Findings Of Fact Mr. Dayton Andrews is the President and owner of half of the stock of Marathon Trailerama, Inc. d/b/a Marathon Trailerama, Respondent, located at 1571 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida. Mr. Andrews acquired his interest in Marathon Trailerama in 1972, and has maintained the sewage disposal system in place at the time he acquired Respondent. He states that he has received no complaints about the system from the residents of the trailer park, and the two residents who testified stated they had no complaints about the system. Respondent has a 99 year lease for the property on which the trailer park is located, and the term of the lease began in 1962. The property owner, Juanita Matheny, testified that under the terms of the lease she has no responsibility, in her opinion, for the operation or maintenance of a sewage disposal system in the trailer park. Respondent holds trailer park permit number 44-067-85 which was most recently issued by Petitioner on January 1, 1985. This permit authorizes 125 independent trailer spaces, and grants Respondent the authority to operate as long as health laws and rules are observed. The permit is revokable at any time for failure to properly operate the trailer park. The original permit to operate a trailer park where Respondent is now located was issued in 1985 to Seven Mile Bridge Trailer Park and was for 45 trailers. On the application for this original permit, the method of sewage disposal to be used was shown as "cesspools 15 ft. below sea level (vented)." State Board of Health records from 1956 show the sanitarian for the Monroe County Health Department described and complained to the State Board of Health about the method of sewage disposal being used at Seven Mile Bridge Trailer Park, and that in response to said complaint the Chief of the Environmental Sanitation Section of the State Board of Health advised that " . . . we have not been able to locate any reference in our records in regard to the approval by the State Board of Health for a connection of this type . . . It is our opinion that this sewage collection device is undesirable because it permits the possible harborage of vermin and result in the creation of a sanitary nuisance." Despite this expression of concern in 1956, no enforcement action has ever been taken against Respondent, or its predecessor Seven Mile Bridge Trailer Park, prior to this action. In connection with the issuance of an operational permit for Marathon Trailerama in 1971, Petitioner notified the Monroe County Health Department that sewage flows in excess of 1200 gallons per day (more than 5 trailers) are required to be centrally collected for approved disposal, and flows in excess of 2000 gallons per day (more than 13 trailers) require a licensed engineer to prepare plans and specifications for the treatment process and disposal works in compliance with state health rules. The former owner of Marathon Trailerama, B. S. Ford, from whom Mr. Dayton Andrews acquired his interest, was copied on this notice. Currently Respondent has 125 trailer spaces in the park. Many of the trailer owners reside at Marathon Trailerama for only part of the year although there are some permanent residents. Petitioner inspected Marathon Trailerama on May 3 and 7, 1984 and also February 26, 1985. During the course of those inspections, thirty-two cesspools were identified in the trailer park, and the evidence presented supports Petitioner's contention that these cesspools were, and continue to be, in use. A cesspool is basically a hole in the ground into which raw sewage is deposited. The sides of a cesspool are usually porous, and the tidewater and ground water can pass directly into the cesspool and carry raw, untreated sewage away. Based on the evidence presented, the Respondent's cesspools fit this general description. Although there is no evidence of their presence in this case, dangerous diseases can result from the seepage of raw sewage from cesspools since the effluent is not properly treated before discharge. Petitioner did not take any water samples from nearby canals, nor were any tests done on the sewage in the cesspools to determine if diseases were present. Based upon standards for sewage produced per trailer, Petitioner estimates that 200 gallons of raw sewage are produced each day by each trailer, and therefore up to 25,000 gallons of raw sewage per day may be deposited in Respondent's cesspools when all trailer spaces are occupied. However, there is evidence of one septic tank and a community toilet facility in the park which is not on a cesspool, and these factors would reduce the total amount of sewage disposal using cesspools. On July 27, 1984 Petitioner notified Respondent that the operation of cesspools was a violation of the law and had to be corrected within ten days. Respondent regularly pumps out the cesspools and immediately corrects any leaks. However, there is minimal benefit to health from pumping out a cesspool since the raw sewage immediately passes through the porous walls and does not remain in the cesspool for treatment. Unlike a septic tank in which the resulting effluent is treated, and solid materials deposited in the bottom of the tank over a long time can be pumped out, there is an almost immediate discharge of raw sewage from a cesspool. Therefore pumping would have to be almost constant in order to avoid the discharge of raw sewage and, thus, be beneficial. One of Respondent's cesspools is located seven feet from an adjacent canal which is used for boating and fishing. There was evidence of occasional, but not frequent, cesspool failure with resulting spillage of raw sewage on the grounds of the trailer park. Respondent promptly corrected such failures when they occurred. Petitioner's representatives saw German cockroaches and palmetto bugs in the cesspools, and testified that these insects can carry dangerous diseases under these conditions. However, no tests were done to determine if, in fact, disease was present in this case. Residents at Marathon Trailerama have no concerns or complaints about their sewage disposal. There have been no noxious odors in the park and no adverse effects on the health of the residents. The parties have submitted posthearing proposed findings of fact pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4, F.S. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order, except where such proposed findings of fact have been rejected as subordinate, cumulative immaterial, or unnecessary.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner issue a Final Order imposing a $1500 fine against Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of May, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, 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 16th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Morton Laitner, Esquire 1350 N.W. 14th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Alfred K. Frigola Esquire Post Office Box 177 Marathon, Florida 33050 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steve Huss Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondents, Frank L. Reppa and Denise J. Reppa, own and reside in their dwelling located at 3863 Plumosa Drive, St. James, Florida. The property is a narrow canal front lot. All lots in the area are small and narrow and the dwellings thereon, mostly mobile homes, are placed closely together. On January 11, 1988, as the result of a nuisance complaint by the Reppa's next door neighbor, Stephen E. Havig, an Environmental Specialist with the Lee County Health Department, a part of the State of Florida DHRS, inspected the property in question and observed that effluent from the Respondents' drain field, a malodorous liquid, had run from Respondent's property down onto the driveway of their neighbors. On January 13, 1988, he returned to the property and spoke with Mrs. Reppa who admitted to living on the property. He again observed that the drain field in the Reppas' septic system was heavily saturated and had failed. Effluent was coming to the surface due to the high water table resulting from heavy recent rains and the failure of the system, and there was still a sewage odor to the effluent. The effluent showed in stains on the neighbor's drive. Mr. Havig told Mrs. Reppa that the problem had to be corrected as it was a violation of the law to allow it to remain. In response, Mrs. Reppa indicated they had no money to effect the repairs and because of that, Mr. Havig, who could have cited them immediately, indicated he would return to his office to see if they could be given some additional time to have the work done. After checking with his supervisor, Mr. Havig, on the same day issued an "Official Notification of Insanitary Nuisance" and a "Notice of Intended Action", both of which were sent by Certified Mail and receipted for by Mrs. Reppa on January 19, 1988. The Notice gave the Reppas until January 28, 1988 to correct the problem. On January 14, 1988, Mr. Havig again talked with Mrs. Reppa, telling her what he was sending and advising her how she could get the problem fixed. When he again went out to the property on January 28, 1988, he noted that the property had dried out due to a lack of rain. However, he could see no evidence that any repairs had been effected. He returned to the property on February 1, 1988 after a rain and observed that the problems had reoccurred. Mr. Havig again spoke with Mrs. Reppa on February 8, 1988, at which time she advised him the problem was to be repaired, but they were without funds to pay for it. At that time, Mr. Havig gave the Reppas three weeks to have the work completed with a contractor to be retained within one week. When he spoke with Mrs. Reppa on February 16, 1988, she stated she was still having trouble getting a contractor. She had contacted one contractor who looked at the system on February 15, 1988 and who proposed to remove the washing machine from the drain system. When Mr. Havig talked with Mrs. Reppa on February 19, 1988, she indicated she would have to discuss the matter with her husband. Mr. Havig stated at that time that the Department would have to proceed with enforcement action if work was not started on the correction by February 22, 1988. No corrective action was taken by the Reppas and the Administrative Complaint was filed as a result. DHRS considers it important to properly dispose of effluent because, since it contains human waste, it carries bacteria, viruses and a danger of parasites. Agency policy requires that the septic system be continually monitored and that the tank be pumped and the drain field be repaired when necessary. The Department has no funds available to assist those who cannot afford to make repairs. In order to be properly processed, effluent drainage from septic tanks needs a minimum of two feet of soil between the discharge outlet of the tank and the water table. The soil acts as a filter to remove harmful organisms and contaminants from the effluent before it reaches the water table. A high water table, due to heavy rains or other causes, prevents this filtration and causes the effluent to come to the surface. The situation is correctable. Two methods of correction are: 1) elevate the system above the water table, or 2) remove the saturated soil and replace it with a good grade of sand. In October, 1985, another complaint against the Reppas, relating to the same situation, was filed with DHRS. At that time, the Reppas paid $650.00 to have the system repaired by an individual who replaced the drain field, drawing it away from adjoining property and toward the road. Though the contractor assured them this would fix the problem, wash water would continue to come to the surface. As a result, Mrs. Reppa has refrained from washing clothes at her home and takes them to the laundry in town. Because of the actions they have taken, such as having the drain field expanded and moved, the pumping out of the septic tank in January, 1988, and the cessation of washing clothes at home, Mr. and Mrs. Reppa are convinced the system is not overflowing and that the water on the neighbor's property is the accumulation of surface water drainage when it rains. The Reppa property is higher than the neighbor's property and Mrs. Reppa believes that rain water drains down there. The new part of the drain field works and the water in question, she feels, cannot be effluent. The evidence of record, however, indicates to the contrary and that it is waste effluent. Inquiry by the Reppas indicates that it would take $750.00 more to fix the system and the Reppas do not have that money. They are still paying back the money they borrowed from Mrs. Reppa's parents to make the first repairs. Mr. Reppa is a commercial fisherman whose income has been substantially reduced due to the restrictions placed on the taking of redfish. Many neighbors in the area, according to the Reppas, discharge sewage directly into the abutting canal and allow wash water to run out onto the ground. The Reppas cannot comprehend why these individuals, mostly three month winter visitors, are not cited while they, full time residents, are.