The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for a septic tank permit application should be granted?
Findings Of Fact On July 29, 1987, Petitioner applied for a septic tank permit for a proposed individual sewage disposal system to serve a single family residence on Lot 40, Block P, Killearn Lakes Unit I (Unit 1), in Leon County, Florida. A septic tank system consists of a tank and a drainfield which is wholly or partly underground. The decision of whether to grant a septic tank system permit is greatly influenced by the elevation of the wet season water table in the area where the septic tank system will be located. Under normal circumstances, the elevation of the wet season water table can be determined by taking a boring of the ground in question using an auger. If water is found at the time the boring is conducted, that is an indication of where the water table is located. If no water is found, the elevation of the wet season water table can be determined by examining the soil removed from the ground for signs of mottling. Mottling is the discoloration of the soil caused by the interaction of water with the minerals in the soil. The process of mottling takes place over hundreds of years. Therefore, a rapid change in conditions may cause the elevation of the wet season water table to be different than what would be indicated by mottling. Because of the development of Unit I and the drainage method used in Unit I (sheetflow), the elevation of the wet season water table in Unit I is estimated to be between 12 and 20 inches higher than what is indicated by mottling. On July 7, 1987, a boring was taken on an indeterminate area on Lot 40, by Certified Testing, Inc., a private engineering firm. The evaluation of the boring resulted in mottling being present at a depth of 60 inches. On August 3, 1987, Ms. Teresa A. Hegg, an Environmental Health Specialist with HRS, took two borings on Lot 40. The first boring was taken in an area other than where the septic tank system's drainfield would be located. This boring resulted in mottling being present at a depth of 45 inches. The second boring was taken in the area where the septic tank system's drainfield would be located. This boring resulted in mottling being present at a depth of 22 inches. Based on the boring taken at the proposed site for the septic tank system, showing mottling at 22 inches, and the estimate that the wet season water table in Unit I is from 12 to 20 inches higher than mottling would indicate, the estimated wet season water table for Lot 40 is between 2 to 10 inches below the ground surface. Unit I has a history of septic tank system failures. Unit I was platted prior to January 1, 1972. There exists a very high probability that any septic tank system, even a mound system, installed in Lot P-40 will fail.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent issue a final order denying Petitioner's application for a septic tank permit. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4085 The Respondent has submitted proposed findings of fact which are addressed below. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RO ." The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection First phrase accepted. Remainder of paragraph supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. First two sentences accepted. Third sentence supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. Accepted. Accepted. 5,6,7,8,9,10 Supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. Accepted. Accepted. 13,14 Supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. 15. First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected; the wet season water table on Lot P-40 is from 2-10 inches below grade. Third sentence accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Salvatore A. Carpino, Jr., Esquire One Urban Centre, Suite 750 4830 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609 John R. Perry, Esquire Assistant District II Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2639 North Monore Street Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issues are: (1.) Whether Respondents' request for variance from requirements of Rule Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, should be granted. (2.) Whether Respondents are guilty of violation of certain provisions of Chapter 381 and Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapter 10D-6, Rule Chapter 17-550, and Rule Chapter 17-555, Florida Administrative Code, regulating the operation of onsite sewage disposal systems.
Findings Of Fact Respondent V.M.P. Corporation (VMP) operates a lounge known as Stud's Pub in Jacksonville, Florida. Licensed for 75 seats, the lounge actually contains 50-55 seats and employs five people full time. Additionally, 10-15 independent entrepreneurs known as dancers may be present at times. The dancers are not employees of Respondents. Less than 25 people, other than patrons, are present at the facility at any time. Respondent Vincent M. Paul (Paul) owns the facility and the corporation. The lounge is on lots that were platted prior to 1972. Petitioner is the statutory entity with authority for granting variances for onsite sewage disposal systems regulated by Petitioner pursuant to provisions of Section 381.0065(8)(a), Florida Statutes (1991). The lounge is serviced by a septic tank with a drainfield which is covered by an asphalt parking lot. The portion of the parking lot over the drainfield is bounded to the west by a dirt city street, to the north by other pervious surfaces, to the east by the lounge and to the south by the remainder of the asphalt parking lot. A sign on the premises which advertises the business is protected from automobile traffic by concrete barriers. The septic tank system and drainfield were installed prior to 1972 by a previous owner. Respondent Paul retrofitted the septic tank system after 1972. Respondent Paul was responsible for paving over the drainfield after he purchased the property. Petitioner's representatives inspected the lounge, determined the drainfield to be covered by the asphalt parking lot and requested Respondents to remove the asphalt covering. Respondents requested a variance pursuant to Rule 10D Administrative Code, for the asphalt covered drainfield and other deficiencies of the onsite sewage disposal system. Petitioner's review board recommended denial of the request on the basis that the variance would not constitute a "minor deviation" from rule requirements. Although the term is not defined by Petitioner's rule, Petitioner's usage of this term was the result of the consideration by Petitioner's review board of the application for variance within the context of Section 385.0065(8)(a), Florida Statutes, which authorizes Petitioner to grant variances only where the hardship is not intentionally caused by the applicant, where no reasonable alternatives exist and where no evidence of adverse effect upon public health or ground and surface waters is demonstrated. Respondent has no record of failure of the septic tank or drainfield. Water samples from the onsite potable water well filed with Petitioner tested below detectable limits for nitrates and coliforms, the only parameters Petitioner is required to analyze. Respondents' records of water flow or usage from the well into the lounge show daily flow rates of between 320 and 580 gallons, with an average rate of between 450 and 480 gallons. Respondent Paul is responsible for the installation of an unpermitted chlorinator on the water supply system which provided actual flow information. The only onsite water well has no grout sealant. It is the only well of which the parties are aware that lies within 100 feet of the septic system. The potable water well is located approximately 42 feet from the edge of the covered drainfield. The well head does not extend above line surface and there is no concrete pad around the wellhead. The exact depth of the well is unknown, although the well is located upgradient of the drainfield and a nearby junkyard. Denial of the variance would require that Respondents uncover the drainfield since there is no practically available offsite sewage system currently available. Soil in the area of the drainfield is classified as well- draining sand. Due to the impervious surface covering the drainfield, Petitioner's representative was unable, during his inspection, to discern any symptoms of drainfield failure in the form of "blow field should be totally unobstructed to allow aerobic processes to take place in the drainfield which will permit the breakdown of contaminants. A portion of Respondents' 1200 gallon septic tank is located partially under and immediately adjacent to Respondents' facility. A dousing tank which retains liquid waste and operates as part of the septic system is also totally covered by the asphalt pavement. Although there has been no detectable failure of the system, every eight or nine months Respondents have the septic tank and dousing tank pumped out. The tanks never get full.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby Recommended that a final order be entered by Petitioner denying the variance requested by Respondent with exception of such minimal distance as may be required to relocate the water well as far as possible from the drainfield on the Respondent property, and, Further Recommended that such final order also assess Respondent Paul an administrative penalty of $500 for each of the four violations contained in the Administrative Complaint which were proven in this proceeding for a total of $2000, and a continuing assessment of $500 per day for each violation for a total of up to $2000 per day after first allowing Respondents a 60 day period within which to correct all four violations. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of May, 1993.