Findings Of Fact Prior to November, 1987, Petitioners purchased adjoining Lots 56 and 57 located in West Vic Holiday Sands subdivision in Santa Rosa County. 1/ The two lots constitute substantially less than a fourth of an acre of land. Petitioners intended to place two two bedroom mobile homes on the lots for use as a weekend retreat for their families. When Petitioners purchased the two lots, the lots had an existing 900 - 1050 gallon septic tank on the property. The tank had been previously approved by the Department of Pollution Control in 1973 for Recreational vehicle/campsite use. The tank had never been permitted for use as a homesite, such as a two bedroom mobile home would require. A Recreational Vehicle (RV) is generally considered by HRS to be a motor vehicle with a maximum size of 8'x 35'. Anything substantially over that size, as Petitioners' two mobile homes were, would not be considered for RV use and would be required to obtain a homesite type permit. Petitioners were required by their proposed use of the property to obtain a homesite permit. However, Petitioners did not discover the homesite permit requirement until after they had purchased the two lots and after they had purchased two mobile homes at considerable monetary cost to themselves. The Petitioners did not think about investigating whether a septic tank permit would be required because the subdivision area had permanent residences already in place. However, the evidence demonstrated the majority of these residences are located on four lots. There are a few residences located on fewer than four lots and on lots the size of Petitioners. 2/ The residences with nonconforming septic tanks were permitted by HRS under a mistaken interpretation of the law by the local Health Department office. However, about a year prior to Petitioners' permit and at the request of the local office, the local office was audited and its interpretation was brought into compliance with state law. Petitioners were, therefore, no longer entitled to rely on the local office's previous misinterpretation of the law and in previously issuing permits authorized under that misinterpretation of the law. Petitioners applied for an existing septic tank permit on November 23, 1987. Because the existing tank did not have enough capacity or drainage area for the Petitioners' desired use and the size of the property was under one- quarter acre, Respondent informed Petitioners they would have to seek a variance from the usual septic tank permit requirements. 3/ Petitioners applied for a variance. Petitioners felt a hardship variance should be granted due to the amount of money they had spent on the property and the fact Respondent had granted other nonconforming permits under its mistaken interpretation of the septic tank law. Neither of the Petitioners appeared at the variance review committee meeting in Ocala, Florida, which considered their variance request. However, the local health official recommended approval of the variance since other tanks had been mistakenly approved previously. The committee reviewed Petitioners' application and other relevant information about the property. The committee determined that no hardship existed and denied the permit. Petitioners received the committee's letter of denial on February 20, 1988. The evidence showed that Petitioners had spent close to $14,000.00 in purchasing the property and preparing it for occupancy. However, monetary expenditures alone have never been considered sufficient to establish a hardship in permitting cases. Petitioners presented no evidence which would cause such expenditures to amount to a hardship. Use of their property is still available, although that use is not exactly what Petitioners had in mind. Moreover, Petitioners may still recoup the money spent on the mobile homes by renting or selling them. Under these facts, no hardship was shown by Petitioners. In essence, Petitioners failed to show any monetary losses as opposed to expenditures of a significant nature. Likewise, Petitioners failed to establish justifiable reliance on the Respondent's previous mistakes, i.e., estoppel. Respondent's mistakes were not known by Petitioners at the time the majority of Petitioners' expenditures were incurred. The evidence regarding the general appearance of the subdivision was insufficient to establish a basis for such reliance. Moreover, Petitioners had the opportunity and the initial burden to investigate any potential governmental requirements prior to their purchase of the property. Again, no hardship was established by Petitioners' utilizing the theory of estoppel. Finally, Petitioners failed to present any reliable evidence that the discharge from their septic tank would not adversely affect the health of the public or would not significantly degrade the ground or surface waters of the State. The fact that other nonconforming tanks are in place with relatively few observable problems does not support the further inference that one more nonconforming tank won't hurt in an already overloaded area. Under these facts, Petitioners are not entitled to a variance from the Department's septic tank requirements; and therefore, are not entitled to a septic tank permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent request for a variance from the septic tank permit requirements be DENIED and the request for a septic tank permit be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of January, 1989.
The Issue This case arises out of the Petitioner's objection to the issuance of a septic tank permit for property adjacent to his lot in Panama City Beach, Florida. The sole issue before the Hearing Officer, as alleged by Petitioner's pleading, is whether the applicant's permit for septic tank should be denied on the basis that it is in violation of Rule 10D-6.24, Florida Administrative Code, which requires that no septic tank be placed within 75 feet of a private water supply well. On November 15, 1982, by certified mail, the Bay County Health Department notified Petitioner of its intent to grant a permit for a septic tank at 6713 Gulf Drive, Panama City Beach, Florida. Thereafter, on December 13, 1982, Respondent filed a petition for formal proceeding, objecting to the issuance of the aforementioned permit and requesting a formal hearing. Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held at which the Petitioner testified on his own behalf and also called Paul Miller, an Environmental Sanitarian for the Bay County Health Department as a witness. Respondents called as witnesses Michael Sarra, Bay County Health Department, William Curtis Wright, and Thomas F. Gladstone. Petitioner offered and had admitted two exhibits and Respondents offered and had admitted three exhibits. The Petitioner, subsequent to the formal hearing, filed with the undersigned Hearing Officer two late-filed exhibits. No permission had been granted or requested at the formal hearing for the filing of late-filed exhibits and, therefore, those exhibits were neither considered nor utilized as a basis for the Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law in this Recommended Order. Petitioner submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those findings of fact are not adopted herein, they were considered by the undersigned Hearing Officer and determined to be irrelevant to the issues in this cause or not supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact On or about June 15, 1982, Mr. Dewayne Dilmore, by and through his contractor, Tom Gladstone, applied for a septic tank permit for a new residence located at 6713 Gulf Drive, Panama City Beach, Florida (See Petitioner's Exhibit B). After a required change in the design drawings reducing the structure from a 3-bedroom to a 2-bedroom residence, the application was determined to be in compliance with all statutory and regulatory requirements and was approved by the Bay County Health Department. Petitioner, Samuel M. Torrence, owns a residence at 6715 Gulf Drive, Panama City Beach, Florida. This home is west of and contiguous to Mr. Dilmore's lot. In response to a Notice of Intent to issue a septic tank permit for the adjacent lot, 6713 Gulf Drive, Mr. Torrence objected on the grounds that such septic tank would be located within 75 feet of his private water supply well. Prior to the June 15, 1982, application by Mr. Dilmore, there was an existing septic tank on Mr. Dilmore's lot. This septic tank had been on the lot since April, 1961. The Petitioner's home at 6715 Gulf Drive was constructed in 1968 or 1969. 4 The replacement septic tank on the applicant's lot will be located farther from the Petitioner's property than the existing septic tank. The testimony of Paul Miller and Michael Sarra, along with the approved application, establish that the application of Dewayne Dilmore and the proposed replacement septic tank meet all requirements of Rule 10D-6.24, Florida Administrative Code, and Florida Statute 381.272(1982). Approximately two years ago, Mr. Torrence had his home at 6715 Gulf Drive hooked into city water, and has no private well hooked up to any of the pipes of his home. Although the Petitioner contended that the replacement septic tank would be within 75 feet of a private well on his property, there was no evidence in the record of the specific location on his property of a private well or any measurements he had made. The evidence does not show that there is in fact a private well within 75 feet of the location of the replacement septic tank. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has an established policy of grandfathering existing septic tanks, and this policy permits the septic tank on the Dilmore property as a replacement of an existing septic tank regardless of whether said tank would be located within 75 feet of a private water supply well on the Petitioner's property.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is:: RECOMMENDED: That the permit for septic tank be issued and Petitioner's request to halt issuance should be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 12 day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS 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 12 day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Samuel M. Torrence Post Office Box 7106 Dothan, Alabama 36302 John Pearce, Esquire Department of HRS 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Mr. Mike Sarra and Mr. Paul Miller Bay County Health Department Post Office Box 1728 Panama City, Florida 32402 Mr. David H. Pingree Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent John M. Williams deposited fill in waters of the state without a permit from the Department of Environmental Protection. If so, what is the appropriate corrective action and penalty?
Findings Of Fact Mr. Williams and the Cowford Subdivision Petitioner John M. Williams is a retired mechanic. In 1992, he became acquainted with the Cowford subdivision in Walton County, near Bruce, Florida. The subdivision fronts the Choctawhatchee River. Mr. Williams purchased lot 29 of the subdivision. Three or four years later, he bought lot 30. All told, Mr. Williams paid approximately $47,000 for the lots, an electric power line and an "above-ground" septic tank. The purchase price of the lots was $38,000. Running an electric line and installation of an electric light pole cost about $4,000. Mr. Williams paid about $5,000 for the septic tank and its installation. Mr. Williams' ultimate goal in purchasing the lots and adding the improvements was to build a house on the property for use in his retirement. Attempt to Obtain the Necessary Permits The septic tank was not purchased by Mr. Williams until after he had obtained a permit for its construction. At the county offices where he went to obtain the necessary permit, he was "sent over to the power company." (Tr. 216). At hearing, he described what happened there: I paid my money to get my power and they -- well, they informed me . . . once I got my power on I had 6 months to get my septic tank in the ground or they would turn my lights off. So here I had a $3,500 light pole put up and I couldn't very well see this thing going down. So, I went ahead to the Health Department. (Id.) Mr. Williams' testimony is supported by a Walton County Environmental Health Notice dated March 8, 1999, that states, "The Walton County Building Department will not be issuing approval for power for any residence until final approval of the septic system is obtained from the Walton County Environmental Health Office." P7, the first page after Page 3 of 3, marked in the upper right hand corner as PAGE 10. At the Health Department, on April 12, 1999, Mr. Williams applied for an "Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System" permit on a form bearing the following heading: STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ONSITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Authority; Chapter 381, FS & Chapter 10D-6, FAC P7, page 1 of 3. According to the form, he paid the $200 fee for the permit on April 29, 1999. The payment was made within a month or so after the installation of the power line. An attachment to the "Walton County Environmental Health Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System Application," made out by Mr. Williams on April 12, 1999, contains the following warning: OTHER AGENCY PERMITS: As the owner or agent applying for an OSTDS permit it is my responsibility to determine if the proposed development is in compliance with the zoning requirements of Walton