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: Recommended that an administrative fine of $50.00 per day be assessed against the Reppas for the violation established, said fine to be effective upon entry of a Final Order herein, with provision that the fine be remitted upon satisfactory proof that the violation has been corrected. Recommended in Tallahassee, Florida this 24th day of August, 1988. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 24th day of August, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Eugenie G. Rehak, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Post Office Box 06085 Ft. Myers, Florida 33906 Frank Lee Reppa, pro se Denise J. Reppa, pro se 3863 Plumosa Drive St. James, Florida 33986 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent violated Chapters 381 and 386, Florida Statutes, specifically Sections 386.041, 381.0061, 381.065, and 386.03, and Rules 10D-6.043(2) and 10D-6.0571. If the Respondent committed the charged violations, it must be determined whether a fine should be imposed and the amount of any such fine.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the installation and continued maintenance of OSDS's, within the guidelines of the statutes and rules cited below. In the event violations of the rules regarding the safe operation and maintenance of OSDS's are detected, HRS has the authority to require correction of the unsafe, human-health conditions involving such systems and to impose penalties for the failure to adequately correct such unsafe health situations. In order to secure enforcement of the statutes and rules concerning the installation and operation of OSDS's, HRS has the authority to issue Administrative Complaints initiating formal enforcement proceedings such as the one at bar. The Respondent is a citizen of the State of Florida and owns the property located at 835 N.W. 109th Drive in Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida. The Respondent owns and operates an OSDS on that property which serves her personal residence for the on-site containment, disposal and treatment of sewage generated by that residence. In the spring of 1992, the Respondent detected problems with the OSDS on her property. The problems were noticed because of a difficulty in flushing the toilets in her home and the unusual greening of the grass in a pattern of rows above the septic tank's drain field. The abnormal greening of grass in this pattern indicates that the OSDS is malfunctioning by allowing incompletely treated sewage effluent (waste water) to escape upward towards the surface of the ground instead of percolating in a downward direction into the underlying soil, for appropriate filtration and treatment, which is the pattern of effluent disposal if such a system is operating correctly. Mr. Ron Meyers of Meyers Septic Tank Company was contacted for correction of the problem by the Respondent. On April 15, 1992, he applied for an OSDS repair permit to the Alachua County Public Health Unit of HRS on behalf of the Respondent. The permit application described that the repairs for which authority was requested would be to the existing system which was a below-ground-level septic tank and drain-field system (conventional system) in the Respondent's front yard. Mr. Dennis Chesky is an environmental specialist with the HRS Health Unit for Alachua County. He conducted a site inspection of the OSDS site on April 16, 1992 and determined that a repair of the existing system would not result in compliance with the applicable standards of Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code cited below. He made a determination that a mounded drain- field system would be required in order to comply with HRS rules. HRS rules require that when repairs are made to an existing OSDS and inspection reveals that proper percolation and other indicia of soil-borne treatment of the effluent will not be adequately performed in accordance with HRS rules, then alterations to the OSDS, including the requirement of a mounded drain-field system, so as to acquire a sufficient treatment zone of appropriate fill soil, can be imposed. Mr. Chesky had noted that a sanitary nuisance existed due to insufficiently treated effluent escaping to the ground surface and pooling on the surface of the ground, rather than percolating downward below the drain field, as a properly operating system would perform. In accordance with the permit application and the results of Mr. Chesky's inspection, a repair permit with specifications requiring a mounded septic tank and drain-field system was issued by Mr. Chesky on April 16, 1992. The permit required the system to be installed in the Respondent's front yard. Because such a mound in the Respondent's front yard would destroy the aesthetic character of the Respondent's property and landscaping, Mr. Meyers requested, on the Respondent's behalf, that the permit be modified to allow installation of the mounded system in the backyard of the Respondent's property. On April 22, 1992, this request was granted by Terry Shipley, Mr. Chesky's supervisor, and the relocation was duly noted on the permit. The permit issued was valid for a period of ninety (90) days. The letter transmitting the permit to the Respondent informed the Respondent, as permittee, that she had ninety (90) days to correct the problem which caused the need for the repair permit. The letter also advised the Respondent that if a sanitary nuisance was present on the property, the problem should be rectified as expeditiously as possible. The permit expired without the repairs having been performed. Mr. Shipley, therefore, directed that a member of his staff visit the Respondent's home to inspect the situation. Mr. Paul Meyers visited the Respondent's home on July 22, 1992 and noted that raw sewage was still existing on the surface of the ground in the form of waste water from the septic tank. Mr. Meyers took photographs of that condition. The photographs were introduced into evidence. One photograph depicted that an area of the ground at the end of the drain field had collapsed or subsided, leaving a hole through which waste water was seeping to the ground surface. Mr. Meyers thereupon issued a notice to abate a sanitary nuisance on July 23, 1992. It was received by the Respondent on August 1, 1992. On August 3, 1992, the problem still existed with effluent being observed on the surface of the site by Mr. Chesky. On August 25, 1992, he returned to the site and observed evidence that a large area of the front yard, over the drain-field location, had been disturbed. He determined that the ground and the grass had been disturbed in such a way that repairs had obviously been made to the existing drain field. This was contrary to the permit that had been issued, which had required that a mounded system be installed as a means of effecting necessary repairs. The repaired area had been covered without notification of the repair to HRS. A notice of intended action was issued on September 16, 1992 and received by the Respondent on September 19, 1992. This notice gave the Respondent three (3) days to take action toward correcting the problem. The Respondent was thus advised that if the problems and violations were not corrected, then an Administrative Complaint seeking imposition of a fine would be issued. Within several days of receipt of that notice, the Respondent's husband called Mr. Shipley and Ms. Wilson of HRS to advise them that repairs had been delayed by the necessity of removing some trees in the backyard of his property where the mounded system would have to be placed. The Petersons were also having difficulty securing the necessary financing to pay for the installation of the mounded system required by HRS during the summer and early fall of 1992. Although Mr. Peterson advised HRS of the delay caused by the necessity to remove some trees with attendant expense, apparently HRS was not advised of the financing problem at that time, although the Respondent's testimony shows it to be the case. During this period of time, on September 22, October 1, and October 22, 1992, inspections by HRS revealed that the problem of effluent escaping on the surface of the ground had not yet been corrected. Since repairs had not been visibly commenced by the time of the last inspection on October 22, 1992, HRS elected to seek imposition of a fine and issued an Administrative Complaint to the Respondent, which was received by the Respondent on November 5, 1992. The Complaint sought a fine in the amount of $200.00 per day dating from the receipt of the Administrative Complaint until the date the violation was corrected. The Respondent obtained a second contractor to begin construction of the required mounded system which was completed on November 10, 1992. The contractor on that day called for an inspection by HRS. The inspection was conducted on November 12, 1992, but final approval could not be issued although all essential work was completed because the required sodding and stabilization measures had not yet been completed on the surface of the mound. Final approval was granted on November 17, 1992 by HRS. Installation of a new below-ground, drain-field system, as originally requested, similar to the one which was already installed and malfunctioning, would have cost approximately $1,000.00. The mounded system required by HRS' permit, pursuant to the relevant rules cited below, cost approximately $5,000.00. In addition to the approximate $5,000.00 expended for the installation of the mounded system, the Respondent had to expend approximately $7,000.00 related to tree removal and re-landscaping of their yard to repair damage caused by installation and the requirement to install a facility to pump sewage from the front yard outlet to the mounded system in the backyard. The Respondent apparently attempted to repair the existing below-ground system after receiving the notice regarding sanitary nuisance in August of 1992 in order to avoid the high costs related to the mounded system. The effluent pooling on the ground surface, as it was on the Respondent's property at times pertinent hereto, can pose a threat to public health. In order to adequately treat sewage effluent, it must filter in a downward direction through at least 24 inches of suitable soil medium in order to be sufficiently decontaminated. Improperly treated effluent on the surface of the ground can cause the transmission of human pathogens to persons who come into contact with the effluent in and near the area of the discharge. There is no evidence to indicate that any such harm came to any specific persons or to the public's health generally, in the subject situation. Ms. Wilson, the supervisor responsible for issuance of the Administrative Complaint, decided to seek a fine of $200.00 per day after considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors set forth in the statutory authority cited herein, contained in Chapter 381, Florida Statutes. HRS has fining authority in the amount of up to $500.00 per day for each of the claimed violations. The unrefuted evidence establishes that the violations occurred and persisted over the period time described in the above Findings of Fact. In fairness to the Respondent, however, it should be pointed out that the Respondent and her husband were not in Florida for most of the summer of 1992 because their work required them to be in Dallas, Texas. Even so, they had secured the services of an OSDS contractor to attempt to alleviate the problem. Due no doubt to the high cost and their reluctance to be encumbered by it, they delayed actual installation of the mounded system, however. It is also true that they had difficulties obtaining financing for such a costly system but ultimately did so and satisfactorily completed the work. They ultimately expended approximately $14,000.00 for all phases of the work involved, including site preparation, re-landscaping and related expenses. They have thus have undergone a severe cost burden to alleviate the inoperable condition of the previous OSDS.