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent installed a septic system without a permit; whether a permit was required for the installation; whether the installation was of inadequate size; whether the Respondent caused the disconnection of an existing system without a permit, and whether that system was improperly abandoned. A related issue is whether the proposed $1,500.00 fine should be imposed if the violations are proven or what, if any, fine is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged, in pertinent part, by its organic statutes and rules, with regulating the practice of septic tank contracting and the installation and repair of septic tank and drainfield waste disposal systems and with licensure of such contractors pursuant to Rule Chapter 64E, Florida Administrative Code. The Respondent, Trammel Fowler (Fowler), is a licensed septic tank contractor regulated by the statutes and rules cited herein. Fowler has never been issued any citations or been subjected to discipline under the relevant statutes and rules enforced by the Petitioner with regard to septic system design, construction, installation and repair. He has worked in the septic tank installation business for 19 years. The Respondent installed a septic tank and drainfield system at 5642 Old Bethel Road, Crestview, Florida, a residential construction project (home) in 1993. The original septic tank system installed by the Respondent was finally approved on June 11, 1993. The home site at issue was originally designed to have the septic tank and drainfield system located in the backyard of the residence. Plumbing errors by the general contractor and the plumbing sub-contractor caused the plumbing system to be "stubbed-out" to the front of the house so that the septic tank and drainfield system was installed in the front of the house rather than in the backyard as originally designed and approved by the Petitioner. Additional excavation work was required at the site, which caused the soil type to change in the front of the house where the septic tank and drainfield were to be installed. This in turn required the Okaloosa County Health Department to require additional drainfield square footage to be added to the previously approved 600 square feet of drainfield, so that the drainfield installed in the front of the house by the Respondent ultimately encompassed 800 square feet. Thus, although the original site plans approved by the Okaloosa County Health Department were not followed, subsequent modifications to the system resulted in the septic tank system being fully approved by the Petitioner (through the Okaloosa County Health Department), on June 11, 1993. In the ensuing months, landscaping problems at the site caused surface water to collect around and above the drainfield area. This, coupled with a continuous water flow from the residence caused by leaking appliances, and particularly the commode, resulted in raw or partially treated wastewater becoming exposed on the surface of the ground, as a sanitary nuisance. This was caused as the septic tank and drainfield system became saturated by the excess water from the two referenced sources. This caused the failure of that septic tank and drainfield system within nine months of its original installation, as was noted on March 4, 1994, by the Department's representative Mr. Sims. It is undisputed that the Respondent, Mr. Fowler, did not cause or contribute to this septic tank system failure. He constructed the system as designed and approved by the Department (or as re- approved by the Department in June 1993 with the relocation of the system to the front yard of the residence and with the augmentation of the drainfield referenced above). The Department was aware of the failure of the original system in the front yard of the residence as early as March 1994. There is no evidence that an actual permit for repair of that system was ever issued. Mr. Fowler maintains that the Department had a policy at that time of authorizing repairs to systems that failed within one year of original installation, as this one did, without a written, formal permit process, but rather by informal approval and inspection of the repair work. The Petitioner disagrees and Mr. Sims, the Petitioner's representative, states that a permit was required, although no fee was charged. Indeed in 1994 a rule was enacted authorizing issuance of a permit for repair work for systems that failed within one year of original installation without being accompanied by the charging of a fee for that permit. In any event, prior to the rule change, repairs were authorized for failures within one year by the Department without a permit, but were required to be inspected and a notation made in the permit file or in some cases on a "nuisance complaint card," so authorization and inspection was supposed to be documented. When by the time the repair was effected by the installation of the backyard septic tank and drainfield system or "overflow-system" in February 1995, the rule change requiring issuance of a repair permit without fee had become effective. There is evidence that the Respondent was aware of this since, sometime in 1994, he had obtained a permit authorizing repair of a septic tank and drainfield site on "Windsor Circle" as shown by the Petitioner's Exhibits 6 and 7 in evidence. Be that as it may, the Respondent contends that Mr. Brown, the environmental specialist and inspector for the Department, met with him at the repair site in question and at least verbally authorized the repair of the system by installation of the septic tank and drainfield in the backyard of the residence; to be connected to the sewer line which also was connected with the malfunctioning system in the front yard of that residence. Mr. Brown in his testimony purports to have no memory of authorizing the repair work or inspecting it and seems confused as to whether he met with the Respondent at the site. The Petitioner acknowledges, as does Mr. Brown, that he has had problems since that time with memory lapses, attendant to two life-threatening injuries, which have apparently caused problems with memory loss. He purportedly suffers from post-traumatic stress syndrome and is taking medication with regard thereto. There is no dispute that he has problems with recall. Moreover, there is evidence that Mr. Brown met with the Respondent at an address on Old Bethel Road for some reason, as shown by a notation in Department records in February 1995. Consequently, while there is no doubt that the repair work in question was done without a written permit, there is evidence to corroborate Mr. Fowler's testimony to the effect that Mr. Brown inspected and reviewed the repair system while it was actually being installed by Fowler and approved it. Thus, it is possible that Mr. Fowler was under a good faith impression that the Department had a policy of inspecting and approving repair work without there being a permit related to it at the time when he installed the secondary "overflow" system at the Old Bethel Road site in February of 1995, even though that impression may have been legally mistaken, because the rule requiring a permit at no fee for repair work was already in effect. In any event, Mr. Fowler installed the so-called "repair system" in February 1995, which he has termed an "overflow" system designed to augment the treatment capability of the previously-approved system installed in the front yard at that residence. That system, as found above, consisted of 800 square feet of drainfield. The "overflow" system installed in the backyard by Mr. Fowler in February 1995 without the permit, has only 300 square feet of drainfield. This is clearly well below the minimum required for such a system and tends to support Mr. Fowler's testimony that it was intended really as a repair job in the form of a overflow system to handle extra flow that the original system in the front yard would not be able to handle in performing the intended treatment function. It is unlikely that Mr. Fowler, with or without a permit, would have installed a system he clearly would know to be of only one-half (or less) of the adequate size and treatment capability for the residence, if it had been intended to be a separately functioning independent treatment system for the residence. In fact, the "overflow" system was connected through a "T" or "Y" fitting in the sewer line outfall pipe from the house with the original septic tank and drainfield system in the front yard of the residence, so that flow could go to both systems simultaneously from the residential sewer line. There is conflicting testimony as to whether such a dually draining system could work properly. One septic tank contractor testified that it could and could adequately split the flow between the two septic tank and drainfield systems so as to perform adequate treatment without backups or overflows, while a witness for the Department testified that such a split-fitting could cause stoppages and therefore sewage backups. Be that as it may, the installation of the system in a connected fashion to the original system supports Mr. Fowler's testimony and contention that the system installed in the backyard, with 300 square feet of drainfield, was intended as a repair system merely to augment the treatment function being provided by the poorly functioning original system in the front yard. In fact, the preponderant evidence shows that, with the elimination of leakage from the appliances in the house and the correction of the water-pooling problem caused by improper landscaping, that the system would function adequately thus connected. Indeed, when the plumber or the general contractor for the residence disconnected the original front-yard septic tank system from the overflow system, so that all of the sewage in the house went to the overflow system with the smaller drainfield, that system still functioned adequately for one and one-half years until failure in approximately August 1997. It is undisputed that the Respondent had no part in the unreported and unapproved disconnection of the original front system from the overflow tank and drainfield system in the backyard. The evidence shows a preponderant likelihood that the total system would have functioned adequately indefinitely had the two remained connected so that sewage could flow to the front yard system with the 800 square feet of drainfield, with the excess water flow problems referenced above already corrected. Mr. Brown, the Department environmental specialist and inspector, did not recall specifically whether he had been at the Old Bethel Road site at issue, but testified that it was definitely possible. He testified that the time entry notation he made admitted into evidence as Exhibit No. 3, may have reflected an inspection for a repair job at the Old Bethel Road site. Mr. Brown admitted that he was present on Old Bethel Road in February 1995, but did not recall his purpose of being there. His testimony thus did not contradict the testimony of Trammel Fowler. Mr. Brown also testified that he was aware of problems at the Old Bethel Road site and testified that Mr. Wykle of the Department and Mr. Sims were also aware of problems at the Old Bethel Road site. Douglas Sims of the Department testified that the two systems, the original front tank and drainfield and the overflow tank and drainfield installed in the backyard by Mr. Fowler could not work together if they were connected. This is belied by testimony of a septic tank contractor, Ken Arnett, who was a rebuttal witness called by the Department. Mr. Arnett testified that he would expect a system of the type contemplated by Mr. Fowler and Mr. Brown to function properly. It thus seems from the preponderant weight of the evidence that the reason the Old Bethel Road residential system quit functioning