County. I further assume responsibility to obtain any applicable permits from other State and Local Government Agencies. P15, page 2. (emphasis supplied) (See also P7, the second page after Page 3 of 3, marked in the upper right hand corner as PAGE 11). On May 5, 1999, about three weeks after Mr. Williams submitted the construction permit application, the site where the septic tank would be installed was evaluated by an EH Specialist, an inspector. On the same day, an Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System Construction Permit was issued for an "above-ground" 900-gallon septic tank. Installation With county personnel present and under county supervision, the septic tank was installed on a ridge on Mr. Williams property about 17 feet above mean sea level. Fill dirt was brought onto the site and placed on top of the tank to create a septic tank mound. No dredging of the property was done in connection with the installation. Chance Discovery After a complaint was registered with DEP about dredge and fill activity on one of the lots near Mr. Williams, Gary Woodiwiss, then an environmental specialist in the Department assigned to conduct inspections in Walton and Holmes Counties, visited the Cowford subdivision in July 2000. During the visit, Mr. Woodiwiss noticed the septic tank mound on Mr. Williams' property and that the mound, in part, consisted of fill dirt. Being of the opinion that the both the fill dirt and the septic tank system constituted "fill" and that the fill may have been deposited in jurisdictional wetlands, that is, "waters of the state," Mr. Woodiwiss consulted with DEP personnel about the status of the site and DEP jurisdiction. Ultimately, DEP determined that the site of the septic tank mound, within the flood plain of the Choctowhatchee River, was jurisdictional wetlands. The Department took action. DEP Action On November 16, 2000, Mr. Woodiwiss issued a memorandum to the DEP file with regard to "John Williams. Unauthorized Fill in Flood Plain." The memo states: Site is located next to Charles Riley who is the subject of Department action for filling jurisdictional wetlands. Williams was erroneously given a permit by Walton County health Dept. to install a septic system in 1999, which he subsequently installed. I visited the site with the administrator for the septic tanks program in Walton and she indicated that they would pay for the installation of a new system on a new lot for Mr. Williams. I recommend that the removal of the system and relocation of the inhabitants of the lot to an area outside of the immediate flood plain. P6. (emphasis supplied) Five days later, on November 21, 2002, a warning letter was generated by Mr. Woodiwiss under the signature of Bobby A. Cooley, Director of District Management for DEP. The letter advised Mr. Williams as follows: Recent Department survey data established at your property has determined that your entire lot is below the mean annual flood line of the Choctawhatchee River and is subject to dredge and fill jurisdiction of the Department. Any construction on the property including placement of a mobile home, septic tank and drainfield or other structures must first receive a dredge and fill permit from the Department. Preliminary assessment of your proposed development of the property indicates that you may not meet the public interest criteria of Chapters 403 and 373 Florida Statutes for qualifying for a permit. R5. By this letter the Department informed Mr. Williams both that he was in violation of the law by not having secured a permit for the filling of the site and warned that, on the basis of a preliminary assessment, it was not likely that he would be eligible for an after-the-fact permit. The assessment of whether the site was eligible for a permit was re-stated in writing again, but with added certainty in a Compliance Assessment Form (the Form) prepared by DEP personnel. In Section V. of the form, there appears, together with the signature of the "Section Permit Processor and a date of "11/09/2000", the following: Project is not permittable due to type of wetland system being impacted and project must not be "Contrary to the Public Interest". The project could affect the public health, safety and welfare and property of others. The project is of a permanent nature. P13. Although the permit processor entered her assessment on November 9, 2000, and other sections of the form were entered on November 1, 2000, by Mr. Woodiwiss, the Compliance Assessment Form bears a final date of February 1, 2001. The Form shows the "Event Chronology" that led to the issuance of the NOV. The chronology, consistent with the testimony at hearing, reveals the following: 25 Jul.00. Complaint inspection for fill in wetlands on adjacent lot. Found isolated fill areas in a slough and adjacent to an apparent upland area. Vegetation is 100% jurisdictional but soil is composed of alluvial deposits in ridge like configurations, one of which the respondent wished to live on. Solicited the jurisdictional team for a district assist in determining jurisdiction. 21 Aug.00. District assist. Hydrologic indicators and vegetation present in sufficient quantities to establish jurisdiction. John Tobe PhD. Requested that the mean annual flood be established on the site in order to augment his determination. October 11, 2000. District assist by Bureau of Survey and mapping and the establishment of a survey line of the 2.33 year (16.42 feet above MSL) mean annual flood elevation on the adjacent violation site. The whole site is clearly under the MAF, which extends approximately 200 meters up grade towards SR 20. The elevation of the MAF is consistent with hydrological indicators (porella pinnatta) that indicate such a flood elevation, as reported in previous studies. November 7, 2000. Met with Crystal Steele and Mike Curry of Walton County DOH to establish why Mr. Williams has a septic tank permit. They indicated that the permit was issued in error and that they would require the system to be moved. Ms. Steele stated that the County would pay for Mr. Williams to have a new system installed on another site because of the oversight. There are currently two moveable vehicles on the site, one of which is connected to the system, the other has a contained service for sewage. November 21, 2000. WLI [presumably Warning Letter Issued] November 27, 2000. Call to Mr. Williams. He wants to get money back or swap property for higher. I advised him to approach the owner Mr. Martin and make his situation known. January 22, 2000. Mr. Williams has refused to remove the fill and requests an NOV. P13, (emphasis supplied) MAF and Wetland Delineation There was considerable testimony introduced at hearing about establishment of the mean annual flood ("MAF") line for the purpose, among others, of its relationship to the elevation of the septic tank mound. The issue stemmed, no doubt, from Dr. Tobe's request that MAF be established in order to "augment his determination" with regard to DEP jurisdiction based on employment of the methodology in DEP's wetland delineation rule, see paragraph 13, above. Resolution of the issue is not necessary to augment the determination that all of lots 29 and 30 of the Cowford subdivision are located in wetlands that constitute "waters of the state." That the septic tank and the fill dirt were deposited on wetlands under the jurisdiction of DEP was clearly established by Dr. Tobe in his testimony at trial and the evidence in support of it. Petitioner concedes as much in his Proposed Final Order. Environmental Harm and Human Health Exposure Wetlands whose surface area is covered by the septic tank mound have been filled. The filling has caused environmental damage. An assessment of the damage was not offered at hearing but it appears from this record that the damage is minimal. During the time the septic tank has been on Mr. Williams' property, it has never been below the flood waters of the Choctawhatchee River and therefore has not yet caused direct hazard to human health. Corrective Action and Penalty It will be expensive to remove the septic tank; the expense will be more than the cost of installation. Petitioner fears, moreover, that it will render his property worthless. There is no evidence that Petitioner's violation of Department permitting requirements was willful. He has no history of violations previous to this one. Options to continued retention of a septic system through use of a portable wheeled waste remover or use of an upland drain field on another property are either not viable or so problematic as to be impractical. DEP Modification of its Position At the outset of the hearing, DEP announced that it no longer intended to seek civil penalties of $1,500 as it had intended when the NOV was issued. All that is sought by DEP by way of corrective action or penalty is removal of the septic tank and monetary reimbursement for the cost of the investigation of $250 (see Tr. 9, lls. 17-25, and Tr. 10, lls. 1-5.)
The Issue The issues presented for decision in this case are: whether Martin County should be granted the re-issuance of Water Use Permit No. 43-00752W for the Tropical Farms Water Treatment Plant and associated wells; and (2) whether Martin County should be granted Water Well Construction Permit No. SF032696B for the construction of Well No. 10 of the Tropical Farms Water Treatment Plant, pursuant to the permitting criteria of Chapter 373, Parts II and III, Florida Statutes; Chapters 40E-2 and 40E-3, Florida Administrative Code; and the Basis for Review for Water Use Permit Applications of the South Florida Water Management District.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner James W. Slusher, Jr., and his wife, Diane L. Slusher, own a residential lot located in unincorporated Martin County at 2376 SW Ranch Trail, Stuart, Florida 34997. On the lot is a single family home. The size of the residential lot is approximately 2.25 acres. Mr. and Mrs. Slusher purchased the subject residential lot and home in September of 1994 from Mrs. Stella Kassinger. Mrs. Kassinger and her late husband (the “original owners”) had the home built on the residential lot in approximately 1980. When the original owners built the home, they had a hole or “pit” dug in the rear portion of the lot. From aerial photographs taken at the time (1979-1980), and based upon the common practice in the area, it appears that the material from the “pit” was spread on-site to provide additional elevation for, and to minimize the potential for flooding of, the home and driveway that were constructed on the lot. Thus, the original “design function” of the “pit” was to provide fill for construction. The original owners thereafter allowed the “pit” to accumulate water and stocked it with fish so that Mr. Kassinger could use it recreationally as a fishing pond. The “design function” of the original “pit” was thus changed so that it would serve as a recreational amenity on the property. During the subsequent 14 years that the original owners lived in the home, they did nothing further to alter or improve the fishing pond. Over the years, the area immediately around the fishing pond became heavily vegetated and was used from time to time by various wild birds and animals. The fishing pond was used by the original owners for fishing and for observing the wildlife it attracted. After purchasing the home, Mr. Slusher also stocked the fishing pond with various fish over the years so that he and his family could continue to use it recreationally. The fishing pond continued to be used by the Slushers for fishing, for observing wildlife, and as a swimming area for their dogs. Currently, the overall dimensions of the fishing pond are approximately 90 feet wide, by 122 feet long, by 10 feet deep at its deepest part, when filled to the level that was natural prior to the operation of Water Well No. 10. Potable water for the Slusher home is obtained from a well drilled on the property, not from the public water system of the County. The Slusher well is located approximately 33 feet from the home. It is attached by PVC pipe to a pump located next to the home. The original owners caused the well to be drilled. The record in this case does not contain any persuasive evidence regarding the details of the Slusher residential water well. Specifically absent are such details as the depth to which the well was originally drilled, the material from which the well tube was made (i.e., cast iron or PVC), and the current physical condition of the sub-surface portions of the well. Mr. Slusher has not done anything to repair or replace the well since he and his wife purchased the home. On August 2, 2000, Mr. Slusher filed a petition with the SFWMD challenging the issuance of Water Well Construction Permit No. SF032696B, and the "use of the well." On November 3, 2000, Mr. Slusher filed an amended petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings, challenging the issuance of Water Use Permit No. 43-00752W and Water Well Construction Permit No. SF032696B. Martin County (“the County”) is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, established in 1925 pursuant to Section 7.43, Florida Statutes, and Section 1, Chapter 10180, Laws of Florida. SFWMD is an independent state agency, operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. SFWMD originally issued Water Use Permit No. 43-00752W to the County on April 15, 1993. The “water use permit” was for wells and associated equipment at the Tropical Farms Water Treatment Plant (“Tropical Farms