constructed at the Embassy disposal site located on Denton Avenue from fourteen (14) to nine (9) ponds by eliminating the five (5) most easterly ponds depicted on the county's construction plans.... By Final Order dated January 21, 1988, the dispute was dismissed and the construction permits were issued in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. In 1991, the County applied for issuance of operating permits for the constructed facilities. In February 1992, the DEP proposed to issue the operation permits. Matis challenged the issuance of the permits. The cases were referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. In 1992, the County made application for construction of the "Northwest Pasco Rapid Rate Infiltration Basins" (RRIBs) some of which were located at the site of the previously deleted eastern ponds at Denton Avenue. Late in 1992, the DEP proposed to issue the permits. Matis again challenged the issuance of the permits. The cases were again referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The pending cases were subsequently consolidated for hearing as DOAH Case no. 92-2488. Formal hearing was held in August 1993. In October 1993, a Recommended Order was entered. One of the issues addressed in the October 1993 Recommended Order was whether the 1987 settlement agreement precluded permitting and construction of the five easterly RRIBs located adjacent to the Matis property. The Hearing Officer concluded that the settlement agreement did not preclude the County from applying for licensure of the RRIBs. The Secretary of DEP rejected the Hearing Officer's conclusion, stating that the settlement agreement had been specifically incorporated into the 1988 Final Order, and that the agreement addressed the issue of ponds located adjacent to the Matis property. The Secretary's December 3, 1993, Final Order stated that the doctrine of res judicata prevented relitigation of the dispute regarding the five easterly ponds, and that the doctrine of collateral estoppel prevented both the County and the DEP from "disclaiming the conditions set forth in the 1987 Settlement Agreement " The Secretary denied the application for construction of the RRIBs "without prejudice to the County to reapply for a construction permit providing alternative plans for relocating the five (5) percolation ponds " The County now seeks to utilize the property upon which the ponds would have been constructed as spray irrigation fields. The County asserts that the settlement agreement is silent as to any use other than percolation ponds, and that the agreement therefore does not prohibit spray irrigation fields. Matis asserts that the spray irrigation fields are prohibited by the terms of the 1987 settlement. The DEP initially declined to issue the general permit on grounds that the permit "may be inconsistent" with the terms of the 1987 settlement agreement, but in DEP's Proposed Recommended Order, DEP notes that it has now withdrawn its objection to the spray irrigation system. The effluent that would be discharged via spray irrigation is the same as that which would have been deposited into the percolation ponds. The evidence admitted into the instant hearing fails to establish that the County should be issued a general permit for the use of spray irrigation on the Denton Avenue property at the Embassy Hills wastewater plant. THE EMBASSY HILLS FILTRATION SYSTEM ISSUE Matis asserts that the single media filtration system included in the Embassy Hills construction permit has never been installed, and asserts that the discharge of water into the ponds should cease until after the permit condition has been met. Paragraph 1(b) of the 1987 settlement agreement provides as follows: The County agrees to install a single media filtration device at the Embassy Percolation Ponds located on Denton Avenue for the purpose of filtering effluent prior to disbursement to the pond system. The County further agrees that the effluent so filtered shall meet the following treatment parameters - 15 BOD, 5 TSS, and 10 nitrates . . . . In recommending approval of the operating permit applications, the Hearing Officer's 1993 Recommended Order stated that the treatment plants had been operating "without violations." Matis filed an exception to the Hearing Officer's finding related to the lack of violations, citing uncontested testimony acknowledging that the single media filtration system had not been installed. The DEP Final Order of December 1993 granted the exception and modified the Recommended Order, noting that the single media filtration device had not been installed at the Denton Avenue site. In granting the issuance of the operating permits, the proposed permits were modified to specifically include" any and all conditions, fulfilled or unfulfilled, set forth in the Settlement Agreement." Inexplicably, the single media filtration device has still not been installed at the Denton Avenue ponds. The operation of the Embassy Hills plant without installation of the single media filtration device is a violation of the construction permit, which was issued pursuant to the 1987 settlement agreement. The operation of the Embassy Hills plant without installation of the single media filtration device is a violation of the operating permit, which specifically includes the conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order as follows: An operating permit for the Embassy Hills Subregional Reuse Facility should be granted in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated by the parties at the hearing of July 7, 1999. An operating permit for the Hudson Subregional Reuse Facility should be granted in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated by the parties at the hearing of July 7, 1999. The application for general permit to provide for spray irrigation at the Embassy Hills facility on property adjacent to that owned by Marie Cook Matis should be denied. Utilization of the Denton Avenue discharge ponds at the Embassy Hills facility should cease until such time as the County has installed the required single media filtration system. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of January, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of January, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles D. Hinton, Esquire William Deane, Esquire Deane and Hinton, P. A. Post Office Box 7473 St. Petersburg, Florida 33739-7473 Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 James Benjamin Harrill, Esquire Figurski and Harrill Suite 350 2435 U.S. Highway 19 Holiday, Florida 34691 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Office of the General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to an operating permit for an existing domestic wastewater treatment facility operating in Naples.