properly, in approximately August 1997, is that the plumbing contractor, at the behest of the residential building contractor for the residence constructed there, disconnected the overflow system from the original front yard system, so that all the house effluent was going to the overflow system, which was never intended to have a complete, standard-sized drainfield for such a dwelling, prevalent soil conditions, elevations and the like. Mr. Brown, a long time employee of the Department was familiar with the statewide rules affecting septic tank contractors and installation and familiar with local department rules and policies relating to repairs. He testified that for a period of time in the early 1990's, there was an unwritten policy by the Okaloosa County Health Department that some repair permits would be waived for certain repairs provided a final inspection by the Department was made. He stated that if the septic tank system failed within one year under certain circumstances, a repair permit would be waived as long as the Department was aware of the repair. Mr. Brown could not recall when the policy ended, but estimated it to be sometime between 1995 and 1997. He called the discontinuation of the local policy to waive repair permits a "gradual phase out." Mr. Brown also recalled that the Okaloosa County Health Department's unwritten, local policy concerning waiver of repair permits was known and relied upon by septic tank contractors in certain situations. Cecil Rogers, a long-time septic tank contractor who dealt with the Okaloosa County Health Department regularly, testified that there was a standard policy to allow repairs to be made to septic tank systems that failed within one year without requiring a permit. There thus seems to have been an unwritten policy or practice among septic tank contractors and the Okaloosa County Health Department to the effect that if a system failed within one year and the contractor was willing to repair the system without cost to the homeowner, that the permit would be waived as long as the system or repair could be inspected by the Department. The system originally installed which failed appears to have been installed before the effective date of the rule requiring that a no-charge permit be obtained for repair work. The repair work in question, the installation of the overflow system, appears to have been effected after the effective date of the new rule. It also appears that Mr. Fowler knew of the new rule because of his obtaining a permit for repair work at the Windsor Circle repair site in 1994. It also would appear that Mr. Brown likely verbally approved and inspected the repair work at the subject site, giving Mr. Fowler the impression that he was authorized to go ahead and make the repair by installing the overflow system. Thus, although he may have technically violated the rule requiring a no-charge permit for repair work, it does not appear that he had any intent to circumvent the authority of the Department, since the preponderant evidence shows that Mr. Brown knew of and approved the installation. Thus, in this regard, a minimal penalty would be warranted. Moreover, after the original septic system at the Old Bethel Road site failed in March of 1994, through no fault of Fowler, Fowler paid to make the repair by installing the overflow system at his own expense. The original new home purchaser at that site, and Mr. Fowler's customer, Mr. Wayne Aaberg, thus did not sustain any personal expenses for the repair work performed by Fowler. The Petitioner did not present any evidence to establish that the repairs made by Fowler caused the septic tank system at Old Bethel Road to fail. The Petitioner, through the testimony of environmental manager Douglas Sims, itself established that the plumbing contractor actually disconnected the front system from the overflow system and made a physical connection only to the rear system installed by Mr. Fowler, rather than Fowler, and without Mr. Fowler's knowledge. The Petitioner, apparently through Douglas Sims, failed to conduct an investigation to determine which party actually was responsible for physically abandoning or disconnecting the original front system from the home and from the overflow system prior to the charges being filed against Mr. Fowler. Mr. Fowler did not cause the physical disconnection of the two systems and the residence and is not a licensed plumber. He did not, during the course of his contracting business for septic tanks and drainfields make physical connections or disconnections to dwelling units, but instead left that to the responsibility of the general contractor and/or the plumbing contractor. The Petitioner presented no evidence establishing any monetary harm to any customer of the Respondent. The disconnection of the systems which caused the failure was not shown to have been the responsibility nor fault of Mr. Fowler. Rather, any monetary harm to the homeowner who owned the residence when the failure occurred in August 1997, after the original repair installation had been paid for by Mr. Fowler was caused by the plumbing contractor and/or the general contractor, Kemp Brothers, who directed the plumbing contractor to disconnect the original front system from the overflow system. Consequently, any monetary damage caused by fixing the failure which occurred in August 1997, and which engendered the subject dispute, was not caused by Mr. Fowler. Finally, Mr. Douglas Sims of the Department, testified that he knew of two other un-permitted repairs by septic tank contractors which were known to the Department. In both of those cases, the contractors were only issued a Letter of Warning. Mr. Sims testified that if the Respondent herein had made repairs to the existing system at his own cost after the failure occurring in August of 1997, then the Department would have only issued a Letter of Warning. Mr. Fowler paid to fix the original system in February 1995, but felt that monetary responsibility for the August 1997 failure was not his fault and thus did not offer to pay for that.
Recommendation Accordingly, 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 finding that the Respondent effected repair work to a septic tank and drainfield system without the required written permit but that, in view of the above-found and concluded extenuating circumstances, that a minimal penalty of a letter of warning be issued to the Respondent by the Department and that the citation for violation, in all other respects, be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of January, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of January, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney M. Johnson, Esquire Department of Health Northwest Law Office 1295 West Fairfield Drive Pensacola, Florida 32501 Matthew D. Bordelon, Esquire 2721 Gulf Breeze Parkway Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health Bin A00 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Kyle Brothers Land Company, Inc. filed its application with the Department of Environmental Regulation to excavate four canals and to unplug two canals which they had already dug within its development in Port Pine Heights located on Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida. The application of Kyle Brothers Land Company, Inc. was introduced as Composite Exhibit No. 1 and a plat of the proposed development was introduced as Exhibit 9. The proposed activity would be constructed on Class 3 waters as defined in Chapter 17-3, F.A.C. Test data submitted shows that the water quality of the water in the existing canals meets or exceeds the standards established in Section 17-3.09, F.A.C. The proposed canals, as well as the existing canals, are being developed as residential home sites. Two potential threats exist to the maintenance of water quality standards within the canals. The first threat is the short-term effect of increased turbidity of the waters due to the construction of the proposed activity. The second threat is the long-term effect of the increased pollution of the waters resulting from waste disposal through proposed septic tank systems to be used in the residential home sites adjoining the proposed and existing canals. The permit application appraisal, Exhibit 2, indicates that the short- term effects of increased turbidity could be controlled by the use of plugs, screens, and daily testing for turbidity and dissolved oxygen. The evidence further shows a variance in the depth of the existing canals and the two plugged canals. The two plugged canals and several of the existing canals have a depth greater than the central canal. The variance in depth permits the accumulation of debris and silt in the finger canals which under certain conditions could be stirred up and become suspended in the waters of the canals increasing the turbidity of the canals and violating the water quality standards. To prevent this from occurring these canals would have to be filled to bring them to the depth of the central canal. The long-term threat to water quality in the canals is the introduction into the canals of nutrients and chemicals attributable to surface water runoff and the proposed septic tank systems to be utilized on the residential home sites. Control of surface water runoff can be obtained by backs loping the uplands away from the canals. The control of nutrient loading associated with the septic tank systems is more complex. The Declaration of Restrictions for Port Pine Heights, Exhibit 7, recites that sewage disposal shall be by septic tank or central disposal plant. However, the plans submitted by the Applicant do not indicate any provision for establishment of a central disposal plant. Further, under the provisions of the deed restrictions there is no requirement that a resident of Port Pine Heights use a central disposal plant even if such a system were available. The current residents of Port Pine Heights currently use septic tank waste disposal systems; however, the number of current residents is substantially less than the number of residents that Port Pine Heights is designed to accommodate. The disposal of sewage by septic tanks will result in the introduction in the canal waters of partially treated effluent through exchange with subsurface waters in the porous limestone substrata present in the area. To maintain the water quality at the required level, the waste effluent from the residential development must be prevented from entering into the canal. Because of the substantial difference in the level of development existing in Port Pine Heights currently and the potential level of development, the test data and the projections based upon that data do not give reasonable assurances that the increased pollutions attributable to the use of septic tanks would not violate water-quality standards.