WTP”). SFWMD re-issued Water Use Permit No. 43-00752W to the County on March 14, 1996. The re-issued “water use permit” allowed additional wells to be drilled and additional draws of water by the County at the Tropical Farms WTP. One of the additional wells included in the re-issued water use permit was “Well No. 10.” SFWMD issued Water Well Construction Permit No. SF032696B to the County on March 28, 1996, allowing the construction of Well No. 10 at the Tropical Farms WTP. In accordance with the restrictions imposed by the water well construction permit, the County drilled Well No. 10 on a site located at least 100 feet in distance from the fishing pond on the Slushers’ property. The physical location of Well No. 10 is essentially “adjacent to” the Slusher property. County Well No. 10 is approximately 120 feet deep and draws water from the surficial aquifer. It commenced operation in December of 1996. It is uncontested that the operation of the well field, especially County Well No. 10, has caused drawdowns of the pond level and of the groundwater in the area of Mr. Slusher's residential water well. The MODFLOW model used by the County in support of its application indicates a maximum drawdown of 7.4 feet. The persuasive expert opinion evidence in this case indicates that maximum draw downs of 7 or 8 feet would be expected in the area of Mr. Slusher's residential water well. The County has acknowledged that the operation of Well No. 10 has had a significant effect on the drawdown of the water table in the area of the pond. County Well No. 10 appears to have been constructed in a manner consistent with the applicable rules. The well was properly drilled and grouted, the correct materials were used, and the well was constructed in a manner that did not result in harm to the water resources. The water use permit was issued prior to the well construction permit, as is appropriate. Although permitted originally in 1993 and again in 1996, the Tropical Farms WTP did not begin regular operations until June of 1997. It is now part of a consolidated system which includes four other water treatment plants, all operated by the County for the purpose of obtaining and providing potable water to the public county-wide. In support of its applications for the issuance and re-issuance of the water use permit, the County provided SFWMD with so-called “MODFLOW calculations” done by a professional engineering firm retained by the County. MODFLOW was developed by the U.S. Geologic Survey and is considered the standard for assessment of ground water resource impacts. The results of the three-dimensional MODFLOW modeling showed that the drawdown effect on the water table of the proposed wells for the Tropical Farms WTP would be unlikely to cause any adverse effect on typical wells used by homeowners, even if the latter were located within the same small “square” as one of the County’s wells. Prior to the commencement of the operation of Well No. 10 by the County, the water level in the fishing pond on the Slusher property would vary only a few inches up or down during the course of a typical year. After the County began to operate County Well No. 10, Mr. Slusher observed and videotaped much greater variations in the water level in the fishing pond on his property. After County Well No. 10 began to operate, the pond water level dropped to the extent that it would become virtually empty of water from time to time. At other times, however, the fishing pond would refill with water, such as in September of 1999, and in August of 2001. When the water in Mr. Slusher's pond gets very low, it has an adverse impact on the fish in the pond; the fish die because they have insufficient water. Mr. Slusher has not done anything over the years since the operation of County Well No. 10 began to attempt to prevent the variations in the water level of the fishing pond, or to mitigate the occurrence of such variations. The County (together with the rest of southern Florida) has experienced several periods of severe drought over the past few years. Yet other “ponds” on other properties in the same neighborhood as the Slusher property have not experienced the significant variance in water level that has occurred in the fishing pond on the Slusher property since the County began drawing water from Well No. 10. The County does not operate Well No. 10 continuously. Rather, it has attempted to reduce its use of the well. SFWMD has never issued any notice to the County that any mitigation was required on the Slusher property pursuant to the limiting conditions of the water use permit. The County does not dispute that its operation of Well No. 10 has contributed to a drawdown in the level of the water table in the surrounding area, nor that such a drawdown has contributed to the variance in the water level in the pond on the Slusher property. Indeed, the drawdown of the water table generally was fully anticipated and predicted in the materials submitted by the County to SFWMD. The use of County Well No. 10 to draw water from the surficial aquifer is not the only factor contributing to the variances in the water level of the fishing pond on the Slusher property. Evaporation and natural variances in the level of the water table also contribute to changes in the water level of the fishing pond. Bentonite is a naturally occurring clay that is mined for a variety of uses, including the “lining” or “waterproofing” of reservoirs, lagoons, ponds, ditches, and other man-made bodies of water in order to seal them and to prevent or minimize seepage or percolation of the water into the ground. Even repeated wetting and drying of the clay does not reduce its effectiveness. Bentonite is widely used and has not been found to have any harmful or toxic effects on either human beings or wildlife. In some applications, bentonite clay is a superior lining material when compared to a man-made liner, such as a plastic or polymer sheet. In a small scale application where the volume of water in a lined pond is relatively low, a man- made liner could be forced away (“balloon up”) from the bottom of the pond by the pressure of a rising natural water table. Lining the pond on the Slusher property with Bentonite (or some similar clay) would create a virtually impervious layer that would separate the water in the pond on the Slusher property from the surrounding water table. With such a lining in place, County Well No. 10 would have no significant effect on the water level of the pond. The water level in the pond on the Slusher property could also be stabilized at or near its normal level prior to the operation of County Well No. 10 by installation of a water supply that would add water to the pond whenever the pond dropped below a specified level. Mr. Slusher first complained to the County about the effect of the County’s operation of Well No. 10 in 1997, when he spoke with Jim Mercurio, a County water utilities employee. Mr. Slusher also complained at about the same time to SFWMD, which resulted in a “field investigation” in September 1997. At that time, Mr. Slusher complained about the lowering of the water level in the pond on his property, but specifically denied any adverse effect on the water from his residential water well. Mr. Slusher began to complain about the water quality and water pressure in his residential water well sometime in 2000. The water flowing from Mr. Slusher's residential water well now has an unpleasant odor, taste, and color, and the water causes rust stains. The water pressure of the water flowing from Mr. Slusher's residential water well is less than it was before the construction of County Well No. 10. The rust stains, odor, taste, and color are all due to iron oxidation of the water drawn from the well on the Slusher property. The County regularly experiences similar problems with iron oxidation in the water that it draws from its own wells in the same area as the Slusher property, which the County must treat at the Tropical Farms WTP. The problem of iron oxidation (and accompanying odor and taste deficiencies) in the water is thus not unique to the water drawn from the well on the Slusher property. Iron oxidation in well water is not harmful to human beings. The evidence in this case does not include any evidence of any testing of the water quality of the water coming from the Slusher residential well. Similarly, there is no persuasive evidence as to the current condition of the sub- surface portions of the Slusher residential well. Further, the evidence regarding the cause of any deterioration of the water quality and/or the water pressure of the Slusher residential water well is both anecdotal and speculative, and is not a persuasive basis for determining the cause of any deterioration of the water quality and/or water pressure of the subject residential well. Specifically, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the water quality and water pressure deterioration complained of by Mr. Slusher are a result of the operation of County Well No. 10. Such deterioration could be caused by other circumstances or conditions, including the uninspected sub-surface condition of Slusher's residential water well. The water quality and water pressure problems currently experienced by Mr. Slusher could be minimized or eliminated by connecting his residence to the residential water supply system operated by the County. A branch of the County's public water system already exists in Mr. Slusher's neighborhood within a few hundred feet of his property. The application and information provided to SFWMD by the County were determined by SFWMD to provide “reasonable assurances” that existing legal users would not be adversely affected by the proposed wells or water treatment facility.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Governing Board of the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order issuing Water Well Construction Permit No. SF032696B and re- issuing Water Use Permit No. 43-00752W to Martin County, subject to the general and special conditions set forth therein. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 31st day of May, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard K. Heims, Esquire Virginia P. Sherlock, Esquire Littman, Sherlock & Heims, P.A. 618 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 5 Post Office Box 1197 Stuart, Florida 34995-1197 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680 David A. Acton, Esquire Senior Assistant County Attorney Martin County Administrative Center 2401 Southeast Monterey Road Stuart, Florida 34996-3397 Frank R. Finch, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Variance Review and Advisory Committee and the Department of Health had just cause to disapprove Petitioner's application for a variance.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health (DOH) is the agency responsible for oversight of the on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems program and the Variance Review and Advisory Committee which meets monthly to recommend agency action on variance requests pursuant to Chapter 381, Florida Statutes. In August 1999, Petitioner applied to the DOH for a second variance to extend a variance previously granted in June 1999, to use an existing septic system for six months. Petitioner's application for the second variance stated that county sewer would be available in 2001, and she would be required to hook into the sewer. Therefore, Petitioner wanted an extension to continue using the existing undersized septic system until the sewer was available. She also attached water usage records for June 1998 through July 1999, for her property. Petitioner owns the commercial property served by the septic system and located on Howland Boulevard in Deltona, Florida. The property consists of a strip mall with five offices and one restaurant. The property originally contained six office spaces in 1990, when Petitioner applied for a permit to install a septic system to handle the building's sewage flow. