Findings Of Fact The Application Respondent; Manatee County (County), has applied to Respondent; Department of Environmental Regulation (Department), for a permit to construct a deep injection well in Manatee County. On July 9; 1985; the Department issued a Notice of Intent to issue the permit with certain conditions. In 1983, the County updated its Federal 201 Facilities Plant for treatment and disposal of waste to take into consideration both growth that had taken place in the southwest part of the county and the needs of the rest of the unincorporated area of the county. It was determined to expand the southwest treatment plant as part of the amendments. As before, the County planned to dispose of effluent from the southwest treatment plant by land application to agricultural lands and public golf courses. However; the Environmental Protection Agency requires a twenty year guarantee that effluent can be disposed of in the manner proposed in the 201 plan. The County could not make such a twenty year guarantee for the land application system because it only has a ten-year lease with the Manatee Fruit Company allowing-application on its agricultural fields. The additional cost to purchase or lease land to enable the County to make a twenty year guarantee made land use plus a back-up deep injection well the most cost effective alternative. The County included such a well in its amended 201 Plan. The County plans to continue to use land application as long as it is available. However; even with current land application capacity; land application and existing storage facilities will not enable the county to handle all of the effluent produced during rainy weather. The County estimates that this shortage of capacity will exist on an average of 27 days per year on which approximately 4 million gallons per day (MOD) would be disposed of by deep well injection. After the first several years of operation, it is expected that the rate of injection on these days during the rainy season will increase to approximately six MGD. Effluent from the County's southwest treatment plant is secondarily treated. It has the capability of controlling pH and being disinfected. The plant also can be modified to add a filtration system to filter suspended matter and viruses if necessary. The site of the proposed deep injection well is the Cortez Peninsula in Manatee County. The proposed site is virtually the westernmost point of land in Manatee County other than the barrier islands off the coast. Under the construction permit for which the County has applied, the County would first construct a monitor well on the same construction pad as, and approximately 70 feet away from, the deep injection well. The County does not propose to construct an exploratory well at the proposed site. The County previously constructed an exploratory well approximately three and a half miles east of the proposed site at the County's southwest treatment plant. That exploratory well will also be used to monitor background water in the aquifer above the confining formation above the proposed injection zone. The purpose of the proposed deep injection well is for testing preliminary to an application for a permit to operate the deep injection well to dispose of secondarily treated wastewater or effluent. During construction of the proposed well, water quality; geophysical and hydrological tests will be conducted. The results of the tests will be presented to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Based on the tests results, the TAC will either approve or disapprove testing the well with fresh water. These tests will yield additional information concerning the transmissivity of the injection zone and pressure build-ups. The results of these additional tests will again be presented to the TAC. Based upon the results of the tests, the TAC will either approve or disapprove further testing under operating conditions; i.e., using secondarily treated wastewater or effluent. This last testing period probably will last between three and six months. (The representations of the County and the Department in this Finding Of Fact are not specified in the draft permit which the Department noticed intent to issue.) Manasota-88 Petitioner, Manasota-88; Inc.; opposes the granting of the County's application. Manasota-88 is properly and currently incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida and took proper corporate action to commence its petition in this case. Manasota-88 is a citizen with standing to petition in opposition to the granting of the County's application. The Injection Zone The proposed well will be approximately 1700 feet deep. At that depth; the injection zone will consist of the Avon Park limestone formation which begins approximately 1000 feet deep. The proposed injection zone consists of brown, finely crystalline, massive dolomite with well developed solution cavities and fractures. Above the injection zone lies the Ocala limestone formation; the confining bed; which occurs at depths of approximately between 1000 and 700 feet. The Ocala limestone confining bed consists of friable or chalky limestone or calcareous clay. Above the confining bed is the Suwannee limestone formation, which occurs at depths of approximately 700 to 425 or 350 feet. Like the Avon Park limestone formation, the Suwannee limestone formation is an aquifer however, unlike the Avon Park limestone formation, Suwannee limestone formation is used as a source of water in Manatee County, primarily for agricultural irrigation purposes. Like the exploratory well, the monitor well will monitor water occurring at the bottom of the Suwannee limestone formation aquifer. This will enable both the monitor well and the exploratory well to observe water quality at those locations. D Water Quality In The Injection Zone The water quality at the top of the injection zone at the exploratory well; following pumping and sampling, stabilized at about 14,000 milligrams per liter total dissolved solids (TDS). The water quality in the rest of the injection zone at the exploratory well ranged from 15,290 TDS to 37,700 TDS. Generally, water quality improves as one moves up, south and east within the aquifer. As a result, there is an approximate interface within the aquifer at which water quality equals 10,000 TDS. This saltwater interface or wedge at the top of the Avon Park aquifer is approximately four miles east of the exploratory well. The interface is a dynamic interface which moves with stress or recharge the aquifer. It may, for example, move in a band during the wet season and dry season. If the recharge is great into the zone somewhat further out to the east, the interface may move to the west. In a drought period, the zone is stressed to the west, and it may move to the east as a function of recharge and discharge. But in any event, the inter-face at the top of the injection zone is east of the exploratory well. Apparently contrary evidence suggesting that water quality improves as one moves west is limited to the Suwannee limestone aquifer, which is used for irrigation purposes. Discharge of water from the Suwannee aquifer for irrigation creates hydrauli gradients which can cause artificial water quality findings. The Avon Park aquifer is unaffected by irrigation or any other use of the aquifer. Since the proposed test injection well is located approximately two and a half miles west of the exploratory well; water quality throughout the proposed injection zone can be expected to be greater than 10,000 TDS. If, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence presented at the final hearing in this case, water quality at the proposed injection zone is less than 10,000 TDS, that fact would be revealed during the construction of the test deep injection well and during the various tests to be conducted after construction. There is no environmental reason to construct another exploratory well at the proposed site instead of the test injection well. Water quality tests would be just as accurate as, if not more accurate than; with an exploratory well. The practical use of an exploratory well is that the smaller (six inch versus twenty-four inch casing) exploratory well costs approximately one tenth the cost of a test injection well; allowing an applicant to reduce the potential losses in the event the well proves unsuitable. Based upon the findings at the exploratory site; there is not even an economic reason for digging another exploratory well at the new proposed site. Confinement In The Injection Zone The proposed confining zone is the Ocala limestone formation which occurs from approximately 700-1000 feet deep and consists of friable or chalky limestone or calcareous clay. The Ocala limestone has very low permeability, particularly vertical permeability; and would act as a proper confining zone. The permeability of the Ocala limestone is on the order of 3000 to 5000 times lower than that of the injection zone. In additional to permeability, the rate and manner of injection into the injection zone affects the ability of the confining zone to confine the injectant. It is easier for a confining zone to do so if the injection occurs periodically rather than continuously. When water is injected periodically, the pressure associated with buoyancy is dissipated rather quickly, decreasing pressure build-up. Although 15 million gallons per day (MOD) is the operational capacity of the well, the average rate of injection to be used by the county will be approximately 6 MGD. The 6 MGD average will not be reached during the first several years of operation. At the beginning of operations, the rate of injections will be approximately between 3 and 4 MGD. Aquifer pressure also is affected by the transmissive qualities of the injection zone. Based upon tests run at the exploratory well, it is estimated that the injection zone at the exploratory well can transmit between 500,000 and 1 million gallons per day per foot. Those estimates were made in part by adjusting actual transmissivity figures of between 100,000 and 150,000 gallons per day per foot for friction loss in the six- inch exploratory well which would not be experienced in a twenty-four inch test injection well. Based upon the geology of the area; it can be expected that the transmissivity of the proposed injection zone will approximate the transmissivity of the injection zone at the exploratory well. Again, if, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence presented at the final hearing of this case, transmissivity of the proposed injection zone is significantly lower than 500,000 to 1 million gallons per day per foot, the actual transmissivity of the proposed injection zone will be indicated by tests run during construction of the test infection well and during tests run after construction. Since the test injection well will be able to run tests under operational conditions; transmissivity values from the test well will be more accurate than any similar tests that could be run at another exploratory well at the proposed site. There also will be no need to estimate an adjustment for friction loss. Again, there is no environmental reason to construct an exploratory well instead of a test well at the proposed site. Using a constant injection rate of 6 MGD and a transmissivity value of 500 thousand gallons per day per foot, the travel time through the confining zone would be approximately 130 years. Using a transmissivity value of one million gallons per day per foot, the travel time through the confining zone would be approximately 225 years. As previously mentioned; the proposed Well actually is intended to be used periodically; not constantly. With this type of use; the travel time through the confining zone would extend many hundreds of years. The effect of variations in the actual injection rate from the proposed injection rate can be controlled during operational permitting. The Ocala limestone extends westward into the Gulf of Mexico about 100 to 150 miles. Fluid injected at the proposed injection zone would travel a predominantly westward direction; consistent with the regional hydraulic gradient in the injection zone. If the effluent travels through the confining zone during the 130 or more years; it would be filtered by the fine grain limestone which would remove all the suspended matter and; over that period of time, the biodegradation of the effluent would render it virtually inert. Under the conditions and pressures under which Manatee County proposes to operate the deep injection well, none of the injected fluid would come through the confining zone and there would be no salinity changes above the confining zone attributable to the injection well. No aquifer or any part of an aquifer which is or may be used as an underground source of drinking water will be affected by the proposed injection of treated effluent. No Need For Filtration Filtration of effluent being injected into the proposed deep well does not require filtration for removal of viruses. The suspended matter to which viruses attach themselves will be filtered out of the effluent by the rock matrix and particles of the injection zone and especially the confining zone. Filtration also probably will not be necessary for operational efficiency of the proposed well. The transmissivity of the injection zone is high enough for the proposed well to be expected to operate at less than 70 pounds per square inch (psi) pressures; well below the approximate confining zone fracture pressure of 1000 psi. Because of the transmissivity of the injection zone, it is not anticipated that filtration will be necessary. In any event, the need for filtration is an operational concern which can be governed in operation permit procedures in light of the better information which will be obtained as a result of testing during and after construction of the proposed well. If pressure build-ups do occur as a result of unexpected plugging of the well, the problem can be eliminated by more frequent (and costly) maintenance cleaning of the well or by adding a filtration system. Financial Responsibility The cost to plug the proposed well if, for some reason, it could not be operated ranges between $10,000 and $100;000.