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by HRS imposing a fine in the amount of $500.00 against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 3rd day of September, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-7376 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-15. Accepted. 16. Rejected, as immaterial in this de novo proceeding. 17-25. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted, although the evidence does not reveal the bank's posture with regard to ownership of the property. Rejected, as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected, as to its material import because the repairs and installation were not effected until after the issuance of the Administrative Complaint. Accepted, but not dispositive of the material issues presented other than as consideration for mitigation of the fine imposed. Accepted, but not dispositive of the material issues presented other than as consideration for mitigation of the fine imposed. Accepted, but not materially dispositive of the issues presented. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 Robert Peterson 835 Northwest 109th Drive Gainesville, Florida 32606
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to the grant of a variance for the installation of an onsite sewage disposal system ("OSDS") for his property on the Santa Fe River in Gilchrist County, Florida, in accordance with Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the owner of certain real property located in Gilchrist County, Florida, more particularly described as Lot 4, Unit 4, Ira Bea's Oasis, a subdivision. The evidence is not clear concerning whether the plat of the subdivision was actually recorded, although the evidence and the Petitioner's testimony indicates that the lots in the subject subdivision were subdivided in 1965. The evidence does not clearly reflect whether the subdivision was ever platted, however. On April 2, 1990, the Petitioner filed an application for an OSDS permit regarding the subject property. The application was for a new OSDS on the above-described property; and the system was intended to serve a single- family residence, which the Petitioner desires to construct on the subject property for a vacation and retirement home. The proposed residence would contain three bedrooms and a heated or cooled area of approximately 1,100 square feet. In the permit application process, at the Respondent's behest, the Petitioner had a survey performed by Herbert G. Parrish, registered land surveyor. That survey, in evidence as the Respondent's Exhibit 1, reveals a benchmark elevation of 21.65 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"). The proposed installation site is at an elevation of 22.5 feet above MSL. A report by the Suwannee River Water Management District, which is admitted into evidence and was submitted to the Respondent by the Petitioner with the application for the OSDS permit, shows a ten-year flood elevation for the subject property, and River Mile 10 of the Santa Fe River, at 31 feet above MSL. Thus, the subject property is located beneath the ten-year flood elevation. The property is also located within the regulatory floodway of the Santa Fe River, as that relates to required engineering certification and calculations being furnished which will assure that if OSDS's are constructed employing mounding or sand filters, and like constructions, that such related fill deposited on the property within the regulatory floodway will not raise the level of the "base flood" for purposes of the rules cited hereinbelow. No evidence of such certification by an appropriately-registered engineer was offered in this proceeding concerning the installation of a mounded system and its effect on the base flood level. The surface grade level of the subject property at the installation site is 9.5 feet below the ten-year flood elevation. The grade elevation of the subject property is also .5 feet below the "two-year flood elevation", and the property has been flooded once in the past three years and has been flooded approximately four times in the past 15 years. It has thus not been established in this proceeding that the property is not subject to frequent flooding. On April 18, 1990, the Respondent denied the Petitioner's application for an OSDS permit by letter of that date. The Petitioner did not make a timely request for a formal administrative hearing to dispute that denial. The Petitioner maintained at hearing that this was, in essence, because the Respondent's personnel informed him that he should seek a variance instead, which is what he did. The testimony of Mr. Fross reveals, however, that, indeed, he was advised of his opportunity to seek a variance but was also advised of his right to seek a formal administrative hearing to contest the denial of the permit itself. Nevertheless, either through the Petitioner's misunderstanding of his rights or because he simply elected to choose the variance remedy instead, the fact remains that he did not timely file a petition for formal proceeding to contest the denial of the OSDS permit itself. Even had a timely petition for formal proceeding concerning the denial of the OSDS permit application been filed, the evidence of record does not establish the Petitioner's entitlement to such a permit. As found above, the property lies beneath the ten-year flood elevation and, indeed, lies below the two-year flood elevation, which subjects the property to a statistical 50% chance of being flooded each year. This and the other findings referenced above indicate that the property has not been established to be free from frequent flooding; and although appropriate "slight-limited" soils are present at the proposed installation site, those soils only extend 50 inches below the surface grade. That leaves an insufficient space beneath the bottom of the drainfield trenches where they would be located so as to have a sufficient volume and distance of appropriate treatment soil available beneath the drain field, if one should be installed. Below 50 inches at the subject site is a limerock strata which is impervious and constitutes a barrier to appropriate percolation and treatment of effluent waste water. Thus, for these reasons, especially the fact that the property clearly lies beneath the ten-year flood elevation and because adequate proof in support of a mounded system which might raise a septic tank and drainfield system above the ten-year flood elevation has not been adduced, entitlement to the OSDS permit itself has not been established. Concerning the variance application actually at issue in this proceeding, the Petitioner has proposed, in essence, two alternative systems. The Petitioner has designed, and submitted as an exhibit, a plan for a holding- tank-type- system. By this, the Petitioner proposes a 250-gallon holding tank, with a venting pipe extending approximately three feet above the level of the ten-year flood elevation, with an attendant concrete retaining wall and concrete base to which the tank would be securely attached. The Petitioner thus postulates that flood waters would not move or otherwise disturb the holding tank and that he would insure that the holding tank was pumped out at appropriate intervals and the waste there from properly deposited at a treatment facility located above the ten-year flood elevation. The precise method of such disposal and its location was not disclosed in the Petitioner's evidence, however. Moreover, the testimony of Dr. Hunter establishes that the deposition of waste water and human waste into the tank, either through pumping, or by gravity line, if the residence were located at an elevation above the inlet to the tank, might well result in a hydraulic condition which would cause the untreated sewage to overflow from the vent pipe of the tank. Moreover, such systems do not insure that public health, the health of the occupants of the site, and ground or surface waters will not be degraded since it is very costly to pump such a tank out which would have to be done on a frequent basis. This leaves the possibility that the user of such a holding-tank-facility could surreptitiously drain the tank into nearby receiving waters or otherwise improperly empty the tank. Even though the Petitioner may be entirely honorable in his intentions and efforts in this regard and not violate the law and the rules of the above-cited chapter in his manner of disposal of the holding-tank effluent, there is no practical, enforceable safeguard against such illegal activity, especially if one considers that the property may later be conveyed to a different landowner and user of the system. The Petitioner also proposes in his testimony and evidence the possibility of using a nondischarging, composting-toilet-type system to handle sewage involving human excreta. Such a system has been shown by the Petitioner's evidence to adequately treat human sewage so that public health and the ground and surface waters involved in and near the site could be adequately safeguarded. The problem with such a system, however, is that the "gray water", that is, waste water from bathtubs, showers, lavatories and kitchens, cannot be disposed of in the composting-toilet system. Such gray water, which also contains viruses, coliform bacteria and nutrients, must be disposed of, according to the rules at issue, in an appropriate sewage disposal system, be it in a septic tank and drain field or through pumping to an appropriate disposal and treatment facility located above the ten-year flood elevation. The Petitioner's proof does not establish how such gray water could be appropriately and safely disposed of in the environmental and public health context at issue herein. Thus, the proposed alternatives suggested by the Petitioner's proof do not constitute minor deviations from the minimum requirements for OSDS's specified in Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code. Ironically, the composting-toilet system, coupled with a proper disposal system for household gray water, could constitute a reasonable alternative to a conventional system. Thus, the Petitioner's proof, itself, shows that a reasonable alternative may exist, which militates against the granting of the variance, although he did not prove how it could feasibly be accomplished. In summary, therefore, the Petitioner's proof failed to establish that no reasonable alternative exists and that the proposed system would only be a minor deviation from the minimum requirements of the Respondent's rules concerning OSDS's and their installation and operation. The Petitioner established that a reasonable alternative to a conventional OSDS might exist for purposes of granting an OSDS permit itself, had that issue been formally placed before the Hearing Officer, but did not prove how it could feasibly be accomplished and operated. This proof shows, however, that such a reasonable alternative might be found operable which, thus, fails to justify the granting of a variance based upon hardship. If the Petitioner could come forward with proof to establish the feasibility of disposal and treatment of the household gray water involved in an appropriate treatment and disposal site and facility above the ten-year flood elevation, in conjunction with use of a composting- toilet system, a later permit application might be entertained in which could be justified the granting of an OSDS permit.