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Petitioner was granted a construction permit for the septic system on August 14, 1990, which contained the statement: "no food service operations permitted in this building." Prior to May 1999, Petitioner leased an office in her commercial property to Milagros Martinez to operate a sandwich shop. Ms. Martinez applied to DOH for approval to use Petitioner's existing septic system to handle her sandwich shop sewage, and was denied because of increased water use and septic system demands of a restaurant. Petitioner's septic system contains a 750-gallon tank with 162 square feet of drainfield. In order to handle the additional sewage generated by the sandwich shop, the Florida Administrative Code requires a 1350-gallon tank and a drainfield of 787 square feet. There is enough room on Petitioner's property to install a separate septic system to handle the sewage generated from the sandwich shop. Petitioner applied to DOH for her first variance in May 1999, requesting to utilize the septic system to handle the waste from the sandwich shop. Petitioner appeared before the DOH Variance Review and Advisory Committee in June 1999. The committee recommended, and DOH concurred, to approve the first variance with four provisos. See DOH Exhibit No. 2. The four provisos were: The applicant shall obtain and maintain an annual onsite sewage treatment and disposal system operating permit in accordance with subsection 64E-6.003(5), F.A.C. The owner shall maintain an annual contract with a licensed septic tank contractor to inspect and service the onsite sewage treatment and disposal system at least once per month or more frequently as necessary. This variance allows operation of the sandwich shop for no more than six months. During that six months, the applicant shall take all necessary steps to increase the capacity of the system to accommodate the additional 230-gallon sewage flow from the sandwich shop. At the end of the six months, the system shall be in compliance or the sandwich shop shall be closed and remain closed until compliance is achieved. The four provisos were additionally explained to Petitioner in a letter dated July 14, 1999, from Sharon Heber, Director of the DOH Environmental Health Division. See DOH Exhibit No. 1. Petitioner accepted the provisions of the first variance on July 20, 1999. See DOH Exhibit No. 4. Petitioner does not have a current annual on-site sewage treatment and disposal system operating permit as required by the first proviso. Petitioner did not contract with a licensed septic tank contractor to inspect and service her system at least once per month as required in the second proviso. Petitioner called a contractor to inspect her system four times in the six-month period since the first variance was granted. Within six months, Petitioner did not take the necessary steps to increase the capacity of her septic system to handle the additional flow as required by the third proviso of the first variance. The system is not in compliance and the sandwich shop is not closed as stated in the fourth proviso. In August 1999, Petitioner filed for a second variance requesting that the first variance be extended until year 2001. That is the date the county plans to install a sewer line on Howland Boulevard in Deltona, which will serve her commercial property. She submitted a letter from the Volusia County Public Works Service Center stating that the "sewer service is planned to be available sometime in the year 2001." See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. The Variance Review and Advisory Committee considered Petitioner's request at their September meeting. The variance committee unanimously denied Petitioner's request for a second variance. The Petitioner's system was not designed to handle an increased amount of sewage flow, and that it would eventually collapse or fail. The committee's approval of the first variance was to allow Petitioner adequate time to install the necessary septic system for the restaurant, and not put Petitioner in the position of telling her tenant she could not open her restaurant. See DOH Exhibit No. 5. When Petitioner's existing system fails, sewage will pond on the ground. The ponding fluid will consist of raw sewage. The leaking/ponding sewage may seep into the groundwater and then into drinking water aquifers. In the right conditions, this pollution can cause the spread of waterborne diseases such as typhoid and cholera, or viral infections, such as hepatitis A or polio.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health enter a final order affirming the decision of the Variance Review and Advisory Committee and the Department of Health to disapprove Petitioner's second variance application. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 17th day of April, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Connie Biancardi 2820 Howland Boulevard Deltona, Florida 32725-1606 Charlene J. Petersen, Esquire Department of Health Volusia County Health Department 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 William Large, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue to be determined by this Order is whether the Request for Administrative Hearing filed by Petitioner with the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) on February 15, 2013, was timely1/ and, if not, whether the application of the doctrine of equitable tolling would serve to relieve Petitioner of the consequences of having failed to file a petition for hearing within the time allotted by applicable notice provisions.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, SRQUS, LLC, is an active Florida, limited- liability corporation, and is the owner of submerged lands and adjacent upland property contiguous to Sarasota Bay. Petitioner is a closely held entity, the only members being Achim and Erika Ginsberg-Klemmt. Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, is an agency of the State of Florida having jurisdiction for permitting Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4), including duties as a federally-approved state program for the implementation of the Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program, pursuant to authority conferred under section 403.0885, Florida Statutes. Respondents, Sarasota County, City of Sarasota, City of Venice, Town of Longboat Key, and Department of Transportation (“DOT”) (collectively the “Applicants”) are responsible for certain existing stormwater point-source discharges to waters of the state from those portions of MS4 facilities owned or operated by one or more of the individual Applicants. The DEP issued a notice of proposed agency action to issue a renewal of an existing MS4 Permit to the Applicants. On January 30, 2013, Sarasota County arranged for the notice to be published in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, which is a newspaper of general circulation in Sarasota County. The notice provided as follows: STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE PERMIT AND REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING The Department of Environmental Protection gives notice of its intent to issue a permit to Sarasota County, 1660 Ringling Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida 34236 within its jurisdiction and including the following co- permittees: Florida Department of Transportation District One, Town of Longboat Key, City of North Port, City of Sarasota, and City of Venice, for renewal of a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System [MS4] permit. Any person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed permitting decision of the Department may petition for an administrative hearing in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57 of the Florida Statutes (F.S.). The petition must contain the information set forth below and must be filed (received) in the Department of Environmental Protection, Office of General Counsel, Mail Station 35, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000. Petitions must be filed within fourteen days of publication of this public notice or within fourteen days of receipt of the notice of intent, whichever occurs first. A petitioner must mail a copy of the petition to the applicant at the address indicated above, at the time of filing. The failure of any person to file a petition [or a request for mediation, as discussed below] within the appropriate time period shall constitute a waiver of that person?s right to request an administrative determination (hearing) under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S., or to intervene in this proceeding and participate as a party to it. Any subsequent intervention will be only at the discretion of the presiding officer upon the filing of a motion in compliance with Rule 28-5.207 of the Florida Administrative Code. A petition must contain the following information: The name, address and telephone number of each petitioner, the Department Permit Number and the county in which the MS4 is located; A statement of how and when each petitioner received notice of the Department?s action; A statement of how each petitioner?s substantial interests are affected by the Department?s action; A statement of the material facts disputed by the petitioner, if any; A statement of facts that the petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the Department?s action; A statement of which rules or statutes the petitioner contends require reversal or modification of the Department?s action; and A statement of the relief sought by the petitioner, stating precisely the action that the petitioner wants the Department to take. Because the administrative hearing process is designed to formulate final agency action, the filing of a petition means that the final action of the Department may be different from the position taken by it in the notice of intent. Persons whose substantial interests will be affected by any such final decision of the Department on the permit revision have the right to petition to become a party to the proceeding, in accordance with the requirements set forth above. Mediation under Section 120.573, F.S. is not available for this proceeding. The permit application file and supporting data are available for public inspection during normal business hours, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal holidays, at Department of Environmental Protection, NPDES Stormwater Section, 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Room 560, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400, phone number (850) 245-8430. Date of pub. January 30, 2013. Because a portion of the Town of Longboat Key extends into Manatee County, the Town of Longboat Key arranged for the notice to be published in the Bradenton Herald, which is a newspaper of general circulation in Manatee County. The notice was published on February 4, 2013. The substance of the notice, except for the date of publication, was identical to that published in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Neither Petitioner, nor its representatives, saw either of the published notices prior to the filing of the Petition. On or about February 8, 2012, as a result of the filing of a pre-hearing stipulation in related litigation involving an Environmental Resource Permit (“ERP”) issued by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (“SWFWMD”), Petitioner became aware of the existence of the MS4 Permit. Erika Ginsberg-Klemmt obtained a copy of the permit online, and on February 12, 2013, sent an e-mail to employees of the DEP Ft. Myers? office expressing her general concern with water quality from the disputed stormwater outfall. She expressed her belief that Sarasota County was in violation of the existing MS4 permit, and requested that the recipients of her e-mail “[p]lease be so kind as to look into this matter and let us know what could be done to prevent this unacceptable condition to continue unchecked like it did in the past.” The e-mail did not request any information regarding the MS4 Permit renewal application, nor did it request any information regarding notices or deadlines related to the application. On February 13, 2013, Christopher Wright, a consultant for Petitioner, called the DEP to gather information and do some “legwork” related to Petitioner?s challenge to the SWFWMD?s ERP. The purpose of the call was to determine if information submitted to the DEP in conjunction with the MS4 application, particularly drainage basin maps, could have been of use in the SWFWMD litigation. Mr. Wright spoke with DEP employee, Heather Ritchie, regarding the drainage basin maps that had been submitted to the DEP. During the course of their discussion, Ms. Ritchie advised Mr. Wright that a Notice of Intent to issue the MS4 Permit had been issued by the DEP. However, Ms. Ritchie did not know when Sarasota County had published the notice or when the deadline for challenging the proposed agency action was to run. In short, Ms. Ritchie expressed to Mr. Wright that “she didn?t know what the status of things were.” The discussion then went back to the primary substance of the call, which was watersheds and discharge points. Ms. Ritchie agreed to provide Mr. Wright with an electronic copy of a drainage map from the MS4 Permit file. At 12:43 p.m., on February 13, 2013, Ms. Ritchie sent a map to Mr. Wright via e-mail, and indicated that “[i]f you have additional questions or comments, you may call or e-mail me.” Later on the afternoon of February 13, 2013, Mr. Wright decided that he should ask Ms. Ritchie for a copy of the Notice of Intent. At 5:59 p.m., on February 13, 2013, after the close of business for the day, Mr. Wright wrote to Ms. Ritchie thanking her for her “rapid response to my inquiry today,” and providing her with comments on various basin areas and discharge structures. Mr. Wright concluded his e-mail by stating that “at this time I would also like to request a copy of the Notice of Intent to Issue the MS4 Permit.” The next morning, February 14, 2013, Ms. Ritchie provided Mr. Wright with the Notice of Intent to Issue the MS4 Permit as requested. Later that morning, Mr. Wright inquired as to the time for filing a challenge to the permit. Ms. Ritchie replied at 2:34 p.m. that afternoon that the MS4 Permit “was publicly noticed by the county on January 30th with a 14 day window. The window closed yesterday.” There is no evidence that Ms. Ritchie had any specific information as to the date of publication or the deadline for filing a challenge prior to that communication with Mr. Wright. Petitioner filed the Petition on February 15, 2013. The disputes identified in the Petition were directed exclusively at a 46-acre drainage basin in downtown Sarasota, and a related discharge structure that discharges stormwater from the basin to Sarasota Bay just south of the intersection of U.S. Highway 41 and Fruitville Road. The disputed basin and discharge point are located in Sarasota County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, issue a final order dismissing Petitioner?s Request for Hearing and Amended Petition for FLS000004-004 on the ground that the Petition was not timely filed. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 2013.