$10;000 would cover the cost of pumping cement down the well; the simplest plugging technique. It would cost about $100,000 to set up a complete rig. The rig system would be the better system for plugging the well. The County has approximately 3.5 to 4.5 million dollars of-uncommitted reserves which could be used to pump the well; if necessary. In addition; the County has money in contingency funds as part of its overall 201 Facility Plan construction program. The County has sufficient funds available on a day-to-day basis to pay for plugging the well. The Department does not usually require a county government to post a performance bond as financial assurance of its ability to plug an abandoned well; at least where the county government's financial resources approximate those of Manatee County. The Department's rationale for this policy is that a county government is a subunit of the state government. The County maintains financial responsibility and resources to close, plug and abandon the proposed well if necessary without posting a performance bond. But the draft permit which the Department noticed intent to issue does not require the County to certify continued maintenance of this financial ability.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent; Department of Environmental Regulation; enter a final order granting the application of Respondent; Manatee County for a permit to construct a Class I deep injection/test well in Manatee County and issuing a permit as previously drafted; with all specific and general conditions; plus additional conditions: (1) that no testing of the completed well will be done without prior Department approval, upon recommendation of the Technical Advisory Committee: (2) that no testing of the completed well with waste water be done before completion of testing with freshwater: and (3) that Manatee County be required to certify that it will continue to maintain at least $150,000 of its reserves uncommitted and available for use in closing, plugging, and abandoning the well if necessary. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of May, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 1986.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's site, Circle K General, Inc., Store #2375, located at U.S. #1 and Pennekamp Park, is eligible for restoration pursuant to the Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Program (FPLIRP) set forth in Section 376.3072, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Circle K General, Inc., Store #2375 owns and operates a petroleum storage site located at U.S. #1 and John Pennekamp Park, Key Largo, Florida. The DER Facility ID Number for the site is 448624728. Circle K operates at the site three 10,000 gallon fiberglass tanks which contain gasoline. The tanks currently operated at the site were installed in 1987. Four monitoring wells for the site were installed at the same time as the Circle K tanks were installed in 1987. Monthly monitoring well reports were completed each month beginning on December 12, 1987, and ending on July 30, 1989, by Professional Services Industries on behalf of Circle K. Steve Belin is the individual at Circle K responsible for reviewing or supervising the review of the monitoring well reports for Store #2375. The November 26, 1988, monthly monitoring well report indicated the presence of petroleum odor in all four of the monitoring wells at the site. After receipt of the November 26, 1988, monthly monitoring report, neither Steve Belin nor any employee of Circle K filed a Discharge Notification Form with the Department. After receipt of the November 26, 1988, monthly monitoring report, neither Steve Belin nor any employee of Circle K undertook steps to investigate the source or cause of the petroleum odor. The monthly monitoring report dated March 20, 1989, indicates the presence of a petroleum odor in one of the four monitoring wells. After receipt of the March 20, 1989, monitoring well report, neither Steve Belin nor any employee of Circle K filed a Discharge Notification Form with the Department. After receipt of the March 20, 1989, monthly monitoring report, neither Steve Belin nor any employee of Circle K undertook steps to investigate the source or cause of the petroleum odor. The July 30, 1989, monthly monitoring well report indicates the presence of petroleum product in all four monitoring wells. The July 30, 1989, monthly monitoring well report was not received by Steve Belin until September, 1989. On July 31 and August 1, 1989, Combustion Engineering installed a set of four new compliance monitoring wells. Circle K contracted for the installation of new monitoring wells because the four existing monitoring wells were only 15 feet deep and were dry. By letter dated August 17, 1989, Combustion Engineering notified Steve Belin that a petroleum odor was detected in the soils retrieved while drilling one of the new monitoring wells and that a petroleum odor was also detected in one of the old monitoring wells. On August 21, 1989, Steve Belin filed a Discharge Notification Form with the Department for Circle K Store #2375. After the discharge notification was filed on August 21, 1989, none of the tanks were taken out of service. After the filing of the August 21, 1989 Discharge Notification Form, Circle K inspected the inventory records for the site beginning in October, 1988, through September, 1989, and detected no significant loss of petroleum product. On October 6, 1989, an inspection of Circle K Store #2375 was conducted by Leslie Rueth of the South District Office of the Department of Environmental Regulation. At the time of the October 6, 1989, DER inspection, free product was noted in two of the four new monitoring wells, and all of the wells contained a petroleum odor. On October 19, 1989, the South District Office of Department of Environmental Regulation notified Steve Belin of the October 6, 1989, inspection results and requested (1) that a tank and line tightness test be performed to determine if there was a leak in the petroleum storage system and (2), if free product was present, that an initial remedial action (IRA) be implemented as defined in F.A.C. Rule 17-70.006. An Initial Remedial Action consists of the removal of free product through the bailing or pumping of free product off the water table and may include the removal of excessively contaminated soil. On October 30, 1989, Steve Belin submitted tank tightness test results for the three 10,000 gallon tanks located at Circle K Store #2375. All three tanks passed the tank and line tests. By letter of October 17, 1989, Steve Belin requested ATEC Associates, Inc. to have all of the monitoring wells of Store #2375 bailed of free product once a week for one month. The free product present at Store #2375 resulted from old tanks and piping installed by Circle K's predecessor, U Under Florida Administrative Code Rule 17 presence of a layer or odor, or the positive report of a laboratory that the monitoring well sample contains pollutant, shall be treated as a discharge. A properly installed monitoring well should have at least one foot of water in the well in order to be able to take a water sample from the well. If a foot or less of water is present in a monitoring well, a vapor monitoring device should be used to test the wells. From December, 1987, until July, 1989, the Circle K monitoring wells were usually dry. Under Florida Administrative Code Rule 17 wells must be constructed such that the bottom of the casing is at least five feet below the water level at the time of drilling but no deeper than 25 feet. The monitoring wells constructed at Circle K Store #2375 did not meet the construction specifications set forth in Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code. Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-61.050(b)(6) requires discharges to be reported to the Department within three working days of discovery. DER was not notified of a discharge subsequent to either the November 26, 1988, or the March 20, 1989, monitoring well reports, nor did Circle K contain the leak.
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 denying the Petitioner's application for site restoration pursuant to the Florida Petroleum Liability and Insurance Program (FPLIRP). DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-2065 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1989), the following rulings are made on the Respondent's proposed findings of fact (the Petitioner not having filed any): 1.-27. Accepted and incorporated. Cumulative. Accepted; subordinate to facts found. 30.-33. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 34.-38. Accepted and incorporated. 39. Cumulative. 40.-41. Accepted and incorporated. 42. Accepted but subordinate to facts found and unnecessary. 43.-44. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Conclusion of law. Accepted but unnecessary. 47.-48. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 49. Cumulative and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Steve Belin The Circle K Corporation Regional Environmental Director 500 South Faulkenburg Road Tampa, FL 33619 Janet E. Bowman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent Seanic Corporation's application for an operating permit for a domestic wastewater treatment facility should be granted.
Findings Of Fact On January 20, 1994, Respondent Seanic Corporation submitted to Respondent Department of Environmental Protection an application to construct a wastewater treatment and disposal facility. The application requested approval to construct a facility with a design capacity of 15,000 gallons per day and to discharge its treated effluent to G-III groundwater through two Class V injection wells. Although the Department had no rules with specific depth requirements for such wells, the plans that accompanied the application contemplated wells with a total depth of 90 feet below land surface, which would be cased down to a depth of 60 feet below land surface. On February 23, 1994, the Department gave notice of its intent to issue the requested construction permit. Petitioners did not challenge the issuance of the construction permit, and the Department issued the permit on April 22, 1994, with an expiration date of five years after the issuance of the permit. On February 17, 1999, Seanic began construction of the permitted facility, including the construction of the two Class V injection wells. At the time the wells were first drilled, there were no statutes or rules regarding the appropriate depth of underground injection wells at a facility like Seanic's. Construction of the Seanic facility was completed before April 12, 1999, as reflected by the Certificate of Completion of Construction for the permitted facility. On April 21, 1999, Seanic filed with the Department its application to operate the facility. Chapter 99-395, Laws of Florida, became effective on June 18, 1999, approximately two months after the facility was constructed and the operating permit application was submitted. Section 5 of Chapter 99-395 defines the term "existing" to mean "permitted by the Department of Environmental Protection or the Department of Health as of the effective date of this act." Chapter 99-395 imposes different effluent limitations for "existing sewage facilities" than those that are applied to new facilities. For facilities that have a design capacity of less than 100,000 gallons per day, new facilities must provide treatment that will produce an effluent that contains no more, on a permitted annual basis, than the following concentrations: Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD5) of 10 mg/L Suspended Solids of 10 mg/L Total Nitrogen of 10 mg/L Total Phosphorus of 1 mg/L These standards are frequently referred to as the "10-10-10-1 Standard." In accordance with Section 6(4) of Chapter 99-395, "existing sewage facilities" have until July 1, 2010, to comply with the 10-10-10-1 standard. Prior to that date, "existing sewage facilities" must meet effluent limitations of 20 mg/L for both CBOD5 and suspended solids and must monitor their effluent for concentrations of total nitrogen and total phosphorus. The Seanic facility is an "existing" facility, as that term is defined in Chapter 99-395, and, therefore, has until July 1, 2010, to comply with the 10-10-10-1 standard. Section 6(7)(a) of Chapter 99-395 requires Class V injection wells for facilities like Seanic's to be "at least 90 feet deep and cased to a minimum depth of 60 feet or to such greater cased depth and total well depth as may be required by Department of Environmental Protection rule." The Department has not promulgated any rules requiring Class V injection wells to be deeper than the depth prescribed in Chapter 99-395, Laws of Florida. As of January 26, 2000, the total depth of Seanic's injection wells measured 92 and 94.5 feet, respectively. On November 24, 1999, the Department entered its notice of intent to issue the operating permit applied for by Seanic and attached to the notice a "draft permit" with the conditions and effluent limitations that would be applied to the facility. In issuing the notice, the Department determined that Seanic had provided reasonable assurance that the facility will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution in contravention of applicable statutes or the Department's standards or rules. The draft permit included effluent limitations of 20 mg/L for both CBOD5 and suspended solids and required Seanic to monitor its effluent for total nitrogen and total phosphorus, in accordance with Chapter 99-395, Laws of Florida, and the Department's rules for existing sewage facilities. The draft permit notes that Seanic must comply with the 10-10-10-1 standard by July 1, 2010. Because Seanic's condominium development has not been completed and the wastewater treatment facility is not expected to go into operation for approximately one