Recommendation Until the Applicant makes a reasonable, affirmative showing that the long- term effect of the activity will not violate the water-quality standards, the application should be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of October, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION KYLE BROTHERS LAND COMPANY, INC. Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 76-607 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact On or about October 30, 1984, Lawrence E. Bennett, a consultant engineer for Peninsula, forwarded to DER's domestic waste engineering section an application to construct/operate a domestic wastewater treatment and disposal system along with the appropriate plans and a check for the fee. The package included proposals for construction of a 300,000 gpd splitter box and addition of a 100,000 gpd contact stabilization plant. Thereafter, on May 22, 1985, Mr. Bennett submitted a revised copy of the application pertaining to the 100,000 gpd expansion initially submitted as above. The revised application reflected Peninsula's proposed outfall to the Halifax River which was applied for under separate permit. By application dated October 7, 1983, as revised on May 15, 1985, Peninsula proposed to construct an outfall discharge into the Halifax River from the secondary treatment plant. By letter dated October 29, 1984, Mr. Bennett advised DER, inter alia, that the discharge rate would be an ADF of 1.25 mgd. The application for the additional 100,000 gpd plant and splitter box also provided for a chlorination facility. This expansion was needed because 200,000 gpd capacity is already committed to serve current residents and customers of the utility. The new construction is designed to accommodate established future demand. In Mr. Bennett's opinion, the design of this facility will accommodate all DER criteria and standards. The outfall facility proposed in the second project will be a pvc forced main for a part of the distance with iron pipe for the remainder and a lift station attached to pump the effluent to a point in the river selected where the river is deep enough to meet DER water criteria. The initial permit application on this project called for discharge into a portion of the river which did not meet water quality standards. As a result; DER suggested discharge point closer to the center of the river, and this change is now planned. At this point, the outflow will meet DER standards. Intents to issue the permits, as modified, were issued in August 1985. Peninsula has also filed for permits with the Florida Public Utilities Commission, the United States EPA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for these projects. The plans are based on the estimated population expansion called for in the next few years. Peninsula is fully capable, financially, of providing and paying for the projected improvements. In the past, it has always provided sufficient funding to do that which is called for under its permits and which is necessary. The waters in question here are Class III waters of the State, mainly recreational. There is no shellfish harvesting in the area because of the pollution of the Halifax River, condition which has existed since at least 1941. Results of tests conducted by experts for Peninsula show the quality of the water presently coming out of the treatment plant is cleaner than that currently existing in the Halifax River. The outfall pipe in question will have the capability of handling approximately 1,200,000 gpd. Latest reports from the water treatment plant indicate that the current average daily flow is 150,000 gpd representing approximately 75% of capacity. The design estimated for this project was based on a 250 gpd per unit use rate multiplied by the estimated number of units presently existing and to be constructed in the period in question. It is estimated however, that within two to three years even this project will be insufficient and Peninsula will have to file an additional request for expansion. Construction will have no detrimental environmental effect on the waters of the Halifax River. Mr. Bennett recommends discharge into the river rather than pumping the effluent backup to Port Orange because the local dissipation rate into the Halifax River, which is called for under these projects, is much quicker than that at Port Orange. Studies run on siting of the outfall pipe location which is close to Daggett Island included studies relating to dilution calculation and water quality of the effluent versus water quality of the river near the outfall. The project was, therefore, sited in such a manner as to provide for the least possible detrimental effect. Those studies, however, were for the original outfall location, not the present location as proposed by DER which is approximately 150 to 200 feet away. In the experts' opinion, however, there is very little difference in the two sites. The Daggett Island site is not unique in any way. It is a mangrove swamp of approximately 3 to 4 acres with nothing on it. Once the pipe is buried, it will be difficult to know that it is there. Even during construction, there would be little detrimental effect or disruption to the river ecology. Mr. Bennett's conclusions are confirmed by Mr. Miller; a DER engineer specializing in wastewater facility permits who has reviewed the plans for expansion of the plant for completeness and adequacy and found that they were both. The approval of the outfall pipe initially was made in Tallahassee based on the original siting. He reviewed it again, however, and determined that both projects are environmentally sound and conform to the DER standards. Rule 17-6, Florida Administrative Code, requires surface water discharge to have secondary treatment activity prior to discharge and the discharge cannot exceed 20% 80D and suspended solids. According to DER studies; the secondary treatment afforded the water at this location was adequate with the caveat that the District might want to require an extension of the outfall to the main channel of the river to promote tidal flushing of the effluent. It was this change which was; in fact, made by the District office. Without the change, the incoming tide would take the wastewater up into Daggett Creek. By moving it as suggested, west of the point of Daggett Island, the tide would go up river rather than into the creek taking the effluent with it. Concern over the creek is due to its limited natural flushing as opposed to the greater natural flushing of the river. It was the intent of all parties to achieve the desired result and move the outfall point; if at all possible, at no increase in cost. Consequently, the pipeline was moved at the same length with a slight possible addition to take the outlet to the same depth and this change became a condition to the issuance of the permit. The Peninsula will also need a dredge and fill permit in order to accomplish the work in question. The outfall plans (both construction and discharge) meet the requirements set forth in the pertinent provisions of Rule 17-6, Florida Administrative Code. DER evaluated post- construction, concluding that the new point source discharge would not violate these standards. However, prior to approval of these projects, DER did not perform a biological, ecological, or hydrographic survey in the area. As a result, it cannot be said that the criteria outlined in Rule 17-4.29(6), Florida Administrative Code, will not be adversely affected by the outfall pipe. Nonetheless, these surveys were not deemed necessary here. EPA denial of the NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit, would have no impact on DER's intent to issue the instant permits. NPDES permits have no bearing on the state permitting process. If the NPDES permit is denied, the utility cannot discharge its effluent into the river. The state permit merely authorizes the construction. The NPDES permit applies to the outfall portion of the project, not to the treatment plant. Only if it could be shown there was a longstanding adverse effect on the water quality so as to bring it below standards, would this construction not be permitted. The depth of the water in the proposed area of the outfall is five feet. A 12-inch pipe would extend below the soil with an upturn to exit into the bottom of the river. Short term impacts of actual construction are not relevant to the permitting process. If there are any, they would be related to and considered in the dredge and fill permitting process. This conclusion is supported by the testimony of Jan Mandrup-Poulsen, a DER water quality specialist who, in his analysis of the instant projects, first looked at the plans for the outfall just a week before the hearing. By this time, the water quality section of DER had previously considered the project and he is familiar with the suggested change in the outfall location. In November 1985, he spent several days on a boat on the Halifax River in this area collecting data. His inquiry and examination showed that in the area in question, there are no grass beds, oyster beds, or anything significant that would be adversely affected by the location of the pipe and the outlet. The pipe outlet, as suggested, is far enough out into the river to keep it under sufficient water at all times to promote adequate flushing. In his opinion, the proposed discharge will be quickly diluted and will not violate the standards or other criteria set out in Section 17-3.121, Florida Administrative Code. In contrast to the above, Mr. Richard Fernandez, a registered civil engineer with a Master's Degree in environmental engineering, who did a study of these projects for TPI, indicated that the County 201 plan relating to this area, mandated by the federal government, calls for the eventual closing of all independent wastewater treatment plants with ultimate delivery of all wastewater to the Port Orange facility. If implemented, this plan calls for the conversion of the Peninsula facility to a pump station for the transmittal of effluent to Port Orange. In his opinion, the proposed discharge standard, as evaluated here, for the secondary treatment facility, is very high for such a facility. He feels the surface water discharge content of dissolved oxygen and suspended solids should be lower. In addition, he is of the opinion that the degree of treatment of discharged water required by the facilities in question here is too low and lower than typical secondary discharge points elsewhere in the area. Nonetheless, Mr. Fernandez concludes that while the intended facility here would probably not lower the quality of river water below standards, it is not in the public interest to construct it. Having considered the expert testimony on both sides, it is found that the construction requested here would not create sufficient ecological or environmental damage to justify denial. The proposals in the 201 plan calling for the transmittal of all effluent to Port Orange would not be acceptable to DER. The cost of such a project and the ecological damage involved would be so great as to render the project not even permittable. The currently existing percolation ponds used by the facility at Port Orange are not adequate to serve current needs and leech pollutants into the surrounding waterway. While the exact transmission routes called for under the 201 plan are not yet set, there would be substantial ecological problems no matter what routing is selected. There would be substantial damage to bird habitat, mangrove, and other protected living species unless some way were found to get the pipe across the river in an environmentally sound fashion. Consequently, DER has taken the position that the current proposals by Peninsula are superior to any plan to transmit waste to Port Orange.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED THAT DER: Enter an order dismissing with prejudice Volusia County's Petition in DOAH Case No. 85-3029 and, Issue permits to Peninsula Utilities, Inc., for the construction of a 100,000 gpd expansion to its existing wastewater treatment plant and to construct a river outfall line as was called for in the amended specifications listed in the application for this project. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Martin S. Friedman, Esquire Myers, Kenin, Levinson & Richards 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301. Deborah Getzoff, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lester A. Lewis, Esquire Coble, McKinnon, Rothert, Barkin, Gordon, Morris and Lewis, P.A. P. O. Drawer 9670 Daytona Beach, Florida 32020 Ray W. Pennebaker, Esquire Assistant County Attorney P. O. Box 429 Deland, Florida 32720 Victoria Tschinkel Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings Of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, TPI 1-2. Accepted in paragraph 17. 3-4. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Peninsula 1-13. Accepted in the Findings of Fact of the Recommended Order. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, DER 1. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 1 and 2. 2-3. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 5. 4-5. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 20 and 21. 6. 7. Accepted in Finding of Fact 19. 8. Accepted in Finding of Fact 14. 9. Accepted in Finding of Fact 9. 10. Accepted in Finding of Fact 8 and 21. 11. Accepted in Finding of Fact 14 and 17. 12-13. Accepted in Finding of Fact 14 and 17. 14-15. Rejected as a statement of evidence and not a Finding of Fact. Accepted in Finding of Fact 17. Recitation of Mr. Miller's testimony is not a Finding of Fact. The conclusions of Mr. Mandrup- Poulsen's testimony is not a Finding of Fact. Recitation of Mr. Mandrup-Poulsen's testimony testimony is not a Finding of Fact. Accepted in Finding of Fact 23. Recitation of testimony is rejected as not a Finding of Fact. Conclusions drawn from that testimony accepted in Finding of Fact 24.