The Issue The issue is whether Resort Village Utility, Inc., and SGI Utility, LLC, are entitled to a renewal of a permit for the construction and operation of a wastewater treatment facility with effluent disposal to a rapid-rate absorption field land application system consisting of three absorption beds on St. George Island in Franklin County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact In 1996, DEP issued Permit No. 235845 (subsequently renumbered Permit No. FLA010069-001) to RVU. The permit was issued pursuant to Adams v. Resort Village Utility, Inc. and Department of Environmental Protection, DOAH Case No. 95-0863 (Final Order February 23, 1996). Petitioner, in the instant case, was the petitioner in the prior case. RVU and DEP, Respondents in the instant case, were respondents in the prior case. The original permit authorized RVU to construct and operate an advance wastewater treatment facility with associated reuse/land application system (AWT facility) in a proposed mixed-use development on St. George Island in Franklin County, Florida. Mr. Ben Johnson was the owner of the proposed development and the principal of RVU when DEP issued the original permit. DEP issued the original permit for five years with an expiration date of March 1, 2001. The instant case involves a renewal of the original permit, currently designated as Permit No. FLA010069-002 (the Permit). Since the issuance of the original permit, the AWT facility has been constructed in accordance with its plans and specifications. However, at the time of the final hearing in the instant case, the AWT facility was not operational. The original permit contained certain groundwater monitoring requirements. These requirements included baseline monitoring to collect data on certain contaminants or pollutants before the AWT facility becomes operational for comparison to groundwater monitoring after the AWT facility becomes operational. The original permit did not specify the time frame for beginning and ending the monitoring. RVU furnished DEP with a baseline groundwater monitoring report in December 1997 and June 1998. By letter dated June 15, 1998, Garlick Environmental Associates, Inc., on behalf of RVU, advised DEP that further baseline groundwater monitoring would be suspended until February 1999. RVU properly suspended the baseline groundwater monitoring because of a delay in the construction and operation of the AWT facility. At the time of the final hearing, RVU had not resumed the monitoring. The AWT facility is scheduled to become operational in incremental stages beginning with 30,000 gallons of effluent per day and increasing to 90,000 gallons of effluent per day. The monitoring requirements in the original permit and the instant Permit are sufficient to show at each stage of operation whether the AWT facility will cause an increase in contaminants in Apalachicola Bay. Because the AWT facility is not currently operational, it is not responsible for causing any pollution. In October 1999, Mr. Johnson sold the subject property to SGI Limited Partnership, a Florida limited partnership. Mr. David Wilder is a principal in SGI Limited Partnership and vice-president of SGI Utility, LLC. On February 10, 2000, RVU filed an application with DEP to transfer the original permit to SGI Utility, LLC. By letter dated February 18, 2000, DEP granted the request to transfer the permit contingent upon approval of the sale of the AWT facility by the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC). The February 18, 2000, letter states that DEP would change its records to show SGI Utility, LLC, as owner of St. George Island Resort Village domestic wastewater treatment facility. DEP's letter states that it shall be attached to and become part of domestic wastewater Permit No. FLA010069. On September 1, 2000, SGI Utility, LLC, filed an application with DEP to renew the original permit. The application indicates that SGI Utility, LLC, is the applicant/owner/operator of the AWT facility. Mr. Wilder signed the application as the authorized representative of SGI Utility, LLC. A professional engineer signed the application in his professional capacity, as well as agent for SGI Utility, LLC. The application for permit renewal contains a copy of RVU's PSC certificate. The certificate grants RVU authority to provide wastewater service in Franklin County. The application included the following implementation schedule and completion dates: (a) Begin Construction, September 2000; (b) End Construction, March 2001; (c) Begin Reuse or Disposal, March 2001; and (d) Operational Level Attained, August 2001. SGI Utility, LLC, enclosed a check payable to DEP in the amount of $1,000 with the permit renewal application. The purpose of the check was to cover review fees. By letter dated September 28, 2000, DEP requested additional information. On or about October 5, 2000, the professional engineer for SGI Utility, LLC, sent DEP copies of the signed and sealed cover page for the permit renewal application. DEP subsequently sent SGI Utility, LLC, a copy of a Notice of Application. The notice stated that DEP had received the permit renewal application from SGI Utility, LLC. DEP expected SGI Utility, LLC, to publish the notice in a newspaper of general circulation. For the reasons set forth below, SGI Utility, LLC, never published this notice. After SGI Utility, LLC, received the Notice of Application, Mr. Wilder wrote a letter dated October 11, 2000, to DEP. The letter states that SGI Utility, LLC, as the proposed transferee of the Permit, had filed the application to renew the Permit on behalf of RVU, the current holder of the Permit. Mr. Wilder advised DEP that PSC approval was still pending. The letter states as follows in relevant part: Technically, therefore, SGI Utility, LLC is not yet the holder of the permit, although it is acting with the approval of and as the agent for Resort Village Utility, Inc. Additionally, should the publication Notice be amended to show Resort Village Utility, Inc. and SGI Utility, LLC as the applicant? By letter dated November 2, 2000, Mr. Johnson confirmed that Mr. Wilder was authorized to act on behalf of RVU with respect to all matters relating to the renewal and transfer of the Permit, including without limitation, signing all applications, documents, certificates and publication notices. Mr. Johnson's letter also states as follows in relevant part: This letter will also confirm your statement to Gary Volenac, P.E., that the form of the Notice of Application for the renewal of the permit previously submitted by the Department to Mr. Wilder by letter dated October 11, 2000, is acceptable with the exception of substituting Resort Village Utility, Inc. for SGI Utility, Inc. On November 23, 2000, the Notice of Application was published in the Apalachicola Times. The notice stated that DEP announced receipt of an application from David E. Wilder for RVU to obtain a renewal of the Permit. In a letter dated December 1, 2000, DEP advised SGI Utility, LLC, that it had been 52 days since SGI Utility, LLC, had been notified of deficiencies in the Permit renewal application. DEP reminded SGI Utility, LLC, that failure to supply the requested information might result in permit denial. Petitioner wrote DEP a letter dated December 4, 2000. Petitioner was concerned that the newspaper announcement named RVU as the applicant for renewal of the Permit instead of SGI Utility, LLC. Petitioner also noted that RVU had created a small lake on the property close to the AWT facility's largest absorption bed. Petitioner was concerned that flooding after heavy rains in the absorption bed area, together with the addition of the small lake, would present a threat of pollution to Apalachicola Bay. By letter dated December 6, 2000, SGI Utility, LLC, furnished DEP with a copy of the Notice of Application that was published in the Apalachicola Times on November 23, 2000. On January 18, 2001, DEP representatives (Joe May and Dave Krieger) met with Petitioner and an employee of SGI Utility, LLC (Morris Palmer), at the site of the AWT facility. The purpose of the visit was to conduct a routine inspection in response to the Permit renewal application and to address Petitioner's concerns. At the time of the inspection, construction of the wastewater treatment plant had not commenced. Two of the absorption beds had been installed. The third absorption bed had been flagged for construction. During the meeting on January 18, 2001, Mr. May noted that there could be a concern with rainfall run-on for one of the absorption beds. Mr. May suggested the creation of a berm at the entrance to the bed along the adjacent road to prevent rainfall run-on. Mr. May concluded that implementation of the approved stormwater plan would redirect rainfall run-off from the road. Mr. May also suggested the creation of a berm for another absorption bed. A berm between dunes adjacent to that bed would prevent run-on to the bed from high tide. During the meeting, Mr. May and Petitioner discussed the impact of heavy rainfall from a tropical storm in October 1996. The storm flooded isolated areas on St. George Island, including areas in the subject development. The isolated flooding lasted for several days. However, persuasive evidence received at final hearing indicates that the 1996 storm did not cause prolonged flooding, if any, in the absorption cells. Similar concerns about flooding in the absorption cells were addressed in the original permit. The absorption cells have been designed to ensure protection to the facility in the event of a large storm. The creation of the berms recommended by Mr. May will provide additional protection from run-on resulting from heavy rainfall. After the meeting on January 18, 2001, Morris Palmer constructed all of the berms as suggested by Mr. May. During the site visit on January 18, 2001, Mr. May and Petitioner discussed the impact of a small lake or pond created by RVU in the development after issuance of the original permit. The pond is the only change to the 58-acre development that was not contemplated prior to the issuance of the original permit. The pond is more like an isolated ditch that RVU excavated below groundwater level. RVU used the sand from the ditch to elevate the ground surface in the absorption beds and for other purposes. The pond is located approximately 527 feet from the AWT plant and 478 feet from the nearest absorption bed associated with the plant. Surface water drainage, if any, from the three absorption beds is away from the pond. Persuasive evidence indicates that the pond will not interfere with the AWT facility once it begins operation. Additionally, there is no credible evidence that possible flooding in the absorption beds will cause contaminates to collect in the pond and eventually result in a discharge of pollutants to Apalachicola Bay. Petitioner presented some evidence that the pond might act as a collection point for pollution from sources such as cars, animals, and other above-ground sources. However, the greater weight of the evidence indicates that excavation of the pond will have no impact on the results of groundwater flow modeling and contaminants transport modeling introduced at the prior hearing in DOAH Case No. 95-0863. DEP appropriately referred Petitioner's other concerns about the pond to DEP's Submerged Lands and Environmental Resources Program. Neither the original permit nor the instant Permit requires an anti-degradation study. Such studies are required only in cases involving a direct discharge to surface waters. In this case, the AWT facility will not result in a surface water discharge. During the meeting on January 18, 2001, Mr. May acknowledged that ambient monitoring data showed elevated levels of hydrocarbons and nutrients. The elevated hydrocarbons may be caused by traffic on the road and at the airport located near the absorption beds. The elevated nutrient levels can only be attributed to animals. As stated above, the AWT facility is not operational; therefore, the elevated levels of hydrocarbons and nutrients are not the result of the AWT facility. On March 30, 2001, DEP issued its Notice of Intent to Issue the Permit to RVU. The Intent to Issue indicates that RVU is the applicant for an application filed by SGI Utility, LLC, and RVU. The Permit lists RVU and SGI Utility, LLC, as co- permittees. If PSC approves the transfer of RVU's certificate to SGI Utility, LLC, DEP will transfer the Permit to SGI Utility, LLC. Until then, DEP will issue the Permit in the name of both entities. The Permit sets forth requirements for continued ambient and groundwater monitoring. These requirements, like the ones in the original permit, are sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that operation of the AWT facility will comply with Chapter 62-620, Florida Administrative Code. Under cover of a letter dated May 22, 2001, Mr. Wilder provided DEP with proof that the Notice of Intent to Issue had been published in the Apalachicola Times on April 12, 2001. Mr. Wilder signed the letter as treasurer of RVU. The published notice indicates that DEP intends to issue the Permit to RVU.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That DEP enter a final order granting RVU and SGI Utility, LLC, a renewal of Permit No. FLA010069-002. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 28th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas H. Adams Post Office Box 791 Eastpoint, Florida 32328 Craig D. Varn, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 L. Lee Williams, Jr., Esquire Williams, Gautier, Gwynn & DeLoach, P.A. 2010 Delta Boulevard Post Office Box 4128 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-4128 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Whether Okaloosa County has provided reasonable assurances that its proposed sewage treatment plant and an associated reclaimed water reuse system will not cause pollution significantly degrading the waters of the unnamed stream on the project site and/or the Santa Rosa Sound and that therefore the County's application for a permit to construct such facilities should be granted on the basis of assurances of compliance with applicable rule and statutory criteria.