year, the draft permit also requires that the facility be re-inspected and re-certified immediately prior to going into operation. The Seanic facility was designed to create an effluent that is several times cleaner than required by Department rules. The facility uses an extended aeration process that is expected to reduce levels of both biological oxygen demand ("BOD") and total suspended solids ("TSS") to lower than 5 mg/L, concentrations that are 75 percent lower than the effluent limitations in the draft permit. Similar facilities in the Florida Keys have shown that they can achieve BOD and TSS concentrations of less than 5 mg/L. The Seanic facility has also been designed to provide a greater level of disinfection than required by law. While the draft permit requires only that the facility maintain a chlorine residual of 0.5 mg/L after fifteen minutes' contact time, the facility has been designed with larger chlorine contact tanks to provide a chlorine contact time of approximately one hour at anticipated flow rates. The facility operator can also increase residual chlorine concentrations. These facts, along with the reduced TSS levels at this facility, will provide considerably greater levels of disinfection than the law requires. Although the draft permit does not contain effluent limitations for total nitrogen or total phosphorus, the levels of these nutrients expected to be present in the Seanic facility's effluent are approximately 5 mg/L and 2-3 mg/L, respectively. Studies conducted on the rate of movement of phosphorus in the subsurface indicate that some of the phosphorus is rapidly immobilized through chemical reactions with the subsurface soil matrix. Specifically, studies conducted on injection wells in the Florida Keys report that 95 percent of the phosphorus is immobilized within a short time after entering the injection well. Studies conducted on the rate of movement of nitrates in the subsurface indicate that some nitrate migration is also retarded through chemical reactions with the subsurface soil matrix. More specifically, studies conducted with injection wells in the Florida Keys report that denitrification removes approximately 65 percent of the nitrates within a short time after the effluent enters the injection well. In addition to the chemical reduction of phosphorus and nitrogen levels in the groundwater, studies conducted on injection wells in the Florida Keys with a total depth of 90 feet and a cased depth of 60 feet have reported extremely high dilution rates by the time effluent injected into such wells would appear in surrounding surface waters. More specifically, studies using chemical and radioactive tracers have reported dilution rates on the range of seven orders of magnitude, i.e., 10 million times. After undergoing chemical reduction in the groundwater as well as extremely high dilution rates, the levels of nitrogen and phosphorus that would be expected to enter Captain's Cove and the adjacent canals will be infinitesimal, i.e., less than one part per trillion. Such levels would be several orders of magnitude below detection limits of currently available analytical methods. The surface waters in the artificial canals and in Captain's Cove surrounding the homes of Petitioners' members are classified by the Department as Class III waters that are predominantly marine. The permitted levels of fecal coliform bacteria in the facility's effluent (as restricted in the draft permit) are identical to the discharge limits for fecal coliform bacteria in Class III waters that are predominantly marine. The operation of Seanic's facility will not result in discharges of fecal coliform bacteria in excess of the applicable effluent limitations. Petitioners' expert witnesses agree that the facility, as designed, will comply with all of the conditions and effluent limitations in the draft permit. No Department rule or standard will be violated by this facility. The Department has not promulgated any effluent limitations or standards for viruses to be discharged to G-III groundwater or Class III surface waters that are predominantly marine. Petitioners' members use and enjoy the clear waters in their canals and in Captain's Cove. They have had the water quality tested four times a year since 1988. Captain's Cove, along with the adjacent canals, has remained a clear, oligotrophic water body with minimal algae growth. Petitioners' members fear that the introduction of viruses and other microorganisms through the facility's effluent will cause swimming in Captain's Cove and the adjacent canals to be harmful to their health. Their fear has been heightened by newspaper stories about viruses and a publicized study which erroneously claimed that Captain's Cove had high levels of harmful bacteria. Petitioner Port Antigua Property Owners Association ("PAPOA") received notice of the Department's intent to issue an operating permit to Seanic. The president discussed the permit with another resident, a microbiologist, who in turn discussed the facility with geologists and reviewed studies performed in the Florida Keys. Their serious concern over the depth of the injection wells and the possible release of viruses and bacteria harmful to the marine environment and to the public health was expressed throughout PAPOA's petition, and a copy of one of the tracer studies upon which they relied was attached to the petition. The president of Petitioner Port Antigua Townhouse Association, Inc. ("PATA"), who is also a member of PAPOA, discussed the Department's notice of intent with the president of PAPOA and the microbiologist. He also discussed the project with a member of PATA who oversees Broward County's wastewater treatment facility, which has the same effluent limitations as the Seanic facility. PATA members believed they should join with PAPOA and the Lower Matecumbe Key Association in requesting a hearing on Seanic's operating permit. PATA and others have also filed litigation in the Circuit Court against Seanic Corporation and others. That litigation is still pending. Petitioners were not able to cite any statute or rule that would be violated by the Seanic facility's discharge. They believe that since the facility is not yet operating, it should be required to adhere to the stricter effluent standards required for new facilities. They also believe that the Department should consider the harmful effects of viruses and bacteria on the marine environment and on the public health. Petitioners did not file their petitions for any improper purpose. They did not file their petitions for any frivolous purpose or to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or to increase Seanic's costs in obtaining an operating permit for its facility. They believed the language in the Department's notice of intent to issue the permit which advises substantially affected persons that they have a right to an administrative hearing and that the Department could change its preliminary agency action as an result of the administrative hearing process. They believe they are simply exercising a right that they have under the law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting Seanic's application for an operating permit for its domestic wastewater treatment facility but denying Seanic's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Francine Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Evan Goldenberg, Esquire White & Case, LLP First Union Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-5309 Lee R. Rohe, Esquire Post Office Box 500252 Marathon, Florida 33050 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue is whether Sarasota County's application for a permit authorizing the construction of a Class V, Group 3 aquifer storage and recovery well system at the Central County Water Reclamation Facility in Sarasota, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background On September 14, 1999, the County, through its Utilities Department, filed with the Department an application for a permit to construct a Class V, Group 3 aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) test well and monitor well system at its Central County Water Reclamation Facility, 79005 South McIntosh Road, Sarasota, Florida. The Department is charged with the responsibility of issuing such permits. On July 19, 2001, the Department issued its Notice of Intent to issue Permit No. 160882-001-UC. The permit authorizes the County to construct one test well to determine the feasibility for the storage and recovery of reclaimed water from the Suwannee Limestone of the Upper Floridan aquifer system at a depth of between 500 and 700 feet below land surface. Also, the County is authorized to construct three monitor wells, one into the target storage zone, the second into the first overlying transmissive unit, and the last into the overlying Arcadia Formation. The storage capacity of the test well is projected to be between one and two million gallons per day. On August 10, 2001, Petitioner, who is a citizen of the State of Florida, resides in Tallahassee, and is a long- time employee of Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, Inc., filed her verified Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing (Petition) under Sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and 403.412(5), Florida Statutes. In her Petition, she generally contended that the permitting would have the effect of impairing, polluting, or otherwise injuring the water of the State because the proposed injectate (being placed in the well) will not meet primary and secondary drinking water standards, may be harmful to human health, and will violate the minimum criteria for groundwater. She also contends that the permit application was not signed by the proper signatory and that the Department failed to require the County to first drill an exploratory well (as opposed to a test well). While these allegations were not sufficient to demonstrate that Petitioner's substantial interests were affected by the proposed permitting, they were deemed sufficient (subject to proof at final hearing) to satisfy the pleading requirements of Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes. Water Reuse Generally Water reuse is the use of reclaimed water for a beneficial purpose. Because of Florida's continuing population growth and occasional water shortage, the use of reclaimed water is an important conservation tool. Indeed, in 2002 the Legislature showed strong support for water conservation and reuse by amending Section 403.064(1), Florida Statutes, and adding language which states that "the reuse of reclaimed water is a critical component of meeting the state's existing and future water supply needs while sustaining natural systems." To this end, the County has filed its application for the purpose of using reclaimed water for such lesser uses as irrigation so that the existing high quality fresh groundwater can be used for higher and better purposes such as drinking water for the general public. The Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) has also encouraged the use of reclaimed water by providing funding for this type of program to induce utilities to move forward with reuse programs. In addition, the Department has been proactive in promoting the reuse of water throughout the State in order to conserve water resources. Aquifer Storage and Recovery Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) is a reuse program encouraged by the Legislature, Department, and District. It involves the storage of water underground in a suitable formation, through a well, during times when water is available to put into the well, and then recovery of that stored water from the well during times when it is needed for some beneficial purpose. Put another way, an ASR operates like an underground storage tank. Water is placed into the ASR wells (by means of pumping) during recharge periods when it is raining and there is no demand for reclaimed water. When the water is pumped into the well, a stored water bubble is created by using buffer zones made of water with more salinity than the stored water. These buffer zones are designed so that there can be full recovery of the stored water. The recovery rate is generally around 100 percent. There are three ways to store reclaimed water: surface ponds, storage tanks, and ASR. The ASR storage method is the most efficient method of storing reclaimed water, and it has significant environmental, utility, and economic benefits. The ASR method has no impact on wetlands and ecosystems, and unlike pond storage (and to a lesser degree storage tanks), it does not require the use of large surface areas and is not affected by evapotranspiration and seepage. (There is typically a 60 percent loss of water due to evaporation in surface storage areas.) It also results in cost savings (up to a 50 percent reduction in capital costs) and avoidance of wetlands impacts. One of the goals of the County's Comprehensive Plan is to maximize the use of reclaimed water for irrigation purposes. Because other storage methods have proved to be inefficient, ASR is the County's preferred storage method to meet this goal. At the time of the final hearing (August 2002), there were at least fifty-six ASR systems operating outside the State of Florida (and around one hundred more in various stages of development) and eleven ASR systems successfully operating in the State, the first one having been established in 1983. At that time, there were also two ASR test programs underway in the area, including one in the Englewood Water District, a few miles to the south of the proposed project, and the Northwest Hillsborough ASR program, which is located just north of the County. Also, ASR systems are located in Manatee County and near the Peace River, which is in the same storage area being proposed here. Therefore, the County has the benefit of drawing upon twenty years of experience with this type of system. The Permit The County began an informal water reuse program in 1988, when it first used effluent disposal for irrigation