The Issue This case concerns the entitlement of Petitioner to be granted a permit to operate a .0075 MGD wastewater treatment facility with reclaimed water applied through spray irrigation. See Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17- 610, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The exceptions filed by Cordes are deficient either in lacking materiality or in failing to cite to any Support in the record. The Department cannot substitute its interpretation of the facts unless a review of the whole record shows that the findings made by the Hearing Officer are not supported by competent and Substantial evidence. See, e.g., Tuveson v. Florida Governors Council on Indian Affairs, Inc., 495 So.2d 790, 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), rev. denied, 504 So.2d 767 (Fla. 1987). A review of the record in this case shows that, with one exception, competent and substantial evidence does support each of the findings of fact to which Cordes takes exception. Exception 1 objects that contrary to the finding in paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order, Cordes submitted the information requested by the Department, on time. The exception also urges that the Department misled Cordes, because the additional information requested by the Department to complete the first application (the short form) for renewal differed from the bases ultimately relied on by the Department in denying the application. The Hearing Officer found that the Department had denied the first application for renewal because of a delay in providing the additional information. Cordes points to no evidence in support of his exception to the finding that there was a delay. The transcript of the hearing in this matter reveals that Cordes's own witness admitted that there was a delay in providing the requested information, leading to the denial of the short-form application and a request for submittal of the long-term application, instead. As for the charge that the Department misled Cordes, Exception 1 confuses the two permit proceedings. The request for information on the short-form application is irrelevant to the denial of the long-form application at issue. The alleged discrepancy between the additional information requested and the bases for ultimately denying the application is also immaterial. The Department cannot estop itself from denying an application on one ground (on which the information originally submitted with the application is adequate) merely by requesting additional information on another ground. See generally State Department of Revenue v. Anderson, 403 So.2d 397 (Fla. 1981). I therefore reject all of Exception 1. Exception 2 attacks the findings in paragraphs 9-12 of the Recommended Order on pollution problems resulting from Cordes's Spray irrigation System. Cordes argues that because the Department (and a complaining neighbor) allegedly suggested that Cordes change his method of spray irrigation to a garden hose and sprinkler system, the Department should be estopped from denying the permit. The testimony on whether a Department representative suggested the use of a garden hose is conflicting. Likewise, although Cordes's engineer testified that no pollution problems had resulted from using the garden hose for Spray irrigation, the engineers from the Department testified that ponding and consequent nutrient-loading problems would result from that method and had actually been observed at the facility in question. Because competent Substantial evidence Supports the findings in paragraphs 9-12 of the Recommended Order, I will not disturb them. As for the estoppel argument, that is addressed below, in the rulings on the exceptions to conclusions of law. I therefore must reject Exception 2. I accept Exception 3, which challenges the Hearing Officer's finding in paragraphs 15-18 of the Recommended Order that Cordes' expert witness stated in the first application for permit renewal that the system had a storage capacity of three days, yet testified at the hearing that the Storage capacity was Sixteen hours. Neither the exception nor the finding, however, is material to the decision in this case, because other grounds form the basis for the decision, as explained below. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Cordes's exceptions to the conclusions of law fare no better. At the outset, I note that Cordes did not number his exceptions to the conclusions of law. I shall take them up in the order in which Cordes presented them. The first such exception to the conclusions of law conclusorily asserts that the decision in State Department of Revenue v. Anderson, 403 So.2d 397 (Fla. 1981), is distinguishable but fails to identify the specific basis for distinguishing it. See Fla. Admin. Code Rule 17-103.200(1) (requiring that the grounds for exceptions be bet forth with particularity). The Hearing Officer cited the Anderson case in support of his conclusion that the Department did nothing to estop it from denying the application at issue. The court in Anderson noted that estoppel will be applied only rarely to the state and only in exceptional circumstances. The court set forth the general test for finding such an estoppel, requiring (1) a representation of material fact contrary to a position asserted later by the person or entity to be estopped, (2) reasonable reliance on that representation by the person claiming the estoppel, and (3) detriment to that person as a result of relying on the representation. Id. at 398. The court specifically pointed out that the state cannot be estopped through mistaken statements of the law. Id. (citing Department of Revenue v. Hobbs, 368 So.2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA), appeal dismissed, 378 So.2d 345 (Fla. 1979); Austin v. Austin, 350 So.2d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 357 So.2d 184 (Fla. 1978)). Even assuming (contrary to the finding of the Hearing Officer supported by competent substantial evidence) that a representative of the Department told Cordes at some point that the use of a garden hose would satisfy the legal requirements for spray irrigation as asserted by Cordes, that mistaken statement of law would provide no basis for estoppel. Moreover, the inadequate storage capacity of the system and its proximity to a potable well provide other grounds that require disapproval of the application. In any event, the complaint that the Department misled Cordes is contrary to the Hearing Officer's well-supported findings of fact. I reject this exception. Cordes then attacks the Hearing Officer's conclusion of mixed fact and law that the evidence presented by Cordes at the hearing did not overcome the showing of the problems associated with the lack of sufficient capacity of the storage system and the proximity of the irrigation field to a potable well. Cordes argues that the Department allows an exemption from the storage capacity requirement in some circumstances and implicitly granted Cordes such an exemption by approving the permit for the facility in 1983. But the record does not show that Cordes ever requested an exemption or even addressed the issue at the hearing. Moreover, the provision of exemptions by rule for applicants in general (who comply with the requirements for the exemption) does not demonstrate the adequacy of the storage system at Cordes's facility. Nor does the granting of a permit for the facility in 1983 necessarily imply that the Department granted any exemption for the facility. Rather, the Department may well have made a mistake of law in issuing the permit then without addressing the question of an exemption. On the record before me, and in light of the well-settled law as explained above, I cannot conclude that Cordes has shown any basis for estopping the Department on this issue. The complaint by Cordes that the Department never advised him that it would require a larger storage tank until he received the permit denial letter overlooks the existence of the rule requiring three days storage capacity. See Fla. Admin. Code Rule 17- 610.414(2)(c). The complaint that the Department did not request additional information on this point is immaterial. The information submitted with the permit application and confirmed at the hearing showed clearly that the storage capacity (sixteen hours) failed to satisfy the rule, in the absence of an exemption. I reject the exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion on the adequacy of the storage capacity of the facility. Likewise without merit is' Cordes's exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the spray irrigation field is located too close to a potable well to meet the requirements of rule 17- 610.421(3) of the Florida Administrative Code. The evidence showed that the field is only 200 feet from a potable well. Cordes's complaint that the application form did not request information about the proximity of the field to potable wells but only to shallow water supply wells of any kind is immaterial. Regardless of the form of the application, an applicant must meet the requirements of the rules to show entitlement to a permit. The Department did not deny the application for lack of information but for lack of a sufficient buffer zone between the irrigation field and the potable well. The information submitted was sufficient for the Department to determine that the facility would not meet the buffer zone requirement. Without explication, Cordes quotes from a letter granting his nursing center an exemption from monitoring requirements in 1983. Cordes fails to show the relevance of that exemption from monitoring to the adequacy of the buffer zone in question, given the specific requirements of rule 17-610.421(3). I therefore reject this final exception.