Findings Of Fact On October 16, 1987, Respondent, Okaloosa County, submitted an application to Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, to construct a wastewater treatment plant and related reclaimed water reuse facilities on a site located in southwestern Okaloosa County. The Petitioner is an individual citizen residing in Okaloosa County, Florida. He is the owner of real property which adjoins the northern boundary of the proposed project site. Mr. Ward has used this property as his principal residence for approximately 8 years. The proposed project site is located in southwest Okaloosa County contiguous to the western boundary of the County. The site comprises approximately 45 acres of land bounded on the west by Rosewood Drive and on the south by State Highway 98. The areas to the north and east are residential construction. The site is currently a densely wooded area vegetated with a variety of flora indigenous to the area. The site is essentially bisected by a small fresh water stream system which enters the site at the northwestern corner and runs diagonally to the southeastern corner where it flows through a series of culverts under State Highway 98. The stream system constitutes waters of the state subject to the Department's regulatory jurisdiction. In addition, there is an isolated wetland area of variable size in the northwestern section of the project site. The wetland area is not subject to the Department's regulatory authority. The stream system mentioned above intersects with another larger stream approximately 1000 feet southeast of the project site. These combined streams then meander into a tidal basin which empties into the Santa Rosa Sound approximately 2500 feet south of the project site. The Santa Rosa Sound has been designated as Class II waters of the state. The unnamed stream system on site, as well as the larger stream that it joins south of the site, are designated as Class III waters of the State. Southern Okaloosa County occupies a region of moderate elevation (0-70 feet above sea level) extending along a strip 10 or 15 miles wide along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Soils in this area are predominately fine sands low in organic matter. When dry, most of the soils have rapid internal drainage characteristics. The Plant The proposed plant is intended to treat sewage generated by the County's Western subregional service area. Initially, it will treat the flow currently handled by approximately 1400 septic tank systems and 9 package treatment plants within the area. The collection system which will transport the wastewater will be comprised of approximately 98,500 linear feet of 8 to 12 inch diameter gravity sewers. The transmission facilities to convey the raw wastewater from the new collection system will include the construction of approximately 29,400 linear feet of 4 to 10 inch diameter force main, 14 pump stations and approximately 32,100 linear feet of 8 to 12 inch diameter gravity interceptors. By the end of its first year of operation, the proposed facility is projected to receive and treat approximately 750,000 gallons per day ("GPD"). The projected flow through the wastewater facility in the year 2007 is 1,000,000 GPD. The proposed facility is best described as a 1,000,000 GPD capacity oxidation ditch treatment plant with nitrification and denitrification facilities. Reclaimed water reuse will be accomplished by a rapid infiltration basin system (RIB). Sludge from the system will be dewatered by a mechanical belt press system and disposed of at the County landfill. In order to address the question of potential odors which result from the operation of the plant, the facility was located as near the center of the property as possible in order to give as much buffer area as possible between the facility and the surrounding residential area. In addition, the design of the treatment facility incorporates a preprocess aeration tank equipped with an activated carbon airstripper system which is specifically designed to remove the odor from the wastewater influent. The treatment facility was also located near the center of the property in order to keep any noise resulting from the operation of the plant as far away from the surrounding area as possible. The plant utilizes noiseless gravity flow techniques and does not incorporate any blower or pump technology which usually cause a significant amount of noise in wastewater treatment plants. It is expected that the noise level from the operation of this facility would be less than the noise level generated from the traffic on State Highway 98 nearby. The plant is designed to minimize the adverse effects resulting from odors, noise, aerosol drift and lighting. The entire facility is enclosed by a fence. The facility is designed and does comply with the Florida Administrative Code requirements for protection from flooding. The proposed site is at a higher elevation than the established 100 year flood elevation for the area. The plant is designed so that every operational component of the plant has a backup system. The plant is equipped with an emergency generator capable of supplying sufficient power to operate the plant in the event of a power failure. The design of the plant complies with the standards provided by the Environmental Protection Agency for mechanical reliability. The information submitted for the Department's review in relation to the County's construction permit application addressed all the information required in Rule 17-6.037(10), Florida Administrative Code. The proposed plant facility is designed to leave a buffer zone approximately 200 feet wide between the reclaimed water reuse system and the stream system located on the project site. The construction plan prohibits any construction activities and/or clearing within the buffer area. This buffer area contains all the jurisdictional areas which are related to the stream system. The Treatment Process The waste treatment process proposed for this facility consists of secondary treatment, basic disinfection and pH control as defined in Rule 17- 6.060(1)(a)3, (c) and (d). The basic treatment process technology used in the proposed plant is described as a carousel activated sludge process. This process is a superior method of wastewater treatment because of its inherent stability, its reaction to shock and toxic loadings and the degree of process control that is available to the operator. The effluent limitations that the Department has established for this facility require that the effluent, after disinfection, contain not more than 20 mg/1 Biological Oxygen Demand ("BOD") and 20 mg/1 Total Suspended Solids ("TSS"). In addition, effluent standards require a basic level of disinfection which shall result in not more than 200 fecal coliform values per 100 ml of effluent sample. The chlorine residual in recovered water shall be maintained at 0.5 mg/1 minimum, after 15 minutes contact time at peak flow. The pH level in the effluent must be maintained in a range between 6.0 Q and 8.5. The County will be required to retain a Class B operator certified under the provisions of Chapter 17-16, Florida Administrative Code for day-to- day maintenance and operation of the treatment facilities. In addition, the facility must be staffed for a minimum of 16 hours per day, seven days a week by at least a Class C operator certified under the same provisions. A Class B operator shall be on call during all periods that the plant is unattended. At a minimum, the facility must produce reclaimed water which complies with water quality standards provided in Rule 17- 3.404, Florida Administrative Code, as it interacts with groundwater in the established zone of discharge ("ZOD"). The estimated ZOD is an area defined by the boundaries of the facility. These standards are essentially equal to drinking water standards provided in Rule 17-22, Florida Administrative Code. Because the soils under the site are rapid sands, the Department does not rely on them to significantly reduce total nitrogen in the reclaimed water through interaction with the soils and the groundwater table under the rapid infiltration basins. As a result, the proposed facility is limited to a Total Nitrogen limitation of 7 mg/1. This limitation is significantly less than the Department's rapid rate land application treatment standard for Total Nitrogen which is 12 mg/1 in the effluent, with no more than 10 mg/1 in the ground. The proposed plant is capable of producing the 7 mg/1 level under all flow conditions. The Rabid Infiltration Basins In conjunction with the County's application for a construction permit for the wastewater treatment plant itself, the County submitted an application for a reclaimed water reuse system construction permit for a system designed to handle the maximum plant discharge of 1,000,000 gallons of reclaimed water per day. The system is composed of a series of five rapid infiltration basins (RIB's) or percolation ponds designed to receive the daily reclaimed water loads from the operation of the plant and allow the water to percolate into the groundwater beneath the project site. The ponds are proposed to be used so that not all the ponds are working at the same time. On any given day, there will be 3 ponds receiving effluent from the plant and 2 ponds receiving no effluent. The proposed system of rapid infiltration basins is the best approach to effluent disposal on this particular site in consideration of a variety of site specific criteria. While the Department's adopted guidance standards for percolation pond location specifies that areas with average depths to the groundwater table of 10 feet or more are desirable, the guidance document provides that areas with lesser depths may be acceptable. Computer models using highest projected groundwater levels and highest reasonably projected mounding effects related to the effluent disposal system indicate that while at times there may be less than 3 feet of vertical separation between the top of the groundwater mounds beneath any one of the percolation ponds and the floor of those ponds, it is not expected that the groundwater level will intersect the bottoms of the infiltration basin and that an acceptable margin will be maintained. Initially, there was some dispute among Department staff concerning the suitability of the project site to handle the hydraulic loading rates proposed for the facility's pond system. After a significant amount of analysis of the relevant factors affecting site suitability in this regard and after Department staff managed to get the computer program which analyzes this data working properly, the relevant data indicates that the site is suitable for the proposed wastewater treatment plant as designed. Surface and Ground Water Impact The proposed facility is designed to meet applicable Department water quality standards necessary to prevent unacceptable degradation of the water quality in both the unnamed stream system on site and the Santa Rosa Sound. At the Department's request, the County had an independent study performed to assure that the operation of the facility would not have the effect of degrading nearby surface waters. This study, done by Larry Jacobs and Associates, supports the County consultant's projections that, under worst case conditions (highest observed groundwater levels plus maximum effluent loading), approximately 32,000 additional gallons per day of groundwater may enter the stream system as a result of operation of the RIB system. These studies were conducted to address the Department's concern about the potential for increased nitrogen loading into both the stream system and the Santa Rosa Sound as a result of increased groundwater contributions to the stream system on site. The effluent disposal study submitted by the County as part of its application concludes that, discounting any possible reduction of Total Nitrogen content of the effluent as it travels through the ground before its discharged into the stream system, the Total Nitrogen concentration of the groundwater predicted to reach the stream should be diluted at the lowest observed flow volumes in the system to a concentration of less than 1 mg/1 when it reaches the confluence of the two streams approximately 1,000 feet south of the project site. The projection is an improvement in surface water conditions when compared with currently observed average concentrations of Total Nitrogen in the stream system and Santa Rosa Sound of 1.24 mg/1. The performance of existing package plants in the area is generally poor. In fact, one treatment plant was ordered to close, forcing the relocation of