purposes at a local golf course. A formal program (the Reuse Master Plan) was commenced in 1994; however, the County still lacks the storage capacity to meet the seasonal demands of its reuse customers.3 Without storage, any excess water must be discharged and lost. In order to meet the County's goal of maximizing reclaimed water use, it must be able to adequately store reclaimed water. Due to projected population growth and issues concerning management of limited resources, in 1997 the County began considering the use of ASR as a means to better manage its reclaimed water supply and demand for those facilities which serve the North County Reuse System. If all necessary permits are obtained, the County intends to use reclaimed water from its Central County wastewater facility. Currently, that effluent receives advanced tertiary treatment with deep bed filtration and high level disinfection. The proposed test well will be approximately 700 feet deep; at that depth, the injection (or storage) zone will consist of the Suwannee Limestone formation of the Upper Floridan aquifer system. The storage zone is brackish, with the water quality or salinity having about six times the acceptable degree of salinity for a drinking water source. It is anticipated that the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration in the injection zone will be greater than 3,000 TDS. If water quality at the proposed injection zone is greater than 3,000 TDS, this fact will be revealed during the construction of the test injection well and during the various tests to be conducted during construction. (Assuming this level of TDS is found, then at that point the County would have to provide reasonable assurance that the water reclamation facility is providing full or principal treatment to the domestic waste.) The evidence establishes that there is some level of transmissivity in the confining layer overlying the proposed injection zone. That is to say, there is some small degree of connectivity between the proposed injection zone and the aquifer above it. The actual level of transmissivity will be determined based upon tests run during the construction of the first monitor well. The effluent produced from the County's water reclamation facility meets drinking water standards. If the plant is unable to produce effluent that meets or exceeds the applicable water quality standards, this issue is an operational concern which can be addressed in a permit modification authorizing operational testing. Under the Department's permit process, if the construction permit is approved, the County will construct a monitor well to obtain more site-specific information concerning such things as the geology, hydrology, and water quality at the site. (At this point, while the County has published literature sources and regional geologic information from two nearby ASR systems using the same storage area to rely upon, it has no specific data for the very small parcel where the well will be constructed.) Once the information is obtained, an engineering report is prepared and submitted to the Department. That report contains a wide array of technical data, including construction data, hydrogeologic data, formation samples, water quality samples, hydraulic data, core data, Packer data, and geophysical data. This information is then used by the Department (and a special advisory committee called the Technical Advisory Committee) to evaluate whether the site can be authorized for cycle testing and later for operational purposes. If cycle testing is appropriate, the County must then request a modification to its construction permit to authorize cycle testing of its ASR well. That modification, and any others that may be warranted by the new information, are "final agency action subject to the procedural safeguards contained in Chapter 120, F.S." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 528.100(2). When the test injection well is constructed and eventually placed into operation, monitor wells will be used to monitor background water in both the injection zone and in the two aquifers overlying the proposed injection zone. However, until further Department approval is obtained, no injection of reclaimed water is authorized; the permit being sought here authorizes only the construction of the well itself. Finally, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 528.640(1)(a) requires that the County obtain a separate operation permit after the construction permit has been issued and testing completed. Criteria and Standards for a Class V Well Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-528 governs all injection wells defined as Class I, III, IV, or V wells. (In Class II wells, the injected fluids are used in connection with oil and natural gas production and are regulated by the Florida Geological Survey under Chapter 377, Florida Statutes.) The category of wells in which the County seeks a permit is a Class V, Group 3 permit, which includes all domestic wastewater wells. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 528.300(1)(e)3. A Group 3 well involves the injection of fluids that have been processed through a permitted domestic wastewater treatment plant. Even though the County is requesting a permit for a Class V well, at the request of the Department, it submitted a different (and more stringent) type of application (a "900" application) since the Department has the authority to apply "any of the criteria for Class I wells" if it believes that the well may cause or allow fluids to migrate into an underground source of drinking water which may cause a violation of primary or secondary drinking water standards. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-528.605(2). (A Class I well is a well used to inject hazardous waste below the lowermost formation containing an underground source of drinking water.) In this case, the Department opted to apply certain Class I construction standards for the well, in addition to the normal standards for Class V wells. Those standards are found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.400. This means that the County will be held to a higher standard than a general underground injection control permit. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.605 contains the Class V well construction standards. For the following reasons, the County has given reasonable assurance that all criteria will be met. Subsection (1) of the rule requires that "a well shall be designed and constructed for its intended use, in accordance with good engineering practices, and the design and construction shall be approved by the Department with a permit." The evidence clearly establishes that good engineering practices have been followed by the County for the design and construction of the well. Subsection (2) requires that an applicant design and construct the well so that it will not "cause or allow fluids to migrate into an underground source of drinking water which may cause a violation of a primary or secondary drinking water standard . . . or may cause fluids of significantly differing water quality to migrate between underground sources of drinking water." Subsection (3) is also directed at the migration of fluids. The evidence shows that the migration of fluids between aquifers will be prevented as a part of the design and construction of the ASR well program. The design chosen by the County has been proven to prevent migration of fluids between aquifers, and it will preserve the integrity of the confining beds. The combination of steel casing and cementing prevents the migration of fluids along the borehole. The well will be constructed by a Florida licensed contractor, as required by Subsection (4). The remaining criteria in the rule will be satisfied during the construction process. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.620 contains reporting requirements for Class V wells. All of these requirements are included in the draft permit and will be met by the County. The Department has also included Special Condition 1(h) in the draft permit, which provides that nothing will be injected into the well that does not meet the Federal Primary Drinking Water Standard. This condition is drawn from Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.307, which specifies general conditions to be included in underground injection control permits. In accordance with this condition, the County will monitor the movement of fluid to ensure that there are no violations. The County has also demonstrated that there will be no hazardous waste injection, as prohibited by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.600(1)(a). Finally, the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.630(3) do not apply at this time since the proposed permit is only for construction of a well, and not the injection of water. Class I Well Construction Standards Because the Department has imposed more stringent construction standards on the County, the Class I well construction standards found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.410(1) come into play. The County has demonstrated that it has complied with the requirement that the well be cemented and cased. In addition, the County has considered corrosion protection in the cementing and casing of the proposed well. Because the casing will be cemented, coating is not required. Finally, there will be no open annulus (spacing between the casings and the bore hole) in the ASR test well. Other Requirements Drilling Geophysical surveys will be conducted during the pilot hole drilling stages to collect hydrogeologic information. Further, drill stem tests will be conducted throughout the drilling, and a driller's log will be maintained. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-528.410(3). Casing Steel casing will be used, taking into consideration the possible corrosion of steel. The life expectancy of the well was considered, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.410(4)(a), and was determined to be unknown. Cement Type 2 cement will be used, which is sulfate resistant and is specifically designed for use in regions such as Florida. Testing Geophysical logs will be used during the construction and testing of the well to verify the physical conditions of the well and confirm that construction is proceeding according to the plan. Also, geophysical surveys will be conducted during pilot hole drilling stages to collect subsurface hydrogeologic information. Environmental concerns Once a drilling contractor is selected, the location for the disposal of drilling fluids will be submitted for Department approval in accordance with Special Condition 1(b) in the draft permit. Monitor well construction standards The monitor well will meet all construction requirements under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 528.420. (The same standards that are applied to Class V wells are also applied to monitor wells.) General design considerations Exploratory pilot hole drilling stages will be conducted to collect hydrogeologic information, and complete sets of geophysical surveys will be performed. Because cement generates heat, temperature surveys will be run as a part of the construction sequence to verify coverage of the cement. This means that tools will be lowered into the hole after each cementing stage to verify coverage. Monitoring requirements Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.425(1)(d) requires that an applicant perform "a demonstration of mechanical integrity . . . at least once every five years during the life of the well." Details to accomplish this are found in both the application and the draft permit. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.425(1)(f) requires that the background water quality of the injection zone and monitoring zone be determined prior to injection. The County will perform this task before injection occurs. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.425(1)(g) requires that monitor wells be installed above the injection zone near the project. The County will construct three wells, as required by the rule. They will also be placed at a sufficient distance from the project, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.425(1)(h), and the specific monitoring intervals are detailed in the draft permit. Reporting requirements The Department requires periodic data reports and progress reports regarding eight separate types of information. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-528.430(1)(a). These reporting requirements will be performed and followed. Because a Class V well may be required to be plugged and abandoned, the Department requires a plugging and abandonment report. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-528.625. All requirements under this rule have been met, and the County has the financial resources to accomplish this task, when required. General Class I permitting requirements Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.440 sets forth general permitting requirements for Class I and III wells. Because the Department has opted to impose certain Class I criteria on the County's application, some of the criteria in this rule apply. They include special conditions 1(a), (c), and (e) in the permit for well construction, system modification, and fluid injection, all of which have been, or will be, met by the County. In addition, the duration for the operation permit cannot exceed five years, and the County was required to submit an application for a permit which conformed with the requirements of the rule. As a part of its application, the County established an area of review for the construction permit, taking into account the zone of endangering influence. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-528.300(4). (An area of review is the area surrounding an injection well, including the area of possible endangering influence.) This requirement was met because the established area of review is one mile even though the predicted area of influence is expected to be no more than 400 feet. As a part of the preceding analysis, the County also conducted an area of review study, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.440(6)(a). In doing so, the County evaluated the impact on the ASR well, and the impact the ASR well would have on the surrounding area. That evaluation determined that there are no water supply wells within the area of review. Because the construction permit only has a duration of five years, and given the County's supporting information submitted with the area of influence study, the Department has not required that the County provide a corrective action plan. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-528.300(5)(a). Class I well construction permit criteria All guidelines for constructing the well have been followed, and the construction of the well will not be a source of pollution. The County has provided reasonable assurance that the project will function in accordance with the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62- 528. Hydrological modeling Finally, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.405 specifies criteria for evaluating the geologic and hydrologic environment of Class I wells. The County has satisfied all criteria in the rule. Other Issues Exploratory well Petitioner contends that the Department should require the County to construct an exploratory well, as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.603(1), rather than a test well. That rule defines an exploratory well as one being "drilled for the specific purpose of obtaining information to determine the feasibility of underground injection at the proposed site." However, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.450(1)(b) requires an exploratory well only "for those projects located in an area where available information is lacking concerning geologic or hydraulic confinement or existing information indicates that geologic or hydraulic confinement may be poor or lacking." For example, an exploratory well would be required in a remote area (such as certain parts of Polk County) where the Department had insufficient literature, studies, or prior history concerning the general geology across and around the site. In this case, two nearby ASR systems are located in the Englewood Water District and near the Peace River and use the same storage zone as that proposed by the County. Those systems have been operating for a number of years, and the County and Department can draw upon that experience. Given this significant regional geologic information, an exploratory well is not required. More importantly, the requirement for an exploratory well applies only to Class I well construction, and not Class V wells, and the Department properly exercised its discretion to not apply that requirement to the County's Class V application. Signature on the application and other documents Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.340(1)(c) requires that all permit applications by a local government be signed by "either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official." Also, subsection (2) of the same rule requires that "reports required by permits and other information requested by the Department shall be signed by a person described in subsection (1) of this section [a principal executive officer or the highest ranking elected official], or by a duly authorized representative of that person." Petitioner contends that these requirements were not met. The County's application was signed by James E. Caldwell, who was then the Manager of Sarasota County Utilities. At that time, Mr. Caldwell had overall responsibility for the County's utility operations. On August 27, 2002, James L. Ley, the County Administrator (and principal executive officer of the County), also executed the original copy of the application. (That is, on that date he signed the original application underneath Mr. Caldwell's signature.) By doing so, Mr. Ley cured any previous technical deficiency in the application. Responses to requests for additional information which were submitted to the Department during the review process were signed by one of the County's outside consultants. However, on January 13, 2002, Mr. Ley submitted a letter to the Department authorizing various County employees and agents to act on his behalf in processing the instant application. Accordingly, the outside consultant was a duly-authorized representative of the chief executive and was authorized to sign those documents. Satisfaction of injection criteria Petitioner also contends that before a construction permit may be issued, the County must meet all principal treatment and disinfection requirements, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-610.466 and 62-528.563. However, those rules apply to permits which authorize the injection of reclaimed water into the groundwater. Here, the requested permit does not authorize injection, and therefore those requirements do not apply. Groundwater criteria Even though Petitioner conceded at hearing that the issue of whether the construction of the proposed wells would harm the environment was not raised in her Petition, the County provided reasonable assurance that this was not an issue of concern. Adequacy of permit conditions Petitioner also suggested at hearing that the proposed conditions in the permit are insufficient. However, she failed to show in what respect they were insufficient or how they should be amended. Water quality concerns Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-528.605(3) requires that a Class V well be constructed so that its intended use does not violate the applicable water quality standards. On this issue, the evidence establishes that the construction of the proposed test well and monitor system will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution. Indeed, a well and monitor station does not emit or discharge pollution and, if constructed according to the technical requirements of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-528, does not cause pollution. Therefore, the County's compliance with the technical requirements of the Department's regulations is reasonable assurance that the proposed system will not cause pollution. I. Request for Attorney's Fees and Costs In its Proposed Recommended Order, the County has requested an award of attorney's fees and costs on the theory that Petitioner is a non-prevailing party who has participated for a "frivolous, meritless, and improper purpose" within the meaning of Section 120.595(1), Florida Statutes. This argument is based on the assertion that Petitioner is a non- prevailing party, that is, she failed to substantially change the outcome of the proposed final agency action which is the subject of this proceeding, and she "failed to produce any witnesses or evidence to support [her] claim that the proposed permit that was the subject of this proceeding should not be issued." While it is true that Petitioner is a non-prevailing party, she attempted to utilize the testimony of three expert witnesses previously retained by the City of Venice, a former party in Case No. 01-3516. Those subpoenas, however, were quashed on August 16, 2002, and that ruling was memorialized in an Order dated August 19, 2002, or just before the final hearing began. Without those witnesses, Petitioner's presentation was obviously limited in some respects.4 Further, until the final hearing, Petitioner assumed that evidence in support of her allegation that the injectate would harm the water quality would be admissible and relevant. (As this Recommended Order clearly points out, however, not a single drop of water can be injected into the well until a modification of the permit is obtained, and therefore such evidence is irrelevant.) During the course of the hearing, the undersigned sustained objections by the County and Department to the introduction of such evidence. This ruling had the effect of limiting the scope of the issues to be tried. Despite these limitations, her participation cannot be described as being frivolous or meritless, as claimed by the County, and it is found that she did not participate for an improper purpose.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order granting Permit No. 160882-001- UC authorizing the County to construct one Class V, Group 3 aquifer storage and recovery injection well and monitor well system in Sarasota County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Brevard applied for a permit to construct a Class I exploratory injection well at the site of the existing South Beaches Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant, located on U.S. Highway A1A, one mile south of Melbourne Beach, Florida. The exploratory injection well is required to determine if the hydrologic characteristics of the Melbourne Beach area are suitable for deep well disposal of treated domestic waste water. The application proposes that an exploratory well be constructed to meet the Class I standard of Chapter 17-28, Florida Administrative Code, so that it can ultimately be used as a Class I injection well if the required testing indicates the hydrologic formations of the area are suitable for deep well disposal of treated domestic effluent. It is anticipated that a suitable zone for injection bay be found at approximately 3,000 feet below ground level. The conditions required by the Department for issuance of a construction permit would not authorize testing or operation of the well. Once the well is constructed, further approval from the Department is required prior to testing. If the Department authorizes testing, the well will he tested with water from the Indian River. If the test results are favorable, Brevard must then apply for an operation permit authorizing injection of treated effluent. Further Department review will occur prior to issuance of an operation permit. The evidence presented by Brevard and the Department establishes that the design specifications for the exploratory well satisfy the appropriate standards for a Class I exploratory well. The Amended Petition for Hearing raised a number of concerns which were adequately addressed by Brevard and the Department: The Petitioner failed to establish that the documents comprising the application contain false and mis- leading information. The maps and photographs submitted by Brevard adequately depict exist- ing residences, roads, public water systems and water wells. Although well #061 does not appear in the list of owners on the well inven- tory, it clearly appears next to that list on the actual map showing wells within the area of study. Such a clerical error does not draw into question the integrity of Brevard's data. The purpose of constructing and then testing an exploratory well is to determine if the hydrologic environment is suitable for deep well disposal of treated domestic waste water; obviously, it is impossible for Brevard to demon- strate the feasibility of deep well injection until the required testing has been completed. The application and accompanying documents adequately address the design specifications and life expectancy of the proposed well. The application and special conditions of the Department's draft permit provide sufficiently for monitoring during the con- struction and any later testing of the well. The application and the Department's draft permit adequately address the possibility of fluid discharge to surface and ground waters during construction and any later testing of the well. Existing knowledge of the geologic formations in the Brevard County area makes it extremely unlikely that construction and testing of the well could cause an earthquake) Deep well disposal of domestic effluent has been utilized in South Florida for years and has not yet caused an earthquake. No credible evidence was presented by the Petitioner to indicate that an earthquake could result from deep well injection activities in Brevard County. It is important to note that the design specifications and conditions of Brevard's proposal were reviewed and negotiated with the Technical Advisory Committee over a period of many months. Appropriate technical staff from the Department's St. Johns River District office, Brevard County, the St. Johns River Water Management District, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency participated on that Committee.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered issuing a permit to Brevard County to construct the Class I exploratory well proposed in its application. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeanne Whiteside 10520 South Tropical Trail Merritt Island, Florida 32952 Kenneth C. Crooks, Esquire Post Office Pox 37 Titusville, Florida 32781-0037 Dennis R. Erdley, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2660 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the Notice of Intent to Issue Order Requiring Access to Property (“Access Order”) issued by the Department of Environmental Protection (“Department”) and directed to Glenda Mahaney, as the property owner, is a valid exercise of the Department’s authority.