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Respondent denying the Petitioner's application for a variance from the statutory and regulatory requirements, cited above, for the issuance of permits. At such time as the Petitioner is able to show changed factual circumstances, as for instance, that a reasonable, feasible alternative system, which will adequately treat and dispose of all household waste water effluent in a manner comporting with the rules of Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, a permit application should be entertained. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-4569 The Petitioner did not file proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-16. Accepted. 17. Rejected, as not supported by the preponderant evidence of record. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esq. General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Mark Moneyhan, pro se Route 3, Box 407 Perry, FL 32347 Frances S. Childers, Esq. Department of HRS District III Legal Office 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should be required to obtain a current operating permit for his aerobic treatment unit and have a $500.00 fine imposed for violating an agency rule for the reason cited in the Citation for Violation issued by Petitioner on December 1, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this dispute, Petitioner, Department of Health (Department), has alleged that Respondent, Dr. Anthony Massaro, a retired public health physician, failed to obtain an annual operating permit for an aerobic treatment unit (ATU) located at his residence at 3402 North Oceanside Boulevard, Flagler Beach, Florida. The Flagler County Health Department (Health Department) is charged with the responsibility of issuing such permits. That department is under the direction and control of Petitioner. While Respondent readily admits that he failed to obtain a permit, he contends that he was misled by the Health Department when he first installed an ATU at his residence; the Health Department is not enforcing the law regarding ATUs and thus another system would be more appropriate; and the law, as he interprets it, allows him to install another type of on-site sewage disposal unit on his property. Respondent purchased his property in Flagler County in 1997. The property is located in Ocean View Estates Subdivision (subdivision), which has an Urban Single-Family Residential District (R-1b) zoning classification under the Flagler County Land Development Code (Code). Section 3.03.05A of the Code requires that owners within the R-1b classification use "public or community water and sewer facilities," but makes an exception for "[s]mall R-1b subdivisions, fifty (50) lots or less, utilizing a public community water system," in which case residents "may utilize Class I aerobic onsite sewage disposal systems." Further, "[t]he use of individual onsite sewage disposal systems must be consistent with adopted county policies and standards." Because the subdivision has 50 lots or less, and public or private sewer facilities were not available in the area, the subdivision's Plat Agreement recorded in 1995 provided that "[i]ndividual aerobic onsite sewage disposal systems are to be permitted and constructed as each lot is developed." Another type of onsite sewage disposal system is the anerobic system, which has a septic tank and larger drainfield, is far less expensive, but does not conform with "county policies and standards" in this locale. Thus, this type of system requires a variance from the zoning regulations before one can be installed in the subdivision. Even so, Respondent says "all" of his neighbors have installed such a system. Because of the Plat Agreement, the zoning restriction, the difficulty in obtaining a variance, and the lack of a sewer line, Respondent had no choice except to use an ATU system for his residence. This meant that he had to apply for a permit from the Health Department. Once a permit is obtained and an ATU installed, the owner must renew his operating permit annually at a cost of $150.00, and he must enter into a maintenance agreement with a licensed contractor. The $150.00 fee is used to defray the costs incurred by the Health Department in making quarterly inspections and performing annual sampling and laboratory analysis of effluent. The record does not reflect precisely when a sewer line became operational across the street from Respondent's property, but the sewer project was accepted "for service" in April 1998, or before Respondent's ATU was installed in August 1998. Had Respondent known this, he would have obviously chosen that option rather than an ATU. The evidence reflects that in November 1997 Respondent made application for an ATU with the Health Department, a permit was issued in December 1997, and the system was installed and approved in August and September 1998, respectively. In early April 1998, the Health Department was advised by the private utility company that it would accept new sewer connections in a service area that included Respondent's home. However, Health Department representatives made no mention of this to Respondent since they were under the impression that he desired to use the ATU option, they do not normally "counsel" applicants on onsite sewage disposal system options, and Respondent had made no inquiry. Disclosure of this fact would have saved Respondent considerable money (and grief) in the long run; unfortunately, however, while good public relations would dictate otherwise, the Health Department had no legal obligation to do anything other than process the pending application. Likewise, it has no obligation in law to now pay the costs for Respondent to hook up to the line because of its non-disclosure. Respondent has now invested more than $5,000.00 in his ATU. This type of system is operated by a compressor in Respondent's garage, which must be run 24 hours per day, and is very noisy. Because of this, Respondent understandably wishes to change to an anerobic system, which has a traditional septic tank, larger drainfield, no unsightly "mound" in the yard, no annual permits, and is far cheaper than an ATU. Also, it does not require a noisy motor to sustain operations. However, this type of system is prohibited by the Code except where a variance from Flagler County (County) has been obtained. It appears to be unlikely that Respondent can obtain a variance from the County. Because Respondent's property is so low in relation to the sewer line, to achieve the proper gravity, he must install a lift station and pay a connection fee, both totaling $3,540.00, before hooking up to the sewer system. Given these costs, and the considerable investment he already has in an ATU, Respondent does not consider this to be a viable alternative. Respondent pointed out that, despite the requirement that they do so, many ATU owners in the County are not running their systems 24-hours per day because of the noise from the compressor. He also pointed out that the Health Department has consistently found numerous violations of such systems during its inspections. He further asserted that while the $150.00 annual fee is to defray certain sampling and laboratory analysis costs associated with inspecting ATUs, the Health Department has done neither on his ATU. Finally, Respondent pointed out that prior to 1999 the regulations were enforced by sampling the compliance of a very small percentage of total ATU systems (ten percent), rather than all systems, in the County. Given these considerations, Respondent concludes that ATUs are the least effective way to treat sewage, and that existing laws and regulations have not been enforced. Assuming these allegations to be true, and they were not seriously disputed, they are legitimate concerns. However, until the law is changed, they do not constitute a lawful basis for allowing Respondent to switch to an anerobic system. Respondent further contended that under his interpretation of the general law, which was not fully understood by the undersigned, he is not required to use an ATU. But local zoning regulations clearly require that he do so, and until the state or local regulations are changed or waived, he cannot use an anerobic system. Finally, Respondent has cooperated with the Department throughout this process. With his lengthy public health background, Respondent initiated this action with good intentions, seeking to point out the flaws in the ATU systems, and to remedy a problem which none of his neighbors apparently have. Given these considerations, a civil penalty should not be imposed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order sustaining the charge in the Citation for Violation and requiring that Respondent obtain an annual permit for his ATU. A civil penalty is not warranted. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Charlene J. Petersen, Esquire Department of Health 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Dr. Anthony Massaro 3402 North Oceanside Boulevard Flagler Beach, Florida 32136 Amy M. Jones, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of Respondent's witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Sometime prior to May 7, 1980, Petitioner, Wyatt S. Odom, applied for a permit to construct an individual sewage disposal facility for a houseboat on Drs Lake in Orange Park, Clay County Florida. By letter dated May 7, 1980, Ronald E. Bray, Sanitarian Supervisor for the Clay County Health Department, advised Petitioner that his permit application to construct an individual sewage disposal facility for a houseboat was being denied since the area of Petitioner's property was approximately 26,250 square feet2 A survey of the subject property revealed that the area is 19,890 square feet, which is of course less than one-half acre. (Respondent's Exhibit 2) (0.60 acre) with three individual sewage disposal systems already existing on the property; the land was not suitable for the installation that would allow the proper and required drainfield absorption area and setback requirement could not be maintained due to the existence of buildings, waterlines, wells, a lake and existing sewage disposal facilities which, if permitted, would be in contravention of Chapters 10D-6.23(2) and 10D-6.24(2), (3), (4) and (6), Florida Administrative Code. Supervisor Bray and Sanitarian Thomas Haley, observed the subject property and the survey, and concluded that based on the size of Petitioner's property and the existing wells and septic tanks thereon, it was unsuitable for and could not satisfy the setback requirements and the required drainfield absorption area. (Testimony of Ronald E. Bray.) As stated, Petitioner did not appear at the hearing to contest the Respondent's denial of his permit application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's denial of Petitioner's request for a permit to construct an individual sewage disposal facility for a houseboat on Drs. Lake in Orange Park, Florida, be UPHELD. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of September, 1980. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Wyatt S. Odom P. O. Box 14735 Jacksonville, Florida 32210 Leo J. Stellwagen, Esquire Assistant District IV Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Post Office Box 2417F Jacksonville, Florida 32231 Alvin J. Taylor, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1321 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioners purchased property in New Smyrna Beach, Florida to build a home. The property, which was platted in the 1940's measures 50 feet by 200 feet. The east side of the property (50') is located on Engram Road. The northern 200 feet and western 50 feet of the property is waterfront, situated on a tidal inlet from the Indian River. The Indian River contains the last remaining Class II waters in Volusia County. Class II waters in Florida are waters in which the state allows shellfish harvesting for public consumption. As the last remaining Class II waters in the county, the area requires special protection from all possible sources of pollution and negative environmental impact, including sewage outflow. According to the Petitioner, the seller of the property indicated to Petitioners that the property had been approved for constructing a home. The seller substantiated his assertion with a letter from the Volusia County Planning and Zoning Department stating that a county variance had been granted to construct a single family dwelling on this property, subject to certain conditions. The county approval letter specified the required use of an aerobic wastewater treatment system. The Petitioners were unaware of the state regulations and standards for onsite sewage disposal systems. The Petitioners hired a builder who applied to the HRS Volusia County Public Health Department for a septic tank permit. The permit was denied because the proposed septic tank system violated 50 foot set back required of sewage treatment systems from Class II waters. The proposed drainfield was located within 28 feet of the mean high water line, and because of the configuration of the lot and its depth of only 50 feet the proposed site cannot meet the state standard. The Petitioners' builder subsequently applied to the state Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for a variance from the code standards in order to obtain the septic tank construction permit. The state denied the variance stating that the "request was not considered to be a minor deviation from the minimum requirements". The Petitioners received no notification of the time and place of the Variance Review Board's meeting because the variance application was submitted by their builder. Petitioners had no opportunity to personally address the Variance Board when their application was being considered. A sewer line is located within 1000 feet of the property and a sewage grinding and pumping system could be installed to pump sewage from the site to the sewer line. Such a system, costs approximately the same amount as an onsite system. A grinding and pumping system is an economically reasonable alternative to permit development of the lot.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witness, the arguments of the parties, it is therefore RECOMMENDED: That the request for a variance be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 2nd day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda Harris, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 132 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Jerome and Bernice Massel 6426 Engram Road New Smyrna Beach, FL 32169 Charlene J. Petersen, Esquire HRS-District 4 P.O. Box 2417 Jacksonville, FL 32231-0083
The Issue The issue for consideration in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to a variance for installation of an on-site sewage disposal system ("OSDS") for property located near the Suwannee River in Dixie County, Florida, in accordance with the provisions of Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the owner of certain real property located in Dixie County, Florida, more particularly described as Lot 4, Wonderland Subdivision. The property is approximately 60 by 150 feet in size and was purchased in 1982 for a price of $9,000.00. It is presently appraised at $11,000.00; however, if an OSDS could be permitted and installed, the property would appraise for approximately $22,000.00. The lot was platted in 1957. On October 19, 1989, the Petitioner made an application for a variance from the OSDS permit requirements for the property. The application form indicated, and the Petitioner intends, that this would be a new system for a single-family residence. The residence would contain two bedrooms and would produce approximately 250 gallons per day of sewage flow. The Petitioner desires to construct a residence on the property to have a pleasant place to live and is suffering a hardship because of the investment which he has made in the property, which is of no use to him if he cannot obtain the subject permit or variance and install the OSDS so that he can construct his residence. Alternatively, he is unable to sell the property readily without the ability to obtain an OSDS permit or variance for the property. At the behest of the Respondent in the permit application or variance application process, the Petitioner obtained a survey of the property by a registered land surveyor (see Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 in evidence). That survey resulted in a benchmark elevation being established of 12 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"). The site of the proposed OSDS installation is 11.71 feet above MSL. The ten-year flood plain elevation for this property is 16 feet above MSL, as verified by records of the Suwannee River Water Management District in evidence without objection. The property is also located within the regulatory floodway of the Suwannee River. Although the Petitioner acknowledged in a general way that he would be amenable to consideration of various alternative types of systems involving piping of sewage effluent to an appropriate upland disposal and treatment area, the use of chemical toilets or other appropriate non-discharge types of treatment and disposal systems, no concrete evidence was adduced from the Petitioner to establish that such are or are not reasonable alternatives to the conventional subterranean septic tank and drainfield type of disposal system with which the variance application is concerned. Consequently, the Petitioner's proof does not establish that no reasonable alternatives exist in order to secure the grant of a variance nor did the Petitioner's proof establish that the type of system proposed would not pollute the ground or surface waters or pose a threat to public health in terms of the standard subterranean OSDS or any alternative systems which the Petitioner might theoretically employ, including the types mentioned above. The Petitioner's proof simply did not establish that installation of a standard subterranean OSDS would only pose a minor deviation from the permitting statute and rules cited herein nor did the Petitioner establish that no reasonable alternatives exist to the establishment of a standard OSDS, as that relates to the substantiality of the hardship which the Petitioner is experiencing in not getting the OSDS originally requested permitted; and the Petitioner did not establish that any system proposed would not pose a threat to public health or pollute ground or surface waters. In summary, the Petitioner did not establish that a sufficient hardship is experienced, because reasonable alternatives have not adequately been explored and considered by the Petitioner nor made a part of the subject of Petitioner's proof nor has the Petitioner established that a grant of a variance would involve only a minor deviation from the permitting statute and rules standards because it has not been proven that the public health nor the ground or surface waters would not be adversely affected. Finally, because the property is located in the regulatory floodway of the Suwannee River, under Rule 10D- 6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code, before a mounded or filled OSDS could be permitted and installed, which is one alternative under consideration, a registered professional engineer must certify that the mounding of the system and installation of fill in the regulatory floodway area would not cause elevation of the "base flood" of the Suwannee River. No such engineering evidence or testimony has been adduced iii this proceeding; therefore, such an alternative system cannot herein be recommended for approval.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for a variance from the statutory and regulatory requirements for an OSDS permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3111 Respondent' Proposed Findings of Fact: All of Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esq. General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Marilou Clark Suwannee Plantation Realty Rt. 3, Box 73 Old Town, FL 32680 Frances S. Childers, Esq. Assistant District III Legal Counsel Department of HRS 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609
The Issue Whether permit application SWO 13-5152, should be granted under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. This case involves the application of Respondents City of North Miami and Munisport, Inc. to Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) for an operating permit under the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-7, Florida Administrative Code, to operate a sanitary landfill located in North Miami, Florida. DER granted provisional approval of the application by the issuance of a Notice of Intent to issue the permit on January 27, 1978. Petitioners filed the instant petition of February 13, 1978, challenging the issuance of the proposed permit. Final hearing herein was originally scheduled for April 7, 1978, but at the instance of the parties was continued and reset to commence on October 18, 1978. During the course of the final hearing, 29 witnesses presented testimony, including six public witnesses. (List of public witnesses - Hearing Officer's Exhibit 3) A total of 35 exhibits were admitted in evidence. Three exhibits (Exhibits 5, 13 and 15) were rejected by the Hearing Officer.