residents in its service area. Another plant has continuing groundwater nitrate violations. In addition, the evidence shows that the performance of the septic tank systems in the area is not acceptable to the Environmental Protection Agency. The majority of the population is served by septic systems that fail under high groundwater conditions. The Director of the Okaloosa County Health Department has certified that 60% of the residents in the County West Service Area have failed septic tanks and that the remaining 40% have septic tanks in imminent danger of failing. Three of the eight existing treatment plants are under either Court or Consent orders to cease operations. The United States Environmental Protection Agency has found that the County West area has an immediate need to provide collection, transmission, and treatment facilities to protect surface and groundwaters and eliminate a public hazard. Existing concentration of Total Nitrogen in Santa Rosa Sound and the waterways on and adjacent to the site are attributed to discharge of inadequately treated wastewater from existing septic tanks, existing wastewater treatment plants and stormwater runoff in the area. It is unlikely that the nitrogen concentration in the Santa Rosa Sound will increase as a result of the operation of the proposed facility since whatever wastewater treated at the facility will be eliminated from discharging into the affected waterbodies from other, less efficient treatment facilities. The proposed facility design incorporates a total of seventeen monitoring wells or stations on and around the site. Two wells will monitor background groundwater quality upgradient from the percolation pond system. Twelve wells will monitor groundwater quality down gradient from the percolation pond system as it leaves the established zone of discharge. Two more stations will monitor surface water quality in the on-site system above and below the site. In addition, there is one intermediate monitoring well within the zone of discharge. Samples from these wells will be used to provide quarterly data reports to the Department indicating status of the following parameters in the ground water; water level, pH, BODs, Fecal Coliform, Total Nitrogen, Nitrate/Nitrate and Chloride. The surface water monitoring will provide annual data reports to the Department on the following parameters: Chemical/Physical - Total Nitrogen, Nitrate/Nitrate, Total Phosphorus, Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature and pH Biological Assessment - macroinvertebrate population per species, species diversity per square meter. These data reports will be submitted regularly to the Department in conjunction with operational monitoring data from the treatment plant to allow assessment of the impact of the plant operation on the environment and compliance with permit conditions. Clearly the County has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed plant and related facilities will not cause pollution significantly degrading the waters of the State.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order Granting the application of Okaloosa County to construct a wastewater treatment facility and related reclaimed water reuse system at the proposed site in southwestern Okaloosa County, Florida, and issuing permits in accordance with the conditions as set forth in the Department's Intent to Issue and draft permit dated August 1, 1988. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANNE CLEAVINGER 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 1st day of June, 1989. APPENDIX Petitioner's paragraph 1 of his Proposed Findings of Facts (titled Closing Statement) did not contain any factual statements. The facts contained in paragraph 2 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Facts are subordinate. All the evidence contrary to the suitability of the Project site was explained by other more credible evidence. The facts contained in paragraphs 1-29 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Facts are adopted in substance, in so far as material. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Ward Qualified Representative For J. P. Ward 10 Rosewood Drive Mary Esther, Florida 32569 John R. Dowd, Esquire Representing Okaloosa County P. O. Box 404 Shalimar, Florida 32579 Steven K. Hall, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Representing the Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 (A Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Bayfront commenced construction of the biological waste incinerator here at issue prior to March 21, 1992, the effective date of the moratorium on construction of biological waste incinerators and was exempt from that moratorium. An inspection of the premises on April 9, 1992, (exhibit 5) showed substantial work had been accomplished and the inspector concluded, and DEP's legal counsel concurred, that in order to have achieved the construction progress shown on April 9, 1992, the work had to have been commenced prior to March 21, 1992. Further, a building permit to renovate the building into which the waste incinerator was placed was issued November 12, 1991, (exhibit 7) and a building permit to install a waste incinerator was issued March 4, 1992, (exhibit 6). No contradictory evidence was submitted by Petitioner. Respondent's witnesses testified without contradiction that Bayfront's application for an operation permit was complete in all respects, including certification by a professional engineer; that all test results showed the emissions into the atmosphere were within the prescribed standards; that certain conditions contained in the construction permit as a result of the settlement agreement resolving the challenge to the issuance of the construction permit are contained in the operation permit; that those conditions exceed the conditions required by the rules for incinerators; and that Bayfront affirmatively provided the Department with reasonable assurance based on plans, test results, installation of pollution control equipment, or other information that the operation of the incinerator will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution in contravention of DEP's standards as contained in Rule 17-4.070(1), Florida Administrative Code. This testimony is accepted as factual. The draft permit authorizes Bayfront to burn a maximum of fifteen hundred pounds per hour of waste. Each time a test run is conducted to check the emissions, the pounds of waste burned per hour during the test establishes an upper limit on the rate of burning waste. As explained by James L. McDonald, the engineer processing air pollution applications for the Department at Transcript p. 50-51: The construction application asked for a permit at fifteen hundred pounds per hour. So the construction permit is -- the condition that we would want, the Department would normally want the test within ten percent of that fifteen hundred pounds an hour in order to go ahead and issue, if its in total compliance, to issue an operating permit at fifteen hundred pounds. Since the test came in at a reduced rate, below the ten percent, then that's why in the operating permit condition twenty-one says you're limited to the rate that we're, the test was conducted. [sic] Now, also, its interesting to note that in their test, if you look at their runs two and three -- because there are rules that say the Department could accept two runs out of three if a condition occurred that was out of their control -- if your average runs two and three, they would average within ten percent of fifteen hundred. So, as a permit processor, it even gave me some reasonable assurance that they could probably comply with the fifteen hundred. But, since the test of all three runs came in as an average of twelve fifty-one, then the operating permit included that twelve fiftyone. And like the real world out there, just like power plants, when it comes time for their annual testing, if they are at half speed, their business is down, it allows them to test at half speed. We won't require them to go up to full speed. They can test at half speed. But then they are limited there. And if they go above it at a later date they would have to retest. So they can work their way back up to where the Department has reasonable assurance that the upper limit of fifteen hundred pounds -- that's where later in condition twenty-one of the operating permit it says but in no case shall the maximum permit or burning rate of fifteen hundred pounds per hour be exceeded. Petitioner's second two grounds for challenging the issuance of the operation permit was answered by McDonald's testimony, above quoted, and this evidence was not rebutted by Petitioner. The primary thrust of the evidence presented by Petitioner was that Bayfront had somehow misled the City of St. Petersburg regarding the operation of the incinerator and had not complied with all of the City's requirements in other respects, ergo, Bayfront could not be relied on to comply with the conditions in the operation permit. This evidence is irrelevant to the determination of whether or not the operation of the incinerator complies with all of the Department rules. The conditions of the operating permit require Bayfront to submit periodic reports to the Department from which the Department can determine whether the conditions in the permit are being complied with. Furthermore, the Department requires the permittee to notify the Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management at least fifteen days prior to the date on which each formal compliance test is to begin (Permit Condition No. 22) to allow them to witness the test, if desired. The construction permit, complying with the settlement agreement, required Bayfront to adhere to more frequent testing and more extensive testing then is required by the rules for operating biological waste incinerators. All of the tests and reports submitted by Bayfront on the operation of this incinerator met all of the requirements in the construction permit and the draft operation permit.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Bayfront Medical Center be issued Permit No. AO52- 224337 to operate a biological waste incinerator at Fifth Avenue South and Eighth Street, St. Petersburg, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of November 1993 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 16th day of November 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Adrian W. Helm, Esquire 925 14th Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 Daniel N. Burton, Esquire Thomas K. Maurer, Esquire Terri L. Gillis-Tucker, Esquire Foley and Lardner 111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1800 Orlando, Florida 32801 W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issue is whether the Petition for Administrative Hearing should be dismissed for failure to state a cause cognizable under Florida Law.
Findings Of Fact On November 30, 1998, Suwannee American filed its application and fee for an air construction permit for a dry process, preheater/precalciner type portland cement plant. The cement plant will emit oxides of nitrogen as a result of the combustion of fuels. A small fraction of the nitrogen oxides will, through oxidation, convert to nitrate. Some of the nitrate will become available for deposition as fall- out through two mechanisms: (a) dry deposition from particulate deposition; and (b) wet deposition from rainfall. Nitrate that lands on land and water surfaces can remain there, be taken up by vegetation, or enter ground and surface waters. The cement plant will also emit mercury. Joseph Kahn, a permit engineer in the Department's Division of Air Resources, Bureau of Air Regulation, was assigned to review the application. Early in the review process, Mr. Kahn became aware that members of the public and the Department's staff in its park's division had concerns about the atmospheric deposition of mercury and nitrate emissions from the cement plant. By letter dated December 29, 1998, Mr. Kahn requested the applicant to furnish additional information, including but not limited to, an additional impacts analysis of mercury and nitrogen deposition pursuant to Rule 62-212.400(5)(e), Florida Administrative Code. 1/ Specifically, the December 29, 1998, letter made the following inquiries: 8. Please compare other NOx [nitrogen oxide] limits established by BACT (for LaFarge and Great Star Cement, for example) with the proposed NOx limit and discuss the variables that affect emissions of NOx from Portland cement plants that are applicable to the proposed facility. * ** Please discuss the basis for the estimated emissions of mercury and provide illustrative calculations. Please estimate the possible impact or deposition of mercury at the Ichetucknee Springs State Park and the Santa Fe and Suwannee Rivers in the vicinity of the proposed facility. Please perform an additional impact analysis in the PSD [prevention of significant deterioration] Class II area near the facility including the Ichetucknee springs State Park and the Santa Fe and Suwannee Rivers in the vicinity of the proposed facility. This analysis must include impact on growth, soils and vegetation, and visibility. On February 25, 1999, the Department received Suwannee American's response to the December 29, 1999, letter. The response states as follows in regards to the deposition of mercury: Response: The PSD report used an emission factor for mercury from AP-42, Table 11.6-9, for cement Kilns with fabric filters. The