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Glenda Mahaney is a natural person and the owner of the property identified in the Access Order. The Department is the state agency which has been granted powers and assigned duties under chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes, for the protection and restoration of air and water quality and to adopt rules and issue orders in furtherance of these powers and duties. Background The groundwater beneath a parcel of land adjacent to Petitioner’s property was contaminated with petroleum when the land was used in the past for auto salvage operations. Initial groundwater sampling near the border of Petitioner’s property showed groundwater contamination by gasoline constituents which exceeded Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels (“GCTLs”). In other words, the contamination was at levels that required cleanup. However, later sampling showed the concentration of contaminants had decreased below GCTLs, probably as a result of natural attenuation. The existing data suggests that any groundwater contamination beneath Petitioner’s property is probably now at a level that would not require cleanup. However, the Department issued the Access Order because the Department is not certain about the contamination beneath Petitioner’s property and because Petitioner has continually requested further investigation. Petitioner believes contamination from the auto salvage site has caused illness in a tenant and even contributed to other persons’ deaths. However, no expert testimony was received on this subject and no finding is made about whether contamination exists on Petitioner’s property which has caused illness or death. The Department’s Site Investigation Section wants access to Petitioner’s property in order to determine whether contamination has migrated beneath Petitioner’s property and, if it has, the extent and concentration of the contaminants. The Department wants to: (a) install up to five temporary groundwater monitoring wells, (b) collect groundwater samples from the wells, (c) collect a groundwater sample from Petitioner’s potable water well, and (d) remove the monitoring wells after the sampling. The Access Order includes terms related to advance notice, scheduling, and related matters. Liability Although Petitioner believes petroleum contamination is present and wants it cleaned up, she objects to the provision of the Access Order related to liability. Paragraph 9(e) of the Access Order provides: Ms. Mahaney shall not be liable for any injury, damage or loss on the property suffered by the Department, its agents, or employees which is not caused by the [sic] negligence or intentional acts. Petitioner insists that she should not be liable under any circumstances for injuries or damages suffered by Department’s agents or employees who come on her property for these purposes. She demands that the Department come onto her property “at their own risk.” At the final hearing, the Department stated that it did not intend to impose on Petitioner a level of liability different than the liability that would already be applicable under Florida law. The Department offered to amend Paragraph 9(e) of the Access Order to indicate that Petitioner’s “liability, if any, shall be determined in accordance with Florida law.” Scope of the Investigation Petitioner objects to the proposed groundwater sampling because she does not believe it is extensive enough. Petitioner also believes the Department should test for soil contamination. The Department’s expert, David Phillips, testified that the proposed monitoring well locations were selected based on the direction of groundwater flow in the area and the wells are along the likely path of migration of any contaminated groundwater from the former auto salvage site. Another Department witness, Tracy Jewsbury, testified that no soil contamination was found on the auto salvage site, so the Department has no reason to expect there would be soil contamination on Petitioner’s property that came from the auto salvage operation. The Department will use the data collected from the wells to determine if contamination is present and whether future contamination assessment and/or remediation activities are necessary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection withdraw the Access Order or, alternatively, that Paragraph 9(e) of the Access Order be amended to provide that Ms. Mahaney’s potential liability, if any, shall be determined in accordance with Florida law. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of November, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of November, 2017. William W. Gwaltney, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Glenda Q. Mahaney Post Office Box 123 Mount Dora, Florida 32756 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Robert A. Williams, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, ADI and Youngquist Brothers were licensed well drilling contractors and qualified to bid on Bid Request No. 9237 issued by Southwest Florida Water Management District ("SWFWMD" or "District"), Respondent. On July 23, 1992 the District mailed packets for bid requests to ADI, Youngquist Brothers, Inc., and others. On August 12, 1992 a mandatory pre-bid meeting for Bid Request No. 9237 was conducted at the District office. Representatives of ADI and Youngquist attended the pre-bid meeting. Responses to Bid Request No. 9237 were opened by the District on August 26, 1992. ADI's bid was for $159.50 per hour, and Youngquist's bid was for $200.00 per hour. Greg McQuown, District Manager of the Geohydrologic Data Section prepared the technical portions of this bid request and, following the bid opening, visited the facilities of both ADI and Youngquist as provided in Section 2.1.1.19 of the bid specifications to observe the equipment they proposed to use. Request for Bid No. 9237 requested bidders to submit an hourly rate for furnishing an experienced crew, the drilling rig and all equipment, materials, fuel and services necessary for the proper operation and maintenance of the drilling rig to be used in drilling numerous monitoring wells as directed by the District. Although the bid is for one year, it is renewable for two additional years. Drilling contracts on an hourly basis are not frequently used in water well drilling contracts, but for this project, this type contract appeared preferable to the District due to the wide variations in well depths and drilling conditions. Speed of drilling is a very significant element in an hourly rate drilling contract. Section 1.17 of the general conditions of Request for Bid No. 9237 provides in pertinent part: If bids are based on equivalent products, indicate on the bid form the manufacturer name and number. * * * The bidder shall explain in detail the reason(s) hoe (sic) the proposed equivalent will meet the specifications and not be considered an exception thereto. Bids which do not comply with these requirements are subject to rejection. Bids lacking any written indication of intent to quote an alternate brand will be received and considered in complete compliance with the specifications as listed on the bid form. Section 1.11 of the general specifications provides: 1.11 BID DATA. Bidders shall furnish complete and detailed Bid Data as specified on the Request for Bid Form. Bids furnished without data, or incomplete submissions may be rejected at the discretion of the District. Exceptions to the requirements, if any, shall be noted in complete detail. Failure by the bidder to detail each exception to a bid specification or a requirement results in the bidder being required to meet each specification or requirement exactly as stated. Section 2.2.2.3 under Contractor Equipment and Services (exhibit 2) lists the following equipment: API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe, no hard banding, square shoulders acceptable, 1,400 feet. API 4 3/4 inch steel drill collars 10,000 lbs. (approximately 200 feet). API 7 to 7 1/2 inch steel drill collars, 13, 500 lbs. (approximately 100 feet) are acceptable equivalent. Rig equipped with hydraulic torque equipment for drill collars and drill pipe. The drilling contemplated by this Bid Request is reverse air drilling in which an air hose is inserted inside the drill pipe and air from this hose facilitates a removal of the material through which the drill bit penetrates. ADI's Bid Proposal (exhibit 4) under Equipment List provides in pertinent part: Drill stem 4 1/2" flush joint 2 1/8 ID Collars 2 @ 3 1/2" X 20' 1 @ 6" X 20' -2 @ 7 3/4" X 30' * * * Above listed tools available, we will make available any other specified tools. The inside diameter (ID) of API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe is 2 11/16 inches. This size pipe will allow use of a 3/4 inch air hose and still provide adequate area for the drilled material to be excavated from the hole being drilled. Further, this Bid Request proposed the use of 6 inch PVC casing to be provided by the District. Thus, the drill pipe and drilling equipment needed to pass through this size casing. The function of the drill collar is to provide weight on the drill bit to insure a straight hole as well as increase the speed of drilling. All else being equal (especially speed of rotation of drill bit) the greater the weight the faster the drilling. Standard API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe has an outside diameter of 4 3/4 inches and is the largest standard drill pipe that can be used in the 6 inch casing here proposed. Not only does the 4 1/2 inch drill pipe proposed for use by ADI have a smaller ID than API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe specified, but also this is not a constant ID but constricts to this 2 1/8 inch ID where pipe sections are connected. This constriction can increase the turbulence in the pipe and slow the removal of the drilled material. The cross section area of a 2 1/8 inch ID pipe is 5/8 the area of a 2 11/16 inch ID pipe. Accordingly, drilling with the API 3 1/2 inch pipe can be much faster than with a drill pipe with a 2 1/8 inch ID due solely to the greater volume flowing through the 3 1/2 inch pipe. The 4 1/2 inch drill collars listed in ADI's bid proposal weighed in at 1100 pounds in lieu of the 4 3/4 drill collars and 10,000 pounds specified in Request for Bid. ADI contends that by adding the words "above listed tools available, we will make available any other specified tools" they clearly intended to provide all equipment demanded by the District. This is the type language which leads to contract disputes. All of Petitioner's witnesses testified that they intended to commence the work, if awarded the contract, with the equipment listed on their bid proposal. On an hourly drilling contract this equipment is inadequate. All of these witnesses also testified they would use the equipment listed in the Request for Bid specifications if required to do so by the District. Neither Dave Robinson, Petitioner's superintendent who prepared its bid and attended the pre-bid conference, nor Jerry C. Howell, President of Petitioner who modified and approved the bids submitted, had ever used API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe and were not familiar with the dimensions of that item. Yet they did not check to ascertain how the inside diameter of that drill pipe compared with the inside diameter of the 4 1/2 drill stem flush joint they had on hand. Petitioner further contended that the cost of the API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe was insignificant in determining the bid price submitted, and therefore, this discrepancy was immaterial and should not lead to rejection of the bid. Petitioner's bid failed to comply with General Conditions 1.17 in that it failed to explain in detail the reasons the 4 1/2 inch drill stem proposed for use meets the specifications which required a drill pipe with a substantially larger minimum interior cross section area. Petitioner's challenge to Youngquist's bid proposal as being non- responsive for not listing the API 3 1/2 inch pipe is without merit. Youngquist's bid complied with the provision of Section 1.11 of the General Specifications and McQuown's visit to Youngquist's facility confirmed that Youngquist had on hand all of the equipment specified in the Request for Bid Proposal. Petitioner was represented at the compulsory pre-bid conference by David Robinson, ADI's superintendent, who prepared ADI's bid package. Robinson testified that at the pre-bid conference he asked Mr. McQuown what was the inside diameter of the API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe and McQuown responded 1 7/8 inches. Several other witnesses, including McQuown, testified that no questions were asked at the pre-bid conference about the API 3 1/2 inch pipe and all of these witnesses were fully aware that the pipe has an ID greater than 2 1/2 inches. McQuown's testimony that Robinson asked only about the inside diameter of the 4 3/4 inch drill collar shown in the bid specifications and he responded 1 7/8 inches to that question is deemed the more credible evidence. Robinson testified that he thought McQuown has misspoke when he said 1 7/8 inches but did not check available catalogues to determine the actual ID of this pipe to shed some light on the adequacy of the 4 1/2 inch drill pipe proposed in ADI's bid. The more credible testimony is that Robinson was not misinformed about the ID API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe at the pre-bid conference.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the formal bid protest filed by American Drilling, Inc. to challenge the award of Bid Request 9237 be dismissed and that the contract be awarded to Youngquist Brothers, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 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 15th day of February, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-6618BID Proposed findings listed by Petitioner are accepted except as noted below. Those neither noted below nor included in the Hearing Officer's findings were deemed unnecessary to the conclusions reached. 16. Rejected. Although there can be a slight variation in the internal diameter of API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe, there is no API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe with an inside diameter less than 2 1/2 inches. 18. Rejected as contrary to the credible evidence. Rejected. ADI fully intended to use the drill pipe and collars listed on its bid unless or until the District mandated a change to the equipment or tools specified. Both of Petitioner's principle witnesses believed the 4 1/2 inch drill stem listed could satisfactorily perform the required drilling. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Accepted as a fact that after ADI learned it was low bidder inquiries were made to locate a source for the specified drill pipe and collars. At McQuown's visit to ADI, Jerry C. Howell assured him that ADI wanted to fully cooperate with the District in carrying out the contract when issued. Rejected that ADI's response was clear and complete as required by the specifications. Second sentence rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as irrelevant. Diversified was not a party to these proceedings. Rejected. Youngquist's bid complied with the bid specifications. By not responding to those items in the bid specification, Youngquist, pursuant to the General Bid Specifications, agreed to provide exactly the equipment specified by the District in the Request for Bid. 32. These omissions have never been deemed by the District to be grounds for rejecting bids. 33 -34. Rejected as immaterial. 36. Although McQuown testified that he did not pay a lot of attention to the general (boiler plate) conditions in the bid proposal, he recognized that the failure of a bidder to list equipment different than that contained in the bid proposal meant that the bidder intended to supply the equipment specified. See 36 above. Rejected as irrelevant. Last sentence rejected as immaterial. First sentence rejected. Rejected. First sentence rejected. 46 - 49. Rejected as immaterial. 51. Rejected insofar as Youngquist's bid is concerned. 53. Last sentence rejected. Rejected as improper and inaccurate interpretation of the contract provisions. Moreover, this is a question of law, not of fact. The bid specifications speak for themselves. Interpretation of these specifications is a legal not a factual matter. Last sentence rejected. Last sentence rejected. Rejected as fact, accepted as a conclusion of law. See 36 above. 63 Generally accepted. However, it is found that all parties recognize that it was not necessary for bidders to have on hand all equipment requested in the bid specification, and that ADI representatives indicated that they would like to start work with the equipment on hand and would do so unless otherwise directed. Proposed joint findings submitted by Respondent and Intervenor are accepted. Those not included in the Hearing Officer's findings were deemed unnecessary to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas Manson, Esquire Mary Catherine Lamoureaux, Esquire Post Office Box 499 Tampa, Florida 33601-0499 Richard Tschantz, Esquire A. Wayne Alfieri, Esquire 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Mark R. Komray, Esquire Thomas Smoot, Esquire Suite 600 12800 University Drive Fort Myers, Florida 33906-6259 Peter G. Hubbell, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations as set forth in the Citation for Violation, Onsite Sewage Program/Sanitary Nuisance dated April 28, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is authorized and given the jurisdiction to regulate the construction, installation, modification, abandonment, or repair of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems, including drainfields, by septic tank contractors. At all times material hereto, Respondent was a registered septic tank contractor and, as such, he was authorized to provide septic tank contracting services, including the installation and repair of drainfields. On or about November 2, 1995, Petitioner issued a permit (Permit No. RP648-95) to Wilmar Rodriguez for the repair of a septic tank system at 417-421 Perry Avenue, Greenacres, Florida. The property was a triplex, which was purchased by Mr. Rodriquez in 1981. Mr. Rodriguez has no knowledge as to whether any drainfields were installed or replaced on the property, prior to 1981. The Permit included the installation of a new multi- chambered septic tank, a dosing tank, a lift station, and a new drainfield. The Permit was also for a filled system and called for the drainfield to be 700 square feet. Respondent was indicated as the "agent" on the Permit. Respondent and/or his employees performed the work under the Permit. Respondent was the septic tank contractor for the repair of the septic tank system under the Permit. On November 9, 1995, the construction of the septic tank system was approved by one of Petitioner's inspectors, who was an Environmental Specialist I. Petitioner's inspectors are not present during the entire construction or repair of a septic tank system or drainfield. Usually, inspections are made after the completion of the construction or repair of the septic tank system. Additionally, the inspection of a drainfield is usually performed after the rock has been placed on top of the drainfield. On February 2, 1996, the same inspector performed the inspection after the completion of the construction of the septic tank system, including after the placing of the rock on top of the drainfield. Even though the Permit reflects a filled system, the filled/mound system section on the inspection sheet was crossed out. The inspector considered the system to be a standard system, not a filled or mound system, and, therefore, inspected it as a standard system. In inspecting a drainfield, the inspection by an inspector includes checking to ensure that a drainfield has 42 inches of clean soil below the drainfield. An inspector uses an instrument that bores down through the rock and brings up a sample of the soil, which is referred to as augering. Augering is randomly performed at two locations. For the instant case, the inspector performed the augering in two random locations of the drainfield, which were in the area of the middle top and the middle bottom. The samples failed to reveal anything suspect; they were clean. On February 2, 1996, the inspector issued a final approval for the septic tank system. Final approval included the disposal of "spoil" and the covering of the septic tank system with "acceptable soil". The inspector mistakenly inspected the system as a standard system. He should have inspected the system as a filled system.1 After the repair and installation of the septic tank system by Respondent, Mr. Rodriguez continued to have problems with the septic tank system. He contacted Respondent three or four times regarding problems with the system, but the problems persisted. Each time, Respondent was paid by Mr. Rodriguez. Sewage water was flowing into the street where the property was located and backing-up into the inside of the triplex. Having gotten no relief from Respondent, Mr. Rodriguez decided to contact someone else to correct the problem. Mr. Rodriguez contacted Richard Gillikin, who was a registered septic tank contractor. On October 14, 1999, a construction permit was issued to Mr. Rodriguez for the repair of the septic tank system. Mr. Gillikin was indicated as the agent. Mr. Gillikin visited the property site of the triplex and reviewed the problem. He determined that the drainfield was not properly functioning, but he did not know the cause of the malfunctioning. With the assistance of Petitioner's inspectors, Mr. Gillikin and Mr. Rodriguez attempted to determine the best method to deal with the problem. After eliminating options, Mr. Rodriguez decided to replace the drainfield. To replace the drainfield, Mr. Gillikin began excavating. He began removing the soil cover and the rock layer of the drainfield. Mr. Gillikin also wanted to know how deep he had to dig to find good soil. After digging for that purpose and for 10 to 12 inches, he discovered a drainfield below Respondent's drainfield. The drainfield that Mr. Gillikin discovered was a rock bed 12 inches thick in which pipes were located and, as indicated, 10 to 12 inches below Respondent's drainfield. Mr. Gillikin also dug a hole two to three feet deep, pumped the water out of the hole, and saw the old drainfield. Mr. Gillikin determined that the old drainfield extended the full length of Respondent's drainfield. As a result of Mr. Gillikin's determining that the old drainfield was below Respondent's drainfield, both drainfields had to be removed and the expense of a new drainfield increased. Leon Barnes, an Environmental Specialist II for Petitioner, who was also certified in the septic tank program, viewed the drainfield site. He determined that the old drainfield was below Respondent's drainfield and that, therefore, Respondent had not removed the old drainfield. On or about November 6, 1999, Mr. Barnes' supervisor, Jim Carter, and co-worker, Russell Weaver, who is an Engineer, also visited the drainfield site. Mr. Weaver determined that the old drainfield covered a little more than 50 percent of the area under Respondent's drainfield. On November 8, 1999, a construction inspection and a final inspection of the system installed by Mr. Gillikin were performed. The system was approved. Respondent admits that a new drainfield is prohibited from being installed over an old drainfield. However, Respondent denies that he installed a new drainfield over the old drainfield on Mr. Rodriguez's property. In 1995, Respondent failed to completely remove the old drainfield before he installed the new drainfield. The soil and rocks from the old drainfield, which was not functioning, were contaminated spoil material. Because the old drainfield was not completely removed, the contaminated spoil material remained in the drainfield and was used as part of the material in the installation of the new drainfield. Leaving the contaminated spoil material in the new drainfield, prevented the sewage water from being able to percolate through the ground, which is a method of cleansing the sewage water. Without being able to percolate through the ground, the sewage water remained on the surface of the drainfield, creating a serious sanitary nuisance and health hazard. The sewage water spilled onto the street and backed-up into the triplex. Respondent was issued a Citation for Violation, Onsite Sewage Program/Sanitary Nuisance by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Palm Beach County Health Department, enter a final order: Affirming the Citation for Violation, Onsite Sewage Program/Sanitary Nuisance and finding that Noel Sanfiel violated Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes (1995), and Rule 10D- 6.0571(4), now Rule 64E-6.015(6), and Rule 10D-6.0751(1)(l)1, now 64E-6.022(1)(l)1, Florida Administrative Code. Imposing a fine of $500. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 2001.
The Issue Is Petitioner guilty of violations of Rule 64E-6.022(1)(p), Florida Administrative Code, improper installation or repair of on-site sewage disposal system, and Rule 64E-6.022(1)(l), Florida Administrative Code, gross negligence and incompetence which causes monetary harm to a customer as charged in the Citation for Violation dated April 4, 2000, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Pursuant to Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes, the Department has the authority and jurisdiction to regulate the construction, installation, modification, abandonment or repair of on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems (used interchangeably with "septic tank" or "drainfield" throughout this Recommended Order). Septic tank repairs may be made only by individuals who have qualified with and are licensed by the Department and subject to the standards of ethics and competence established by Department rules. See, Section 489.553(3), Florida Statutes (1999). At all times material to this action, Petitioner has been registered with the Department as a septic tank contractor and serves as Vice President of Sales for Allstate Septic Tank Company (Allstate). Allstate is owned by Jack Dunn (Dunn). Petitioner has been employed by Allstate since 1982. At the time Petitioner commenced her employment with Allstate, the company was owned by an individual who sold the business to Dunn in 1995. From 1982 to 1995 when Dunn acquired the business, Petitioner worked as Allstate's office manager. Dunn, not Petitioner, has final authority over how Allstate's work is performed and what accommodations, if any, will be made with dissatisfied customers or with regulatory authorities. At all times material to this case, Cheryl and Kelly Sadar (Owners) owned and resided in a home at 1770 SW 30th Place, Ft. Lauderdale. Like the other homes in this neighborhood, Owners' property relied upon an on-site drainage and sewage system. The drainfield at the Owners' property had been replaced in 1988 and had operated without problem until December 1998. In December 1998, Cheryl Sadar called Allstate and asked the Company to "check out" odors coming from the grass lawn on Owners' property. Pursuant to that request, Petitioner and Dunn visited the Owners' property. In January, 1999, Allstate pumped the Owners' septic tank and told Mrs. Sadar that if the pumping did not work, it would be necessary to replace the existing drainfield. Pumping did not work and in March 1999, the Owners authorized Allstate to replace the existing drainfield with a new drainfield system. Petitioner and Dunn differ from the Owners in their testimony regarding what, if any, requirements Allstate sought to impose upon the Owners in order to assure that the drainfield to be installed by Allstate would work properly, and what, if any, limits the Owners placed upon Allstate's ability to exercise professional judgment as to where the drainfield should be installed. For example, Petitioner claims that Owners forbade Allstate the use of the eastern border of Owners' property because they wanted to store a boat there. Department witnesses deny that Owners ever sought to impose such a restriction. The parties also disagree as to the significance of certain restrictions which the parties agree were in fact imposed. For instance, there is no dispute that Owners were unwilling to cut down a favorite oak tree, despite Allstate's recommendation that they do so. But the parties differ in their recollection of what, if anything, was said to Owners about the impact of that decision upon Petitioner's ability to deliver a working drainfield. The factual disputes regarding limitations allegedly placed upon Petitioner by Owners are resolved in favor of the Department. Having considered the demeanor of the witnesses during their testimony, together with all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the dealings of