Findings Of Fact By application dated November 14, 1977, Respondent City of North Miami, Florida, as owner, and Respondent Munisport, Inc. as the "responsible operating authority" requested Respondent DER to issue a permit to operate a solid waste resource recovery and management facility consisting of 345.90 acres located at 14301 Biscayne Boulevard, North Miami, Florida. The site, known as the North Miami Recreation Development, had been operating as a sanitary landfill under temporary operating permits (TOP) issued by the DER on May 8, 1975 and September 21, 1976. The 1976 TOP provided for an expiration date of July 1, 1977, and contained various conditions designed to give the permittees a reasonable period of time to conform to the DER regulations relative to sanitary landfills. These included standard requirements such as the rendering of reports on the operation of the facility and prohibiting the deposit of raw and infectious waste, or hazardous waste that had not been rendered safe and sanitary prior to delivery. Additionally, the permit conditions required the facility to be so operated that it would cause minimum adverse effects on the environment, such as objectionable odors, contaminated storm water runoff, or leachates causing degradation of surface of ground waters. Further, the permit provided for a three-month review program after its issuance to consider the feasibility of dumping solid waste in 63 acres of submerged land subject to previous filling with clean fill and/or construction debris, filling of land above mean high water with garbage either above clean fill or above trenches filled with wood and construction debris and covered with clean fill, and a six-week period of weekly water quality monitoring at agreed to sites for analysis by both permittees and the Dade County Environmental Resources Management (DERM). The permit further prohibited the placement of refuse waterward of the mean high water line or in trenches cut below the natural ground water table. (Exhibits 1, 4). By letter of January 27, 1978, DER gave notice to the applicant of its intent to issue the requested operation permit for the solid waste disposal facility and stated therein the following reasons for its determination: The solid waste disposal site is in the public interest. The Department feels that the site will not substantially affect the water quality or interfere with the area's wildlife. The applications and plans for this facility have been evaluated and found to be in conformance with Chapter 403, F.S., Chapter 17-4, FAC, and Chapter 17-7, FAC. The letter stated standard conditions to which the permit would be subject, including special conditions that had been noted in the 1976 TOP. It also prescribed specific conditions that no solid wastes could be placed within 30 feet of any existing or future lake area, no dumping below water at any time nor in any dewatered excavations, and that a quarterly water quality monitoring program at monitoring wells No. 4 through 12 be sampled for specified substances. Proposed Condition 16 stated as follows: Solid waste shall be deposited in locations consistent with those approved in the Army Corps of Engineers' dredge and fill permit #75B-0869. No solid waste shall be deposited in the areas commonly known as the wetlands and transitional zones of said wetlands, as shown on the attached map. Subject to the Corps approval of proposed modifications to permit #75B-0869, a revised DER solid waste permit will be issued consistent with the approved modifications. A sketch of the landfill site purporting to designate the landfill deposal area, wetlands and transitional zone, and mean high water line was attached. (Exhibit 3) The Petitioners consist of the Florida Audubon Society, which has some 2,000 members residing in Dade County, Tropical Audubon Society, which is affiliated with Florida Audubon Society; Keystone Point Homeowners Association, Inc., comprised of approximately 425 owners of mostly waterfront or canal homes in North Miami within a mile of the landfill site; Thomas Pafford, North Miami, Florida, who uses the waters of Biscayne Bay and nearby wetlands for recreational purposes; and Maureen B. Harwitz, who resides within a half mile of the landfill site and uses Biscayne Bay and the mangrove preserve adjacent to the landfill site for recreational purposes. Members of the above-named organizational groups use the waters surrounding the landfill site for recreational purposes and are concerned that the waters and fish and animal life therein will be adversely affected if the operation permit is granted. (Testimony of Lee, Brown, Pafford, Lippelman, Harwitz) Munisport has been operating the North Miami landfill under a lease with the City of North Miami since approximately 1974. The ultimate aim is to convert the area into a recreational complex consisting of golf courses, club house, and other sports facilities. The site was used as an unregulated dump for many years prior to initiation of the Munisport operation. The site has been the subject of previously issued state and Corps of Engineer dredge and fill permits which are not the subject of this proceeding. The landfill site occupies an area generally between Northwest 135th Street on the south and Northwest 151st Street on the north. It lies between Biscayne Boulevard on the west, and state mangrove preserves and land of Florida International University on the east. It is less than a mile to Biscayne Bay on the east side of the landfill. The nearest point of entry is in the southeast area where Arch Creek empties into the Bay. At this time, Munisport has filled approximately 210 acres at the site with ten feet or more of fill material. A final cover has been completed over about 70 acres of this land and a golf course is presently being constructed. Pursuant to the dredge and fill permits, five lakes approximately 35 feet deep are nearly completed and some six or seven more are to be dug in the future pursuant to those permits. These lakes are separated from the solid waste by a 30 foot wide dike of clean fill. Although some cover material has been trucked to the site, about 1.6 million cubic yards of fill from the excavated lakes have been or will be utilized in cover operations for the landfill. The solid waste layer averages 15 feet in depth and lies about two feet above the ground water table. About 230 acres lie within the upland fill area above the mean high water line which is not within the area of jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. The mean high water line has been established by appropriate procedures under Chapter 177, F.S., and the surveying procedures were approved by the Department of Natural Resources on April 6, 1978. Although not stated in the Notice of Intent to issue the requested permit, DER intends to restrict the life of any permit to the time when the Metropolitan Dade County Resources Recovery Facility commences operation in approximately two years. The applicants and Dade County also have a memorandum of understanding to this effect. (Testimony of Stotts, Checca, Exhibits 1, 2, 35, 36, Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1) Munisport receives solid waste from a variety of firms, institutions, and surrounding municipalities. Its procedures are for vehicles to enter and exit the site from an access road leading to Biscayne Boulevard. A sign is located along the road indicating the operating hours, fee schedule, waste restrictions and other pertinent information. A large portion of the site is virtually inaccessible due to dense mangroves and mosquito control canals and ditches. At the check-in gate, a cursory inspection of vehicle loads is made by Munisport personnel who check the contents for quantity. Each load is directed to a designated place at the site where Munisport employees spread and compact the waste. At this stage, they are instructed to look for any unauthorized materials, such as hazardous and infectious waste. If such wasted is found, the offending party is required to remove it from the site. compactors and bulldozers push the solid waste to the face of the landfill and spread it out to facilitate compaction. During the hours of 6:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M., a watchman is on duty at the site to accommodate customers. If less than four or five truckloads arrive during the night hours, the material is not processed. If a larger quantity is involved, a Munisport employee moves and covers the material prior to the following workday. Due to the high ground water tabled, the area method is used for filling the site. This is a procedure by which refuse cells are constructed in lifts not to exceed ten feet in vertical height. They are composed of cells which constitute a one-day quantity of refuse. Six inches minimum cover of clean fill is applied daily, and a one foot intermediate cover is applied within a year after compaction. The cells are compacted in two-foot layers and, upon completion of a particular area, a minimum of two feet of final cover is applied. A dike constructed of compacted limerock borders the east side of the site and basically constitutes the present mean high water line. It is designed to protect the adjoining 129 acres of mangrove preserve and Biscayne Bay from any adverse water quality which might occur from runoff of degraded waters from the landfill site in the event of contamination. (Testimony of Haddad, Checca, Exhibit 1, 9) The shallow soil underlying the landfill at depths ranging to almost ten feet consists of a combination of organic matter and debris from prior dump use, muck, and sand. Soil borings taken at the site show that limestone or calcareous rock known as Miami oolite is about eight feet below the soil layer. At this depth is found the Biscayne aquifer that carries the unconfined ground water in the area. The aquifer is approximately 160 feet deep under the site and constitutes the major source of water supply in Dade County. The gradient of the water table for the landfill site runs in a southeasterly direction toward Biscayne Bay. Approximately 75% of the surface soil layer consists of organic muck, whereas in approximately 25% of the area, which was previously filled in the southern and westerly portions before commencement of the Munisport operation, the soil is primarily of a sandy type. (Testimony of Checca, Pitt, Exhibit 1) Leachate is produced in sanitary landfills by precipitation that percolates down through decomposing refuse cells and picks up polluting substances created from the decaying solid waste. It can form a "plume" or "bubble" that takes the course of least resistance in flowing laterally or vertically through a landfill site. The strength and concentration of the leachate is dependent upon various factors including the composition, compaction, and the age of decomposing refuse, and the amount of water being introduced into the area. As it passes slowly through the soil beneath the solid waste material, the unsaturated soils act as filters and permit ion exchange which reduces the quantity of contaminants. Dilution takes place where leachate comes in contact with ground water and leachate movement occurs gradually through the ground water aquifer in its direction of the flow. The presence and movement of leachate normally can be detected by analysis of ground water samples taken at various places throughout the landfill site. (Testimony of Checca, Pitt, Coker, Exhibit 1) Commencing in 1975, a monitoring program was instituted at the sanitary landfill to determine its effects on the ground water regime. A number of monitoring wells at various depths were constructed at different sites at the landfill, and samples were withdrawn and evaluated periodically to determine the types and degrees of pollution being generated by the landfill. Background samples were also obtained from wells off the site to establish the general character of water quality in the area and to compare these samples with those obtained from the site. Additionally, "grab" samples were taken of water from the bay and nearby canals and wetlands. Locations of the background and sampling wells were established by the applicants in conjunction with the DER and the Environmental Protection Agency. To determine the amount of leachate that probably would be generated at the site, the "water balance method" of computing the estimated time required to produce leachate, as well as the quantity that probably would be generated upon completion of the landfill, was made by representatives of the EPA in 1975 utilizing specific