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts and the conclusions of law, it is, recommended that a Final Order be entered which denies the permit to operate a .0075 MGD wastewater treatment facility with reclaimed water applied by spray irrigation. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-4461 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties. Petitioner's Facts All sentences in Paragraph 1 save the second sentence are not necessary to the resolution of the facts. The second sentence is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 2 is subordinate to facts found. In Paragraph 3 the suggestion by Dr. Nayak that he does not believe that the treatment plant is polluting at present begs the question. What is incumbent upon Petitioner is a requirement that the facility meet the rules. It does not. Likewise, remarks attributable to Mr. Reining to the effect that he saw no problems at the time of his visit does not supply an adequate answer to address reasonable assurances. Paragraph 4 in discussing the opinion held by Mr. Morrissette about whether he would have permitted operation in 1983 is not relevant. What is relevant is whether the most recent application should be granted. It should not. Paragraph 5 is subordinate to facts found except to the extent that it suggests that reasonable assurance has been given. In that respect, it is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 6 is recitation of testimony. It is not fact-finding. Paragraph 7 is unacceptable in that it does not address inclement conditions. It also fails to recognize that the present disposition of the effluent is not uniform. Paragraph 8 has been addressed by consideration of the testimony de novo. This clarified that the purposes of the final hearing was to consider the case de novo as opposed to appellate review of the agency's preliminary response to the application. Likewise, in Paragraph 9 although it would have been advantageous to have the wetted area better described in the attached map, that was clarified at hearing and has been reported in the fact-finding set forth in the Recommended Order. As to Paragraph 10 the explanation of the use of Rule 610.423, Florida Administrative Code, is set out in the fact-finding and conclusions of law in the Recommended Order and puts to question the applicant's response to the requirements in that rule. As to Paragraph 11 the reference to Rule 610.423, Florida Administrative Code, is not the critical rule that pertains to potable water wells. That requirement is announced at Rule 17-610.421(3), Florida Administrative Code. Concerning Paragraph 12 in the same way that it would have been helpful for the applicant to designate the wetted area, it would have been helpful for the [agency to remind the applicant to make that designation. That failing does not preclude consideration of those matters at hearing and that was done. Paragraph 13 is subordinate to facts found with the exception of reference to Mr. Morrissette in his lack of licensing in Florida. That lack of license does not preclude his testimony. Paragraph 14 is subordinate to facts found with the exception that suggestion by Dr. Nayak that there is an even distribution by the use of a hose is rejected. Paragraph 15 as described in the fact-finding the resort to the above- ground spray heads can be had absent problems with the sizing in the reclaimed water storage system. Paragraph 16 is addressed in the Recommended Order. Paragraph 17 is addressed in the Recommended Order as is Paragraph 18. Paragraph 19 is subordinate to fact found. The reference at Paragraph 20 to the exemption set out in Rule 17- 610.414(1), Florida Administrative Code, was not spoken to at hearing. The project does not contemplate the use of an alternative system which discharges surface water through deep wells. Paragraph 21 is contrary to facts found. The requirements in the rules are not site specific. Concerning Paragraph 22, while DER issued a permit under similar conditions in 1983 that does not preclude them refusing to issue the permit in 1988. Concerning Paragraph 23. The issuance of the permit in 1983 is seen as not being an exemption. It is seen as an oversight. Paragraph 24 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 25 is subordinate to facts found as is Paragraph 26. Paragraph 27 has been spoken to in the Recommended Order as has Paragraph 28. Concerning Paragraph 29, while the application does not indicate that the buffer zone must be drawn per se, it could be fairly inferred that the designation is contemplated by the rule which requires the establishment of the buffer zone. Concerning Paragraph 30 see discussion of Paragraph 29. Paragraph 31 is subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 32, whatever the application form may say the requirements of Rule 17-610.421, Florida Administrative Code, must be complied with. The same response pertains to Paragraph 33. The suggestion that the exemption from monitoring that was granted on September 2, 1983, relieves the applicant of the requirements of Rule 17-610.421, Florida Administrative Code, is rejected. Respondent`s Facts Paragraphs 1-27 are subordinate to facts found, with the exception that any suggestion that the applicant is limited in its proof to those matters set forth in the application is rejected. The applicant is allowed to present necessary evidence in furthering the request for permit at final hearing. Paragraph 28 is not accepted in that the evidence indicated that the soaker hose was the principle method but not the sole method of effluent distribution. In Paragraph 29 it is acknowledged that the Petitioner claims that the change in the method of distribution was at the instigation of a neighbor's complaint. It is also acknowledged that there was no reference to a written communication from the Respondent to the Petitioner concerning the use of the alternative means of distribution. The problems associated with this communication are spoken to in the Recommended Order and they would attend the suggestions made in Paragraph 31. As set forth in Paragraph 32 it is acknowledged that the employees cannot create the authority for changes. Nonetheless, they may mislead an applicant into a course of conduct in pursuing the application. Any problems of that sort associated with this project have addressed in the Recommended Order. Paragraphs 33-56 are subordinate to facts found with the exception that suggestion to the effect that the application constitutes the sole basis for considering the entitlement to permit is rejected in favor of a consideration of evidence presented at the hearing de novo. The discussion in Paragraphs 57-59 as to the nature of the potable water well is acknowledged. The exemption from monitoring in 1983 does not preclude the agency's ability to examine the issue in the 1989 application. It is found that the potable well is a deep well. In Paragraph 60, while it is acknowledged that the preliminary intent to deny was based upon an examination of the permit in association with applicable statutes and rules, the decision reached in this Recommended Order was based upon the evidence presented at hearing. That decision is not reached in an attempt to appease concerns by neighbors as alluded to in Paragraph 61. Paragraph 62 is considered to be argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven K. Hall, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Baya Harrison, Esquire 400 North Meridian Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent's permit for disposal of septic tank sludge should be revoked, as set forth in letter of the Volusia County Health Department, dated February 15, 1979. This case was originally set for hearing on June 21, 1979, pursuant to Notice of Hearing, dated March 30, 1979. On June 20, Respondent Philip G. Koan orally advised the Hearing Officer that he wished to withdraw his request for hearing. He was advised by the Hearing Officer to submit a written withdrawal of the petition and that the scheduled hearing would be cancelled pending receipt. On June 21, Respondent orally advised the Hearing Officer that he had changed his mind after reflection and now desired that the hearing be rescheduled. Since no written withdrawal of the petition or voluntary dismissal had been filed, the case was renoticed for hearing to be held on September 10, 1979. At the commencement of the hearing on that date, Petitioner moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction claiming that the petition had been dismissed by Respondent by his oral communication to the Hearing Officer on June The motion was denied because the proceeding had never been formally terminated by action of the Respondent or the Hearing Officer.
Findings Of Fact On October 5, 1978, Respondent Koan Septic Tank, Inc., Deland, Florida, submitted an application to the Volusia County Health Department for a permit to operate a septic tank cleaning service and temporary privy service. The application reflected the equipment which the applicant intended to use for the operation. Petitioner's application form contained a block entitled "Method and Place of Disposal." The applicant inserted the words "Smith Farm and Greens Dairy Grove" on the form. On November 7, 1978, Larry Herman, a sanitation aide for the County Health Department, performed an inspection of Respondent's facilities and equipment, and prepared a report on a mimeographed form headed "Septic Tanks and Privy Pump Truck Inspection." This form had a block entitled "Method and Place of Disposal." The inspector entered the words "Smith Farm - Greens Diary (sic), dumped & tilled." Although Herman testified that he had made no special inquiry at the time of his inspection as to the intended method of sludge disposal, he was aware that Respondent's customary method at its Smith Farm location was to "bury" the sludge into the ground by spreading and mechanical tilling. However, he recalled having conversations with Respondent's owner, Philip G. Koan, concerning disposal of sludge by the action of worms, prior to and after his inspection. On the other hand, both Koan and another officer of the corporation testified that Koan advised Herman at the time of the latter's inspection that the worm method of disposal would be used at the Greens Dairy location and that he expressed no objections. It is found that Herman was advised of Respondent's proposed method of disposal at the time of the inspection; however, he was not authorized to approve or issue permits. (Testimony of Herman, Gnann, Koan, Page, Petitioner's Exhibits 1-2) On November 7, 1978, the Volusia County Health Department issued a permit authorizing Respondent to operate its establishment. The permit reflected an expiration date of September 30, 1979, and provided that violation of any applicable health law would revoke the permit. No conditions were attached to the permit, nor did it indicate any required method of sludge disposal. (Testimony of Page, Petitioner's Exhibit 3) Respondent has been in the business of manufacturing, installing and servicing septic tanks for approximately eighteen years. In addition, Koan conducted a business involving the sale of worms. In the fall of 1978, he had approximately 12,000 pounds worms on hand. He had conducted various experiments at his business premises utilizing worms to dispose of manure and septic tank sludge. He found that the worms would eat the sludge material and excrete the same, resulting in worm "castings" or material which resembles potting soil with no residual odor. He had also placed worms in clogged septic tank drain fields and found that they later became unclogged, thus resulting in his conclusion that worms had disposed of the septic tank material in the tank. He further discovered that odors associated with septic tank sludge dissipated in a very short time when worms were present in the material, and observed that one pound of worms would "digest" or dispose of one pound of sludge in approximately twenty-four hours. Therefore, prior to receiving the county permit, he deposited the 12,000 pounds of worms in a trench located at the Greens Dairy location. After receiving the permit, Respondent dumped septic tank sludge in the trench approximately three times a week. The trench was about four feet wide, one foot deep, and 200 feet long. A screen was placed over the top of the ditch. However, it did not prevent access to files. (Testimony of Koan, Warnock, Petitioner's