Findings Of Fact On May 10, 1991, Respondent issued Petitioner a five- year permit to operate a 0.3 million gallon per day (GPD) domestic wastewater treatment plant known as the Rookery Bay facility in Naples. This permit, which is number DO11-187204, allowed Petitioner to operate an extended aeration plant, using chlorine for basic disinfection and disposing of the reclaimed water in two percolation ponds. The 1991 permit required Petitioner to allow Respondent access to the facility for inspections at reasonable times, notify Respondent of any violations of any permit conditions, maintain total chlorine residual of at least 0.5 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of effluent sample after at least 15 minutes’ contact time at maximum daily flow, maintain annual average effluent quality values for carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) and total suspended solids (TSS) of not more than 20 mg/L of effluent sample with maximum effluent quality concentrations of 60 mg/L in any single effluent sample, maintain a monthly average effluent quality value for fecal coliform of not more than 200 per 100 ml of effluent sample with a maximum effluent quality value of 800 per 100 ml in any single effluent sample, notify Respondent of any discharge from the percolation pond overflows, and monitor influent loading to the facility and apply for a permit modification if the monthly average influent flows approach or exceed the design capacity of 0.3 MGD or if the facility violates treatment standards. Respondent also issued Petitioner a five-year permit to operate a 0.15 GPD domestic wastewater treatment plant at the Rookery Bay facility. This permit, which is number DO11-167093, allowed Petitioner to operate a contact stabilization process plant. On December 29, 1995, Petitioner submitted a renewal application for permit number DO11-167093. Although the permit number references the smaller tank, the renewal application requests a permitted capacity of 0.3 MGD. By Notice of Permit Denial dated February 9, 1996, Respondent denied the permit application on the ground that Petitioner could not provide reasonable assurance that it would operate the facility in compliance with state standards based on a “continued and long standing pattern of noncompliance and violation of . . . rules and standards.” Petitioner’s operation of the Rookery Bay treatment plant has been poor. Respondent has brought an enforcement action against Petitioner, which signed a consent final judgment in January 1994. The consent final judgment required Respondent to pay $4500 in civil penalties. As it applied to the Rookery Bay facility, the consent final order required Petitioner to evaluate the facility to discover the causes of past violations and modify the facility to eliminate these violations. But Petitioner has not complied with material provisions of the consent final judgment. Petitioner’s operator has been held in contempt of court several times for violations at Rookery Bay and a nearby smaller treatment facility known as Port au Prince. Petitioner has several times refused Respondent’s representatives reasonable access to the Rookery Bay facility. At least twice, Petitioner has failed to advise Respondent of equipment failures that resulted in violations of treatment standards. On January 11, 1995, Petitioner cut off the power for several hours to a lift station pump serving a nearby a condominium complex. Predictably, the sewage backed up and overflowed into the street. Petitioner failed to restore the power timely or remove the overflowed sewage. On several occasions, raw or inadequately treated sewage has leaked from the tanks at the Rookery Bay facility. Petitioner has failed to eliminate this problem over the course of its five-year operating permit. On numerous occasions, Respondent’s representatives have detected violations of effluent quality. These violations have arisen inadequate detention time in the chlorine contact chamber. Consequently, the TSS and CBOD levels have repeatedly exceeded permitted standards. The parties dispute the adequacy of the capacity of the Rookery Bay facility. There is considerable evidence, including one statement in the application, that suggests that the facility’s capacity is seriously inadequate. Either the capacity of the Rookery Bay is, and has been, inadequate--in which case at least some of the violations are attributable to overcapacity operation--or, if the facility has had adequate capacity, the operational competence of Petitioner is below the minimum level necessary to provide reasonable assurance of proper operations at this facility in the future. Most likely, the Rookery Bay facility lacks adequate capacity, at least part of the year, and Petitioner lacks the minimum requisite competence to operate the facility in a responsible manner. The strongest evidence in the record suggests that the Rookery Bay facility serves, during peak season, 1500 mobile home connections and 400 apartment connections. These connections generate about 377,500 GPD of raw sewage. A slightly lower value is probable after consideration of the likely presence of recreational vehicles among the mobile home count. But this reduction, even without adjustment for dry-season infiltration and inflow, would not yield sufficient savings in raw sewage as to provide reasonable assurance that the Rookery Bay facility has adequate capacity to serve the present demand or adequate capacity to serve the demand projected over the five-year term of the permit that Petitioner seeks. Even if one were to credit Petitioner’s volume-to- capacity calculations, the results fail to constitute reasonable assurance of violation-free operation of the Rookery Bay facility. Petitioner's calculations leave little if any margin for error at present demand levels, and, given Petitioner’s singularly poor operating history at this facility, these calculations provide poor assurance of compliant operation of this troubled facility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying Petitioner’s renewal application for a domestic wastewater treatment operating permit for the Rookery Bay facility. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 9th day of May, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Sanford M. Martin 2500 Airport Road, Suite 315 Naples, Florida 34112-4882 Thomas I. Mayton, Jr. Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Perry Odom General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Kenneth W. Barron for a septic tank be DENIED; however, applicant should be given thirty days from date of the final order in which to raise the tank to a height consistent with the construction permit. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 29th day of April, 1983.