climatological and surface conditions at the site. This study indicated that percolation of surface water would increase during the operation of the landfill and before final soil and vegetative cover were in place, and that leachate would occur in about a year in larger quantities than would be produced by a completed landfill. Tests conducted during the ensuing three-year period of both surface and ground water through the monitoring program have failed to produce evidence that water quality is not within acceptable parameters or that water quality in the area surrounding the landfill site has been degraded. No significant differences in the concentrations of various ground water constituents were found between samples obtained at the disposal site and those collected in the adjacent mangrove forest or background areas. Neither was any evidence of contamination from leachate found in samples of surface water collected in the vicinity of the landfill or in nearby natural areas. (Testimony of Checca, Pitt, Linett, Perez, Exhibit 1, Exhibit 33) Three basic factors have undoubtedly accomplished reduction in the amount of leachate generated at the landfill. These are (a) attenuation and filtration of pollutants by unsaturated soils between and beneath the refuse cells, (b) biological assimilation by organisms living within the refuse cells and underlying soils, and (c) dilution upon contact with the ground water. A hydrogeologic study shows that the uppermost 14 feet of the aquifer immediately below the landfill represents only 0.2% of the total discharges with a ground water velocity of less than 0.1 foot per day. This part of the aquifer therefore provides considerable detention time for the water that percolates through the landfill. The strata, as well as the overlying organic marine soils, provide the absorption and assimilation that removes pollutants from the water. After water percolates through this layer, it reaches the highly permeable Miami oolite that carries about 43% of the ground water flow. The effects of soil absorption, filtration through the upper 14 feet of the aquifer, and dilution within the aquifer have demonstrably been sufficient to assimilate the water that percolates through the landfill. It is estimated that the time of travel of ground water from the landfill site to the closest discharge point in Biscayne Bay is approximately 68 years. Although the attenuation capability of the organic muck soil underlying the greater part of the landfill is high, the older area of the site in the southwestern portion which had been filled before the Munisport operation commenced, has no muck and consists primarily of sand with a higher rate of permeability. (Testimony of Checca, Pitt, Teas, Exhibits 1, 33) The fact that the organic muck material under the landfill is not uniform throughout the site, plus the fact that there have been various breaches in the permeable oolite layer below the soil, will, in the opinion of some experts, eventually lead to the generation and movement of a leachate plume into such breaches and ultimately to Biscayne Bay. These breaches consist of the deep lakes at the site, the Arch Creek Canal to the south of the site and a dredged excavation at the exit of that body of water into the bay some 3,600 feet distant from the landfill. Additionally, these experts postulate that the dike located on the eastern border of the site will not prevent leachate from moving into the surrounding mangrove area. It is therefore estimated that in the above ways, large amounts of leachate would enter the bay and adjacent wetlands within a period of five to ten years. (Testimony of Coker, Hudson, Pasley, Browder, Exhibits 12, 14, 29, 30) Although water monitoring at various levels in and at probable discharge points near the site have not found degradation of water quality, the applicants propose to address any future leachate problems in a variety of ways. These include continuous periodic testing of water quality and monitoring wells, excavation of a canal on the upland side of the site to intercept leachate and treatment of any contaminated water therein or by pumping the water to an interior lake for treatment. Based on the particular type of any degradation, chlorination and precipitators would be utilized. Long-range problems will be further reduced by the ultimate construction of the golf courses and placement of final soil and vegetative cover to reduce percolation of surface water. This will be aggravated to an undetermined degree, however, by periodic irrigation of the golf courses. (Testimony of Checca, Pitt, Kelman, Exhibits 1,33) During the early years of the Munisport operation, a number of violations of the conditions of the temporary operating permit occurred, but for the most part these were caused either through simple negligence of landfill personnel, breakdown of equipment, or introduction of unauthorized materials to the site by Munisport customers. In these situations, Munisport usually took prompt and effective action to prevent recurrence and to remedy the problem. For example, on one occasion in 1977, some 12 drums containing residue of a chemical substance deemed to constitute "hazardous waste" was brought into the site by persons unknown and was found leaking into the ground. A number of violations and warning notices were issued to Munisport by the Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM), primarily in 1976, involving the placement of tree cuttings and wood scraps into excavations containing water at the south end of the site. These occurred, however, during a period when Munisport was engaging in tests to determine the suitability of such operations in conjunction with DER. Additionally, in 1976 and 1977, Munisport was advised of violations in the placement of garbage in exposed water, uncovered garbage, and delivery of garbage after hours. Munisport has had a continuing problem over the years with the unauthorized delivery of hospital wastes from various customers to the landfill in spite of letters written to hospital facilities and delivery firms cautioning them concerning the prohibition against the introduction of such material to the landfill. DERM personnel concede, however, that the operation has been continuously improved and that it is well-conducted in comparison with other landfills in the country. However, they believe that lakes should not exist in landfills and that the North Miami landfill is too close to the wetlands. (Testimony of Morrissey, Karafel, Sobrino, Haddad, Checca, Exhibits 6-11, 17, 18, 20-24, 27, supplemented by testimony of Pafford and Exhibit 16) In a letter of January 17, 1977, DERM expressed concerns about the Munisport operation to DER. One of these concerns was that leachate would migrate to proposed golf course lakes and the resulting pollution would produce poor water quality. Although 1976 testing of then existing lakes at the site reflected unusually high amounts of fecal coliform, subsequent tests in late 1978 showed very little, but tests again in January, 1979, showed that several lakes were again somewhat high in coliform. Coliform is not considered to be a strong parameter in assessing the presence of leachate and amounts vary considerably from day to day in lake areas. Additionally, great numbers of birds are normally present on the landfill site during operations and contribute in raising coliform readings to some extent. Dade County has a current policy that does not permit lakes to be excavated on landfills operated by the county. (Testimony of Checca, Morrissey, Sobrino, Karafel, Kosakowski, Linett, Newman, Kelman, Perez, Exhibits 17, 19, 20, 24, 25, 31, 32, 37, 38)
Recommendation That a permit be issued to the City of North Miami, Florida and Munisport, Inc. to operate the solid waste disposal facility as described and under the conditions stated in the letter of the Department of Environmental Regulation, dated January 27, 1978, wherein it gave notice of its intent to issue the said permit. DONE and ENTERED, this 13th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: David Gluckman, Esquire 5305 Isabelle Drive Ken VanAssenderp, Esquire Tallahassee, Florida Smith, Young and Blue, P.A. Post Office Box 1833 Josepy D. Fleming, Esquire 620 Ingraham Building Marvin Sadur and 25 Southeast Second Avenue Richard J. Potash, Esquires Miami, Florida 33131 2000 L Street NW - Suite 612 Washington, D.C. 20036 Silvia Alderman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Beker Phosphate Corporation should be granted a hermit to construct an industrial waste water facility pursuant to chapter 403, Florida Statutes. By application, dated April 8, 1975, Beker Phosphate Corporation (hereinafter Beker) , sought a permit to construct an industrial waste water facility in Manatee County, Florida, from the Department of Pollution Control (now and hereinafter DER) . The application was received on April 11 and, after advising Beker that the application was incomplete a meeting was held on May 9th between DER and Beker representatives with the result that Beker filed a new application dated June 11, that was received by the DER in July. Further meetings were held in the fall of 1975 and additional in formation was received as to the application. On December 16, 1975, DER secretary. Jay W. Landers, Jr., issued a Notice Of Intent To Grant A Permit With Conditions. The conditions were unspecified in the letter of intent (Exhibit 1.) Subsequently, on December 23 and December 24, 1975, Sarasota County (hereinafter Sarasota) and the Town of Longboat Key (hereinafter Longboat Key), respectively, filed petitions with the DER alleging that their substantial interests would be adversely affected by approval of the permit application and setting forth in their petitions certain disputed questions of fact for determination. After a prehearing conference, Amended Petitions were filed by those parties to clarify and expand on such questions of fact and to resolve procedural matters. Additionally, during this period, George Browning, III, of Sarasota, Florida was granted status as an intervenor.