Exhibits 8-9) On December 12, 978, the owner of a skating rink adjacent to Respondent's Green Dairy property complained to the County Health Department concerning the presence of odors and flies at her establishment which had been the subject of customer complaints. A county sanitarian inspected the sludge operation on that date and found that there was some odor and a few flies in the immediate vicinity, but no fly larvae was observed. The ditch was full of sludge at the time. Some spillage has occurred in the driveway on the property. The location is approximately two to three hundred feet from the rear of the skating rink. A further inspection by the county Director of the Environmental Health Section was made on December 27. As a result, he wrote Respondent on December 28 that, although the inspection showed that flies and odors were minimal at the time, he could foresee an escalation of the same during certain periods, together with increased complaints from local businessmen. The letter further stated that the use of septic tank sludge for enriching a "worm bed" was in violation of Chapter 10D6.29, Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter 386 Florida Statutes, and was a sanitary nuisance which must be abated. A further complaint in January, 1979, followed by another county inspection revealed essentially the same conditions that existed at the time of the prior inspection, and prompted a second letter from the Environmental Health Section director to Respondent on January 31, 1979, wherein he was advised to cease dumping septic tank sludge at the Greens Dairy location within fourteen days and commence using the county sanitary landfill for such purposes. As a result of this letter, Respondent stopped dumping at the location on or about February 2. On February 15, another county letter was sent to Respondent which advised that its permit for disposal of septic tank sludge was revoked, subject to a request for hearing, as being in violation of Chapter 10D6.29(1) and (3)(c), Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter 386.041(1)(e), Florida Statutes. The stated grounds for proposed revocation were that Respondent was employing an unsatisfactory and unacceptable method and place for disposal of waste, and was maintaining a condition capable of breeding flies, mosquitoes and other insects capable of transmitting diseases. The letter further stated that Respondent was not tilling the sludge as had been stated on the permit application and that the potential for breeding flies was evident due to concentration and lack of covering with soil. (Testimony of Tyndall, Van Ulzer, Page, Camp, Koan, Petitioner's Exhibits 4-7) During the approximate three-month period from November 1978 through January 1979 when Respondent was dumping sludge, a strong and distinctive odor and an unusually large number of flies were experienced on the skating rink premises nearby. After the dumping stopped in early February, both problems disappeared. However, other odors incident to the presence of hogs and chickens at farms in the area also produced a noxious odor in and around the skating rink. The odor produced by the dumping of sludge dissipates rapidly after dumping. The absence of fly larvae in and around the ditch shows that flies were not breeding there during the period of dumping operations, but does not rule out the potential for such breeding in the future. (Testimony of Munshower, Tyndall, Coffin, Branton, Tontone, Warnock, Hunt, Stipulation) The Volusia County Health Department issues permits involving the disposal of sludge only when a treatment method of burial, incineration, or sanitary landfill is used in the operation, as prescribed by Respondent's Rule 10D-6.29, Florida Administrative Code. However, long-standing policy permits disposal by mechanical tilling of the sludge into soil as a "modified" method of burial. This method cuts the sludge with a disc and harrow and mixes it into the soil to a depth of approximately four inches. It also produces a temporary odor when the sludge is first spread on the soil. The county has no policies concerning the use of worms to dispose of sludge and does not consider it to be an acceptable method of disposal. The County Health Department has not conducted any scientific tests to determine the presence of pathogens in soil which has been mechanically tilled with sludge. (Testimony of Page) When sludge is placed over a "worm bed" and has settled, the material begins moving as the worms eat the sludge. The residue of the digestive process is sold as a soil conditioner which meets State Department of Agriculture requirements and which contains plant nutrients. Earth worms multiply rapidly when feeding on sludge. Respondent had approximately 50,000 pounds of worms in its trench when it ceased operations in February 1979. This method of sludge disposal has not been accepted generally by health authorities as a recognized and acceptable procedure. (Testimony of Koan, Warnock, Hunt, Tontone, Nemeyer, supplemented by Respondent's Exhibit 1)
Recommendation That Respondent's Permit No. 18362 be permitted to remain in effect until its expiration date provided that it disposes of sludge and/or contents from septic tanks in an acceptable method, as provided in Rule 10D-6.29, F.A.C. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of September, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Eisenberg, Esquire Department of HRS District IV Counsel 5920 Arlington Expressway Post Office Box 2050 Jacksonville, Florida Craig James, Esquire Post Office Drawer DD Deland, Florida 32720 Department of HRS Attn: Eric J. Haugdahl 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On May 6, 1986, George Bailey, doing business as Bailey's Septic Tank Service pursuant to a permit to operate a septic tank cleaning service, pumped out and cleaned the septic tank located at 474 Hinton Street, Port Charlotte, Florida, owned by Davina Hall. On May 21, 1986, upon inspection of that septic tank by Warren McDougall and Dale Holcomb on the complaint of the owner, it was determined that the septic tank inspection hatch lid was not properly sealed. There was a hole where the corner of the inspection hatch lid had been broken off and the soil over the tank was not properly replaced and compacted. The only evidence as to whether anyone else did work on that septic tank after Bailey's and before the inspection was the testimony of the inspectors and Bailey about what they were told by others. That evidence is all hearsay and cannot be relied upon to base a finding under these circumstances. Accordingly, it cannot be found that Bailey's left this tank unsealed and damaged. On September 26, 1985, Bailey's serviced the septic tank located at 1043 Webster Avenue, Port Charlotte, Florida, at the request of Robert Keniston acting as agent for the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Caggiano. The house was vacant when the work was done, but Keniston observed the work in progress. On May 27, 1986, an inspection of the septic tank by Warren McDougall and Emmery Wuthrich of the Charlotte County Health Department revealed that the access lid was broken and had not been sealed. David Sandefer, the employee of Bailey's who performed the work, acknowledged that he left the tank with a broken lid and unsealed because Keniston told him to do so and would not pay the $40 to replace the lid. Keniston denies this and says he did not know of the broken lid until the inspection. Having observed the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Keniston's testimony is more reliable and credible in this regard. On June 10, 1986, the Sarasota County Health Department received a complaint that a Chevrolet pump truck, white cab with a red tank, was dumping sewage and had magnetic signs saying it was a pressure cleaning service. The complaint was being investigated by John Madrak that same day when he saw a truck fitting the description parked at the Frosted Mug, a restaurant in Venice, Florida. There were no signs on the truck. Madrak also observed a puddle under the tank caused by a leak from the outlet valve on the tank. Madrak saw work order forms in the cab of the truck saying Bailey's Septic Tank Service. Madrak talked to the driver of the truck, David Sandefer, and was told that the truck was owned by Bailey, but was not being used for septic tank cleaning. Sandefer said it had just been repainted. The driver left the Frosted Mug and Madrak followed at the instruction of his supervisor. After a lengthy chase, the truck stopped at a convenience store and Bailey, Madrak, Venice Police Officer Dodd and Sheriff's Deputy Lowen converged on the scene. Bailey acknowledged ownership of the truck, but indicated that it was being used as a water tank truck in a pressure cleaning business and not as a septic tank pump truck. It had been repainted and had not been used for septic tank service for 4 to 6 weeks prior thereto. Bailey owns two other pump trucks that were being used in the septic tank business. The truck had hoses and shovels consistent with use for pumping septic tanks. The truck had no signs indicating by whom it was being used. The truck was leaking from the outlet valve, but no evidence was presented as to the substance leaking from the truck. No one sampled, touched or smelled the leaking material and no one looked in the tank to see what was inside. At no time did anyone observe the truck in the act of pumping sewage.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order and therein Dismiss the complaint in Case No. 86-2107. Find the Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Case No. 86- 2633. Dismiss the complaint in Case No. 86-2624. Suspend the septic tanking cleaning service permits of George E. Bailey, doing business as Bailey's Septic Tank Service, for a period of one year and impose a fine of $500.00. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of October, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties to this case. Specific rulings on proposed findings of fact of Petitioner Case No. 86- 2107 Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance or as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 2(2); 3(2). Proposed findings of fact 4 and 5 are unnecessary. Specific rulings on proposed finding of fact of Petitioner Case No. 86-2623 Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance or as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(5); 3(5); 5(4); 6(4); 7(5); 8(4). Proposed findings of fact 4, 9 and 10 are unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 2 is subordinate to the facts actually found. Specific rulings on proposed finding of fact of Petitioner Case No. 86-2624 Each of the following proposed finding of fact are adopted in substance or as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(7); 1(7); 3(7); 4(8); 5(8); 6(8); 8(9); 9(10); 10(11); 11(11); 12(12). Proposed findings of fact 13, 14, 15, and 17 are unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 7 and 16 are subordinate to the fact actually found. Specific rulings on proposed findings of fact of Respondent Case No. 86- 2107 Proposed finding of fact 1 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 1 and proposed finding of fact 2 is similarly adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Proposed findings of fact 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are subordinate to the facts actually found. Proposed finding of fact 8 is unnecessary. Specific rulings on proposed findings of fact of Respondent Case No. 86- 2623 Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance or as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(4); 2(4);; 3(4); 4(5). Proposed findings of fact 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are subordinate to the facts actually found. Proposed findings of fact 11 and 12 are unnecessary. Specific rulings on proposed findings of fact of Respondent Case No. 86- 2624 Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance or as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(7); 3(13); 4(12); 6(8); 7(13); 8(13); 10(11); 11(11); 12(11). Proposed findings of fact 2 and 9 are subordinate to the facts found. Proposed finding of fact 5 is rejected as not supported by the credible evidence. Proposed finding of fact 13 is unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony N. DeLuccia, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 06085 Fort Myers, Florida 33906 Robert B. Bennett, Jr., Esquire 46 N. Washington Boulevard, Suite 13 Sarasota, Florida 33577 William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Franklin T. and Barbara Snow acquired the NE corner of the S-1/2 of the SE-1/4 of Government Lot 3 in Section 14, Township 19 South, Range 16 East near Ozello in Citrus County. This property was acquired by Petitioner at a public sale by the U.S. Government who had acquired the property in a tax delinquency proceeding. Petitioner purchased the property to use as a homesite for a doublewide prefabricated home he desired to place on the property. Before a building permit will be issued by Citrus County, Petitioner is required to have access to water and to sewage disposal facilities. No central sewage treatment facility serves this area and other developed lots in the vicinity use septic tanks. Petitioner's application for a septic tank permit was denied by the Citrus County Health Department because there was an insufficient buffer zone between the proposed drain field and surface water. Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, provides onsite sewage disposal systems shall be placed no closer than 75 feet from surface waters. Because the lot owned .by Petitioner was platted prior to 1972, the minimum setback for this property is 50 feet from surface waters. Petitioner appealed to the Review Group for Individual Sewage Disposal, DHRS, for a waiver from this setback requirement. By letter dated March 9, 1984, Petitioner was advised that his request for variance was denied. Following discussions with Citrus County Health Department officials who issue septic tank permits, on May 11, 1984, Petitioner applied to DER for a dredge and fill permit to place some 750 cubic yards of fill into a wetland area on Petitioner's property to provide a sufficient buffer or setback zone for a proposed septic tank and drain field installation. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of a marsh approximately 1,200 feet from the open waters but within the landward extent of the St. Martins River. The marsh area consists principally of black rush and salt grass and is interlaced with small tidal creeks which flow into the two adjacent canals or into St. Martins River. Petitioner's property contains an upland parcel approximately 50 feet in width between existing canals which resulted from dredging these canals. The "upland" configuration was larger at one time than its present configuration, but was reduced to its present size through enforcement action by environmental agencies. The area which Petitioner seeks to fill had fill removed therefrom in these enforcement proceedings. The waters surrounding and including the project site are classified as Class III waters. Soil borings taken at the site shows the salt marsh underlain by 8 to 12 inches of sand, which overlays an organic mat of decaying anerobic black rush. Beneath this organic layer is limerock. Petitioner's application for a permit to fill this property was denied by Respondent because of the proposed septic tank installation. Respondent suggested chemical sewage disposal systems could be used at this site; however, the only witness qualifying as an expert in waste disposal facilities is familiar with other waste disposal systems and testified none of those systems can be used at this site. Before a building permit will be granted, household water supply is required and treatment of this water after use for bathing, washing, etc., will still be necessary and this treatment cannot be accomplished in a chemical system. Septic tank systems are regulated by DHRS and applications therefor are approved by DHRS specialists at the county health department level. The property here involved is within the 10-year flood plain and in order to obtain septic tank approval the site must be elevated above that plain. Here, that is 4.9 feet above sea level. The site is 3.5 feet above sea level. The bottom of the drain field is required to be 24 inches above the water table. If the fill permit is granted and approximately three feet of fill is placed over the 4,500 square feet, this will raise the property sufficiently so it will not be subject to tidal action and will provide a buffer zone sufficient to allow Citrus County to issue a septic tank permit. One objection raised by DER is that filling the area over existing vegetation will create another organic mat of decaying vegetation which will leach laterally into adjacent surface waters where it will contribute nutrients and exert an oxygen demand on the water column. Citrus County Health Department has authority to require the existing detritius be removed before new fill is applied and to require the perimeter of the fill area to be constructed with clayey soils to inhibit leachate escaping from the site. Removal of salt grass would precede removal of the decaying vegetation under the 8 to 12 inches of sand and leave nothing to add to the nutrient level of adjacent surface waters or impose an oxygen demand on the water column. The black rush and salt grass which presently dominate the proposed fill site perform a significant water quality function in trapping sediments, filtering runoff and assimilating nutrients. The presence of adjacent canals increases the value of this function. The proposed fill site also functions as a productive habitat for numerous aquatic species which comprise a portion of the estuarine food chain and ecosystem. More than a dozen aquatic organisms were turned up by a singe scoop of a dip net in an area nearly in the center of the proposed fill site. Leaving the site in its present condition creates a public benefit to the State. Adding fill to the area as requested will allow the site to comply with the regulations for septic tank installation. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will issue a federal dredge and fill permit to Petitioner if this application is granted. Therefore, the granting of this application for a dredge and fill permit will allow Petitioner to use the property he purchased for a home site. Respondent called one witness who qualified as an expert in the field of public health microbiology. This witness testified that studies have shown dead end canals and septic tank leachate to be significant contributors to high fecal coliform densities in adjacent waters. This witness opined that the statutory buffer zone is inadequate to prevent violations of Class III water standards in adjacent surface waters from such sources. Proposed finding No. 16, while not technically incorrect, is misleading. Bradley did represent that a buffer zone whose perimeter is composed of clay will keep leachate from escaping the site; that if a 50-foot setback could be maintained from surface waters, the county would grant the permit; and he believed the fill permit should be granted.
Findings Of Fact As planned, Phase I of Foxwood Lake Estates will consist of 300 mobile homes, which would require treatment of up to 45,000 gallons of sewage per day. The proposed sewage treatment plant would have a capacity of 46,000 gallons per day and would be capable of expansion. It would discharge treated, chlorinated water into a completely clay-lined polishing pond that has been designed for the whole of Foxwood Lake Estates at build-out; capacity of the polishing pond would be three times the capacity necessary for Phase I by itself. From the polishing pond, water is to flow into one or both of two evaporation-percolation ponds, either of which would be big enough for all the sewage expected from Phase I. The sides of these ponds would be lined with clay and a clay plug would constitute the core of the dike on the downslope side of each pond. According to the uncontroverted evidence, effluent leaving the treatment plant for the polishing pond would have been effectively treated by the latest technology and would already have been sufficiently purified to meet the applicable DER water quality requirements. The applicant proposes to dig the triangular polishing pond in the northwest corner of the Foxwood Lake Estates property, some 400 feet east of the western property line. The evaporation-percolation ponds would lie adjacent to the polishing pond along an axis running northwest to southeast. Their bottoms would be at an elevation of 164.5 feet above mean sea level and they are designed to be three feet deep. The evaporation-percolation ponds would lie some 300 feet east of the western property line at their northerly end and some 400 feet east of the western property line at their southerly end. A berm eight feet wide along the northern edge of the northern evaporation-percolation pond would be 50 feet from the northern boundary of the applicant's property. Forrest Sawyer owns the property directly north of the site proposed for the evaporation-percolation ponds. He has a house within 210 feet of the proposed sewage treatment complex, a well by his house, and another well some 300 feet away next to a barn. Two or three acres in the southwest corner of the Sawyer property are downhill from the site proposed for the ponds. This low area, which extends onto the applicant's property, is extremely wet in times of normal rainfall. Together with his brother and his sister, Charles C. Krug owns 40 acres abutting the applicant's property to the west; their father acquired the property in 1926. They have a shallow well some 100 feet from the applicant's western property boundary, and farm part of the hill that slopes downward southwesterly from high ground on the applicant's property. Sweetgum and bayhead trees in the area are also a money crop. Charles C. Krug, whose chief source of income is from his work as an employee of the telephone company, remembers water emerging from this sloping ground in wet weather. Borings were done in two places near the site proposed for the ponds. An augur boring to a depth of six feet did not hit water. The other soil boring revealed that the water table was 8.8 feet below the ground at that point. The topsoil in the vicinity is a fine, dark gray sand about six inches deep. Below the topsoil lies a layer of fine, yellow-tan sand about 30 inches thick. A layer of coarser sand about a foot thick lies underneath the yellow-tan sand. Beginning four or five feet below the surface, the coarser sand becomes clayey and is mixed with traces of cemented sand. Clayey sand with traces of cemented sand is permeable but water percolates more slowly through this mixture than through the soils above it. The applicant caused a percolation test to be performed in the area proposed for the ponds. A PVC pipe six feet long and eight inches in diameter was driven into the ground to the depth proposed for the evaporation-percolation ponds and 50 gallons of water were poured down the pipe. This procedure was repeated on 14 consecutive days except that, after a few days, the pipe took only 36 gallons, which completely drained into the soil overnight. There was some rain during this 14-day period. Extrapolating from the area of the pipe's cross-section, Vincent Pickett, an engineer retained by the applicant, testified that the percolation rate of the soils was on the order of 103 gallons per square foot per day, as compared to the design assumption for the ponds of 1.83 or 1.87 gallons per square foot per day. Water percolating down through the bottoms of the evaporation- percolation ponds would travel in a southwesterly direction until it mixed with the groundwater under the applicant's property. It is unlikely that the ponds would overflow their berms even under hurricane conditions. Under wet conditions, however, the groundwater table may rise so that water crops out of the hillside higher up than normal. The proposed placement of the ponds makes such outcropping more likely, but it is impossible to quantify this enhanced likelihood in the absence of more precise information about, among other things, the configuration of the groundwater table.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DER grant the application on the conditions specified in its notice of intent to issue the same. Respectfully submitted and entered this 17th day of December, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: 904/488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Andrew R. Reilly, Esquire Post Office Box 2039 Haines City, Florida 33844 Walter R. Mattson, Esquire 1240 East Lime Street Lakeland, Florida 33801 David M. Levin, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