other available emission factor in AP-42 is for cement kilns with ESPs. As this kiln will utilize an ESP for the pyroprocessing system, this response uses the ESP emission factor: 0.00022 pounds/ton of clinker X 839,5000 tons/year = 185 tons per year. Mercury emission data from nine cement plants ere evaluated as reported in the EPA Document Locating and Estimating Air Emission From sources of Mercury and Mercury compounds. These data are shown in the following table: [Table Omitted] The use of the average value from these tests results in a lower and consistent value: 0.000171 pounds/ton of clinker X 839,500 tons/year = 144 pounds per year. Emission estimates based on expected mercury levels in limestone, clay, sand, fly ash, and coal that will be used by Suwannee American result in an estimated emission rate of 129 pounds per year. The ambient air impact of mercury at the Ichetucknee Springs State Park and the Santa Fe and Suwannee rivers in the vicinity of the proposed facility is estimated as 0.00003- 0.00005 ug/m 3/ as a maximum annual concentration. The Reference Air concentration (RAC) for mercury (40 CFR 266, Appendix IV) is 0.3/m 3/ annual average. The deposition of mercury at the Ichetucknee Springs State Park and the Santa Fe and Suwannee Rivers in the vicinity of the proposed facility is estimated as 0.00002- 0.00005 g/m 2/ as a maximum annual deposition. If this level of deposition continued for 50 years and if all deposited mercury was to accumulate in the top six inches of soil, the increase in mercury levels in the soil would be on the order of 0.006 mg/kg. Safe mercury levels in soil established by Rule 62-785, F.A.C., are 3.7 mg/kg for direct exposure and 2.1 mg/kg for groundwater protection. After receiving the applicant's response to the December 29, 1998, request for additional information, Mr. Kahn performed independent evaluations to determine whether nitrate or mercury deposition would be of special concern in the area around the proposed plant. As to nitrate deposition, Mr. Kahn determined that approximately 50 tons per year of the NOx would be converted and deposited as nitrate within a 23-mile radius of the plant. He concluded that the estimated nitrate deposition from the cement plant was not significant because it was less than 0.1 percent of the annual total loading rate of nitrate (50,000 tons per year) from all other sources in the counties surrounding the Suwannee River. Mr. Kahn's independent analysis of mercury deposition yielded similar results. He concluded that, compared to the background levels of mercury existing in the soils around the proposed facility, and compared to the criteria of the Department's direct exposure soil criteria, 2/ the estimated additional mercury deposition from the cement plant would not be significant. Mr. Kahn and the applicant made several conservative assumptions in making an analysis of mercury deposition. For example, they assumed that mercury would be emitted and deposited in the cement plant's vicinity at a constant rate for 50 years. They also assumed that all of the mercury deposited on the ground would remain in the top six inches of the soil and would not migrate into any other media. On March 25, 1999, the Department conducted a public meeting on Suwannee American's application. The public commented on various issues. As to atmospheric deposition of substances, the public's comments were not structured enough for the Department to consider them per se in the application review. By letter dated March 26, 1999, the Department summarized the public concerns and requested Suwannee American to furnish the following information in relevant part: 2. Estimate potential mercury emissions from the pyroprocessing system, and characterize the fraction of mercury that will come from other raw material, coal, petroleum coke and tires. Please evaluate control methods for mercury emissions. * * * 8. What portion of the proposed plant's Nox emissions will be deposited as nitrate through dry and wet deposition within an area 25 miles radius from the site? Investigate pollution prevention techniques that may result in lower overall NOx emissions. On or about April 21, 1999, Suwannee American responded to the above-referenced questions. As to question no. 2, the responses states as follows: Response: Potential mercury emissions were submitted to the Department on February 25, 1999. Using three different approaches, the projected emissions were in all cases below the 200 pound per year threshold established by Rule 62-212.400(2)(f) and Table 212.400-2, F.A.C. as a significant emission rate increase (for PSD permitting purposes). Because the expected emissions are below the threshold amount, there is no regulatory requirement to apply BACT review for the de minimis emissions that are expected. Approximately 40 percent of the mercury will be contributed by fuel (coal) and 60 percent by raw materials. When petroleum coke or tires are used as fuel, the mercury contributed by fuel is expected to decrease. As to question no. 8, Suwannee American's response stated as follows: Response: The applicant notes that the matters inquired of in this request are not related to those matters allowed under Section 403.0876(1), F.S., and therefore requests that the Department begin processing the permit application under Section 403.0876(2)(a), F.S. However, in a continuing effort to be responsive to the concerns behind the questions asked, the applicant submits the following information, provided the submittal does not affect the permit processing time clock. Approximately 7% or less of the plant's NOx emissions will be deposited as nitrate through dry and wet deposition within an area 25 miles radius from the site. This is approximately 0.1 pounds per acre per year, and is less than one percent of the wet and dry background deposition measured at the Bradford Forest, near Starke, Florida. This analysis was very conservative, as it assumed nitrate deposition between five miles and 25 miles to be equal to the deposition rate at five miles (i.e., there was no credit taken for the decrease in deposition rate with distance beyond five miles). This approach is also conservative in that it assumed all NOx from the plant would immediately convert to nitrate and be available for deposition. This is a worst case assumption. Pollution prevention operating procedures that may result in lower overall NOx emissions are being evaluated. One technique planned for the facility is the stockpiling of limestone to allow natural drainage before pyroprocessing. Lower material moisture contents allow for the use of less fuel and hence, less NOx. After receiving Suwannee American's response to the Department's March 26, 1999, letter, Mr. Kahn reviewed the applicant's analysis. He compared information presented by the applicant with his own estimates of nitrate and mercury deposition. Suwannee American's data confirmed Mr. Kahn's prior conclusion that atmospheric depositions of mercury and nitrate from the cement plant would not be a significant fraction of the existing total deposition and total loading of those elements from all sources. Mr. Kahn did not perform any further analysis to estimate the impact of nitrate or mercury emissions on the area surrounding the proposed plant. He never made any comparisons to the Department's surface water quality criteria or standards related to Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) bodies. In other words, Mr. Kahn did not attempt to discern the specific impact of mercury and nitrate deposition on the ground water and surface water surrounding the proposed plant. His additional impact analysis was limited to comparing the estimated mercury and nitrate depositions from the proposed facility to the existing total loading of those elements from all sources in the area around the cement plant. Concluding that the impacts would be insignificant, he then informally advised certain members of the public, including Mr. Greenhalgh and some of Sierra Club/SOS' members, that the water pollution and OFW rules did not apply. The Department's Division of Air Resources never applies the standards relating to water quality or an OFW. Those standards are applied and enforced by the Department's staff in its water resource division when a water pollution permit is required. If there are off-site impacts that are not covered by the PSD rules, the applicant will be required to apply for other applicable permits. 3/ The parties do not assert that, in order to construct the cement plant, Suwannee American requires a separate water pollution permit to determine its compliance with the OFW rules. No one from the Department's water resource division officially reviewed the application at issue here. In performing his independent evaluation of additional impacts, Mr. Kahn sought information regarding the total nutrient loading in the Middle Suwannee River Basin from all sources from the Department's water resource staff, including Mr. Greenhalgh. Mr. Greenhalgh is a professional geologist who works for the Department in its water resource division. Specifically, Mr. Greenhalgh is one of the individuals working on the Department's Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) analysis for the Middle Suwannee River Basin. In response to Mr. Kahn's inquires, Mr. Greenhalgh stated that the basin had already exceeded its assimilative capacity and could not tolerate additional inputs of nitrate. Other members of the Department's water resource division gave Mr. Kahn similar opinions. However, Mr. Greenhalgh admits that he has not done any calculations to determine the impact of atmospheric deposition of nitrates from the proposed plant on the surrounding area. Mr. Greenhalgh directed Mr. Kahn's attention to a paper written by David Hornsby, an employee of a water management district, concerning the total nitrate loading from all sources in the Middle Suwannee River Basin. Mr. Kahn used data from the paper to make his comparisons between the total nitrate loading from all sources in the area to his estimate of nitrate deposition from the proposed plant. Mr. Kahn then informed Mr. Greenhalgh that the Department could not deny the permit on the basis of nitrate atmospheric deposition because the Department did not regulate all sources of nitrate in the basin. Except for the applicant, and the informal consultations with members of the Department's Division of Water Resources, no one furnished Mr. Kahn with any technical information regarding the atmospheric deposition of mercury and nitrates. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency has not developed or approved methods for calculating air deposition rates for emissions. In the absence of such standards, the methods used by Suwannee American and Mr. Kahn to determine the proposed facility's additional impact on the surrounding area were appropriate and reliable. The Department has adopted the federal government's acid rain rule (Rule 62-214.420, Florida Administrative Code.) That rule specifically addresses water quality impacts from the emissions and atmospheric deposition of sulfur dioxide and NOx from certain electric power plant facilities. The parties agree that the acid rain rule does not apply in this case. Permits for electrical power plants are issued under the authority of the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act. The Governor and Cabinet sitting as the electrical power plant siting board approve power plant siting applications. The Department's Division of Air Resources performs a PSD review for electric power plant siting applications. Unlike the circumstances in this case, an electrical power plant siting application also requires other sections of the Department to consider impacts on water quality, solid waste, and land use. Under the terms of the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act, the Department has required one other applicant to perform the type of additional impact analysis that was performed in this case. That application involved an existing Florida Power and Light Company, Inc. (FP&L) electrical power plant located near Tampa Bay, an OFW. The FP&L electrical power plant requested permission to convert to orimulsion fuel. In the FP&L power plant case, the Department took the position that water quality concerns were satisfied by a demonstration of compliance with air quality standards. There is no specific permit application that one would fill out or apply for to determine if one would be in compliance with the OFW rule. The OFW rule is usually considered in the context of another permit. However, there is no evidence that the Department has ever considered the OFW rule in the context of a new source PSD permit application. Suwannee American's proposed cement plant will be located within three miles of an OFW. There is no evidence that the Department has ever considered another application for a new source PSD (prevention of significant deterioration) permit within such close proximity to an OFW. Sierra Club/SOS' only factual allegation is that Suwannee American has not provided reasonable assurances that it would not significantly degrade the Santa Fe River, an OFW, through the atmospheric deposition of mercury, in contravention to Rule 62-302.700, Florida Administrative Code. 4/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Administrative Hearing in DOAH Case No. 99-3096, with prejudice for lack of standing. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 21st day of October, 1999.