Findings Of Fact Beker proposes to construct a phosphate rock mine and beneficiation plant on a tract of approximately 11,000 acres in a predominately agricultural and ranching area of Manatee County about 10 miles from Myakka City, Florida. The mining will be performed by two dredges. One will mine overburden and return it to the mined-out area and the other will mine phosphate rock matrix which will be pumped to the beneficiation plant. The plant will consist essentially of two circuits. The first is a washer where the matrix pumped from the dredging operation is partially cleaned of clay and fine sand, and the coarser phosphate particles "pebbles" are separated as a product. The "fines" from the washing operation consist of small phosphate rock particles, sand, and clay. This mixture will be treated in the second section of the plant by "flotation" methods to recover the small phosphate rock particles as a product. During initial operation, the sand and clay will be stored in a temporary waste material storage area, but as the mining proceeds and the dredge pits open up, the sand and clay material will be pumped back to the dredge pits so that sand, and overburden will be mixed and redeposited to reclaim the land. Approximately 8 million gallons of fresh water per day will be drawn from the Floridian aquifer to be used in the flotation circuits. From the plant the water flows in two types of streams--one containing sand suspended in water and one containing clay suspended in water. Both streams flow into a settling pond surrounded by an earthen dam where sand and clay solids settle to the bottom. The clarified water is then decanted through six spillway structures into a hydraulic recirculation ditch outside the dam and flows back to the plant for re-use. The ponds and canals that make up the hydraulic circuit are planned to have sufficient capacity to contain rainwater falling on the site and pond system during the wet season when there are heavy rainfalls (approximately from May to September). Excess water will be decanted from the hydraulic recirculation ditch through a structure into a pipe and then discharged into Wingate Creek. The settling pond will occupy approximately 225 acres and its capacity will be about 8,458 acre- feet. The pond itself can be used to act as a reservoir and water can be built up in the pond during periods of high rainfall. It will not be necessary to release the water at any particular time. It can be released at will when the effluent contains a minimum of pollutant materials (Exhibit 1). Matrix is an unconsolidated mixture of phosphate pebbles and boulders of partly phosphatized limestone, quartz and clay. The washing operation removes unwanted oversized material and fine clays. The purpose of the flotation plant is to recover fine phosphate rock that might otherwise be lost. In the flotation process, flotation reagents, including sulfuric acid, number 2 fuel oil, tall oil, sodium hydroxide, and amines are used for treatment. The wastes are then moved to the settling pond where over a period of time the "slimes", (sands and clays) will settle to the bottom forming an impervious layer which will seal the pond. The settling process removes more than 90 percent of the contaminants from the influent. The coarser clay particles settle first and many of the fine particles settle in a process called "flocculation" by which electrical forces bring the particles together. However, some of the particles will not flocculate and remain suspended in the water. These extremely small particles constitute the total suspended solids that remain in the effluent when it is discharged from the settling area. They probably will not settle out entirely during their course from Wingate Creek into the Myaaka River and eventually to the Gulf of Mexico. However, even if it were assumed that such materials would settle somewhere between the point of discharge and Charlotte Harbor, over the entire 20 year proposed life of the mine they would form a deposit much less than 1/10th of an inch. Although it is technically possible to treat water to the degree that it would result in distilled water, realistic concepts of treatment establish that an additional settling or "polishing" pond for the proposed facility might not improve the quality of the wastewater finally discharged in state waters to any appreciable degree. Alternative proposals for the reduction of pollutants by additional processing, such as the intentional growth of water hyacinths in settling areas or use of chemical coagulants would result in creating other waste materials and thus be counterproductive (Testimony of Bromwell; Exhibit 1). The applicant's discharge of wastewater to Wingate Creek will average approximately 3.19 million gallons per day. However, since discharge will be effected primarily during periods of excessive rainfall, actual discharges can reach a maximum of about ten million gallons per day during this period. The effluent contained in such discharge will meet the test of at least 90 percent removal of organic and inorganic wastes specified by Rule 17-3.04(1), Florida Administrative Code, when measured by the influent into the settling pond and the effluent leaving that area. This treatment, however, will not produce an effluent equivalent to that produced by the "highest quality municipal waste treatment." The highest degree of treatment that has been reached by municipalities is "advanced waste treatment" as defined in Rule 17-3.04(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The water quality characteristics of the effluent will meet the standards of Rule 17-3.05 as to concentrations of those pollutants reasonably anticipated to be fond in the wastewater based on samples taken where the waters are discharged into Wingate Creek (Testimony of Gilgallon, Davis, Edwards, Heinzman, Bromwell, Bartow, Wellford, Exhibit 1). In preparing the application, no consideration was given to the need of meeting treatment standards for highest quality municipal waste treatment or advanced waste treatment. Neither did the recommending official of the DER, Mr. Edwards, then Regional Administrator for the Southwest Region, consider this standard because he had been advised by the DER legal staff that Rule 17-3.04(2) did not apply to Wingate Creek since it was not a tributary to one of the bodies of water listed in subparagraph (c) of the rule 17-3.04(2). This determination was based upon Resolution No. 74-83, September 17, 1974, of the Florida Pollution Control Board that was issued after legal challenges had been made to an interpretation by the Department of Pollution Control legal staff that Rule 17-3.04(2) required advanced wastewater treatment for industrial waste discharges. The Board, in its resolution, determined that since evidence had not been taken concerning treatment standards for industrial waste discharges at the time of adoption of the effluent standards for sanitary waste contained in Rule 17-3.04(2), the advanced wastewater treatment standards in the aforesaid rule would not be enforced against industrial dischargers pending full hearings on a new Rule to clearly express the Board's intent in this regard (Testimony of Gilgallon, Edwards; Exhibit 1). Special conditions that the Southwest Region, Department of Environmental Regulation, recommends should be attached to any issuance of a construction permit, other than standard conditions and those relating to other types of permits, are as follow: Approval by DER prior to the construction of any above grade phosphatic clay storage facility other than the initial settling pond. Removal efficiencies for oil and grease shall be a minimum of 90 percent and shall not exceed 14 milligrams per liter measured in the discharge effluent. Discharge effluent to Wingate Creek shall meet the water quality standards of Chapter 17-3.05(2) at the point of discharge prior to mixing with the receiving stream. Further treatment of the discharge will be required in the event compliance with proviso (c) above cannot be achieved or significant degradation of the receiving stream occurs as determined by the DER. In addition to required routine monitoring, a detailed analysis of the untreated and treated wastewater to be conducted once on representative samples during (1) month of July and (2) month of February. Such analyses shall, as a minimum, include all the parameters listed in 17-3:05(2). Applicants shall conduct an investigation into total retention possibilities of the effluent including, but not limited to, the following areas: recharge wells retention and storage of excess water during the "wet" season with subsequent reuse during the "dry" season for process and/or irrigation purposes. A report of these investigations shall be submitted prior to submission of operation permit application The location of monitoring wells shall be down gradient from the settling pond. Detailed proposal, subject to the DER approval, regarding exact location and number of wells to adequately ascertain the impact of seepage to be submitted no later than 90 days prior to commencement of operation. Bond to be posted for damages that may result from a clay settling area dam failure. Oral and written communications from the public were received at the hearing and included the following: Announcement by the County Attorney, Manatee County, that the county did not plan to appeal the DER Notice of Intent to Grant the permit (Statement of E.N. Fay, Jr.). The Division of Recreation and Parks, Department of Natural Resources, fears that the construction of the phosphate mine up-stream from the Myaaka diver State Park poses a serious potential threat to its aquatic habitat due to the possibility of a dam failure. It also fears that pollutants from the project will tend to settle as the river waters flow through the two lakes in the park. It therefore, opposes the construction until assurance can be given that proper safeguards have been taken to prevent such problems (Testimony of Alverez). The Longboat Key Garden Club believes that the project would involve too much water consumption and also that phosphate mining should be halted until further government studies are made to assure that the safety and health of the populace and the environment will not be endangered through polluted runoff and phosphate spills (Testimony of Monroe). The Save Our Bays Association in Manatee County has collected petitions from citizens in Manatee County requesting a referendum on a ballot this November for or against phosphate mining. The Association believes that such a vote should be taken before final decision is made on the subject. Its spokesman fears that if the quality and quantity of the drinking water is disrupted, it will interfere with continued tourist trade (Testimony of Howard Greer). The Palma Sola Parks Association opposes the Beker Application until there is greater assurance of environmentally safe mining (Testimony of Blankenship) A former physical and health education director is concerned about the fact that there has not been sufficient data collected on the effect of radioactive materials in runoff and waste. She believes there should be more research in these areas and asked that the public be protected from such hazards (Testimony of Mary Kay Greer). The Manasota-88 project for environmental qualities of 1968 and 1988 believes that issuance of the permit should be withheld until health implications can be determined concerning potential hazards to the Myakka and Manatee Rivers' watersheds (Exhibit 7). A former member of the Manatee County Planning Commission that approved the Beker application prior to action by the County Commission of Manatee County is in favor of the proposed project because Beker's plan to impound water will augment the water facilities of the county (Testimony of Reasoner). The City of Bradenton believes that since it is being required to meet advanced water treatment standards of discharge for sanitary sewage, Beker Phosphate Corporation should be required to meet similar standards (Testimony of Mayor A.K. Leach). A member of the Myakka City Civic Association who is an adjacent land owner to Beker Phosphate Corporation feels that the project is necessary in order to produce jobs for individuals in that area of the county (Testimony of Mizell). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is concerned that proposed construction of two dams by the applicant will destroy approximately (4) acres of mangrove areas, three acres of pasture land and about 185 acres of bottom land or hardwood habitat. It recommends an alternative method of backup levies constructed around the primary settling bases on the applicant's land to contain any spills and prevent destruction of the streams and associated wetlands (Testimony of Johnston) The Conservation Council of Manatee County believes that Beker's unique mining and reclamation plan will help the farming industry and also create necessary water reserviors and recreation areas, and therefore endorses its proposal to mine in Manatee County (Testimony of Kent, Exhibit 14). Petitions were submitted at the hearing from approximately 3,000 individuals living in Manatee and Sarasota Counties opposing the issuance of the permit because they believe that phosphate mining is dangerous to the quality and supply of the water and endangers the health of the people (Composite Exhibit 9, Testimony of Humphrey).