the witnesses, the undersigned concludes that Owners placed no restrictions upon Allstate in the performance of its contract, save the requirement that the favorite oak tree be left standing. In that instance, the undersigned concludes that the Owners testified truthfully that Allstate informed them that the new drainfield may need to be replaced as soon as a decade after its installation if the oak tree remained, and Owners accepted that particular risk. There was undisputed testimony that other homes in the Owners' neighborhood have drainfields adjacent to mature oak trees, and that proximity has never been known to cause a drainfield failure within months of installation. It is not believable that Owners allowed Allstate to install a drainfield with knowledge that Allstate expected the system to fail within months if the oak tree was not removed. Similarly, there was no evidence, save for the testimony of Petitioner and Dunn, that Owners ever owned a boat, or had plans to buy one. Indeed, Gerald Timmons, who replaced the failed Allstate drainfield with a system which was operating without problems through the date of the hearing, testified that Owners made no attempt to restrict the location of the drainfield, and that he in fact installed his system over the eastern border of the property where Petitioner claimed Owners had denied access. By contract dated March 1, 1999 (Composite Exhibit 17, "the contract"). Allstate undertook to provide a new drainfield to Owners for the price of $2,300.00. Pursuant to the contract, Petitioner undertook to provide the Department with information required to secure necessary Department permits. In the permit application, Petitioner misrepresented the condition of the ground below the drainfield as having suitable soil conditions for the proposed work. In fact, the opposite was true. The presence of the pre-existing drainfield rendered the site unsuitable and indeed, doomed to fail. The site evaluation provided by Petitioner represented an adequate amount of sand in the drainfield area and an observed water table depth of 48 inches below the existing grade. Unrebutted expert testimony demonstrates that these representations could not possibly have been true, due to the presence of the pre-existing drainfield which Petitioner failed to excavate prior to installing a new system directly on top of the pre-existing drainfield. Petitioner testified that she personally probed five feet down the center of the area where the Allstate drainfield was to be placed but found no sign of the pre-existing drainfield which was there. This testimony is belied by the more credible the testimony of the Department's experts, who agreed that if Petitioner's account of her probe were accurate, the pre-existing drainfield would necessarily have been discovered. Petitioner's permit application inaccurately represented the amount of available space for the installation of a drainfield as being limited to 375 square feet. In fact, the owners' property would accommodate a 523 square foot drainfield. The separation between the bottom of the Allstate drainfield system and the water table depth required for the competent installation of a drainfield was not met by Petitioner. The parties expended a great deal of time establishing the hard feelings between Owners and Allstate and between Department officials and Allstate, particularly its owner Dunn. Witnesses aligned with both sides testified at length to various incidents of boorish behavior by Allstate employees and by the Owners. Similarly, there appears to be a history of distrust between at least some Department officials and Dunn, which was exacerbated between November 1999 and March 2000, when the efforts by the Department to mediate the dispute between Allstate and Owners were unsuccessful. Unquestionably, relations between Allstate and Owners deteriorated rapidly upon the failure of the drainfield, but the various exchanges of angry words and the Department's unsuccessful effort to persuade Allstate to partially compensate Owners have no relevance to the question of whether Petitioner did or did not commit the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and have not been considered by the undersigned in resolving those issues. In this case, Allstate did not provide Owners with a written guarantee of its work, and there is no legal requirement that it do so. Neither did Allstate provide Owners with any written disclaimers or instructions for using the system or warnings that certain types of activities would cause the system to fail. Allstate company policy permits the installation of drainfield systems even in cases where Allstate believes the system is not likely to work. The Petitioner's installation was completed in March 1999 and Owners paid Allstate the $2,300.00 contract price. Beginning in the fall of 1999, Owners began to experience problems with the Petitioner's drainfield. Owners contacted Allstate, which rejected Owners' request that it take corrective action. Owners also contacted the Department, which made efforts to mediate between Owners and Allstate. The evidence is inconclusive as to why the Department's mediation efforts failed. At one point, Allstate seemed agreeable to making a partial refund to Owners, but later Dunn changed his mind. However, Allstate and Petitioner have always asserted that the failure of the drainfield was entirely the fault of the Owners. Indeed, throughout the history of Allstate's dealings with Owners, throughout the final hearing and in Petitioner's proposed Recommended Order, Petitioner has offered a variety of theories as to why her work failed. One suggestion was that the use of a lawnmower contributed to the drainfield's failure. Petitioner also insisted that Owners used too much water, causing hydraulic overload and precipitating the failure of Petitioner's system. Petitioner asserts that Owners' water usage increased by 8.85 percent from March 1999 when Petitioner's system was installed to November 1999, when the system began to fail. And in its Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioner asks for the first time that the undersigned take judicial notice that on October 19, 1999, Hurricane Irene "swept through the Fort Lauderdale area", leaving substantial rainfall-related damage in its wake; however, no evidence was offered linking the rains of Hurricane Irene to Owners' drainfield failure. The unanimous weight of expert opinion, save that of Allstate's owner Dunn, is that the various theories advanced by Petitioner as reasons for the failure of her work--singly or in combination--are insufficient to explain the sequence of events at the Owners' property as it relates to the problems they experienced with the Allstate drainfield system. By March 2000, it was clear that the Allstate-installed drainfield had failed. Jerry's Septic Tank Service and its owner, Gerald Timmons, were engaged by the Owners to evaluate the situation and make necessary repairs. A repair permit was issued to Jerry's by Department on March 13, 2000, and work was commenced. Almost immediately it became apparent that an old drainfield was located immediately beneath the Petitioner's drainfield. Jerry Timmons immediately called Owners to notify them of this finding. Owners, in turn, called Department official Jay Morgenstern to advise of Timmons' discovery. Allstate was also informed of the discovery of the preexisting drainfield. Petitioner and Dunn each conversed with Jerry Timmons about the pre-existing drainfield adjacent to the Allstate drainfield. At all times after Allstate was notified of the failure of its system, Allstate and Petitioner continued to maintain that the failure was the fault of the Owners, not Allstate, and that the preexisting drainfield either was not there in March 1999 or was not discoverable by Allstate. Morgenstern personally conducted an inspection and verified Timmons' finding that old drainfield material was clearly visible. Thereafter, the Department issued the Citation for Violation. The services provided by Petitioner in March 1999, constitute an improper and incomplete repair and installation. The improper, incomplete services provided by Petitioner in March 1999, resulted in Owners being required to expend $2,800.00 for the services of Jerry's Septic Tank to excavate the pre-existing drainfield, along with the defective Allstate system, and to provide a functioning septic tank system, in addition to the $2,300.00 previously paid to Allstate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding Petitioner guilty of the unlawful conduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint and disciplining her therefor by fining her in the total amount of $1,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Florida. FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Judith C. Elfont, Esquire Department of Health 2421-A Southwest Sixth Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315-2613 William E. Stacey, Jr., Esquire 320 Southeast 9th Street Post Office Box 460053 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33346 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Rule 17 Administrative Code (1991), constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to findings of fact set forth in paragraphs 1.-8., below. Stipulated Facts Respondent has documented contamination from the abandoned petroleum storage system. The abandoned petroleum storage system has been properly closed. Petitioner submitted an application to Respondent on Respondent's forms 17-769.900(3) and (4), Florida Administrative Code, which was postmarked on or before June 30, 1992. The site is not eligible for cleanup pursuant to Section 376.3071(9) and (12), Florida Statutes, the Early Detection Incentive Program, or the Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Insurance Program pursuant to Section 376.3072, Florida Statutes. This site is not owned or operated by the federal government. This site did not have leaking tanks that stored pollutants that are not petroleum products as defined in Section 376.301, Florida Statutes. Respondent was not denied access to this site. Petroleum contamination was not discovered after the application deadline of June 30, 1992. Additional Facts Petitioner, a Florida corporation, is in the business of owning and leasing property. Petitioner is the fee simple owner of property located at 2022 Wahnish Way in Tallahassee, Florida. The property located on Wahnish Way was leased to James T. "Pete" Thomas by Petitioner's predecessor in title. Thomas operated a gasoline station and automobile repair garage on the property. The lease with Thomas was continued by Petitioner without change upon Petitioner's assumption of the legal title to the property in 1985. Prior to Petitioner's assumption of title to the property in the early 1970's, Thomas had installed four petroleum storage systems in a four tank pit on the property. Thomas later registered all four of the tanks with Respondent by the statutory deadline of December 31, 1984, as required by Florida law. Although Thomas signed the registration documents as an agent of Petitioner, he was not such an authorized agent and the registration occurred without the knowledge or approval of Petitioner. Sometime in the early 1980's, Thomas and his wholesale gasoline distributor determined that one of the four underground tanks was losing product. In 1982, Thomas ceased using the southernmost tank in the pit for the storage of petroleum products for subsequent consumption, use or sale. The distributor ceased placing gasoline in the southernmost tank. Petitioner, unaware that Thomas had experienced any product loss problems or that the tanks on the property had been registered by Thomas with Respondent, became aware of both matters following receipt of a letter from government officials of Leon County, Florida, on November 20, 1990. As set forth in that letter, Petitioner was apprised that the tanks were not in compliance with State of Florida standards and would have to be closed or retrofitted to bring the tanks into compliance. Following receipt of the letter, Petitioner informed Thomas that selling of gasoline at the site was to be discontinued immediately. Closure of the tanks, performed in early 1991, by contractors retained by Petitioner, consisted of excavation and removal of the petroleum storage systems from the property. All four tanks were in the tank pit side by side, from the northernmost end of the pit to the southern end of the pit fronting on Osceola Street in Tallahassee, Florida. When the removal was completed, a Closure Assessment form was prepared by one of the contractors, Jim Stidham and Associates, in accordance with requirements of Florida law. During that process, excessive contamination from petroleum product of the soils in the extreme south end of the tank pit was discovered. Excessive contamination, defined as anything more than 500 parts per million, was located beneath the southernmost pump on the southern end of the pump island and in the southern end of the pit. A 20 foot soil boring as near as possible to the site of the southernmost tank revealed that unacceptable levels of contamination extended to that depth. As supported by the testimony of James A. Stidham, Petitioner's expert in the assessment of contamination caused by underground petroleum storage tanks, the location of contamination in the pit area establishes that the tank causing the contamination was the southernmost tank. The hole discovered in one of the tanks at the time of removal was likely located in the southernmost tank. The excessive contamination located at the shallow depth of two feet under the southernmost pump resulted from the improper disconnection of piping attached to the pump and is not attributable to the leak in the tank. Each tank was connected by piping on the eastern end of each tank to the corresponding pump. The southernmost pump was not used after 1982 and was missing integral parts by the time the tanks were closed. In the course of exploring options for clean up of the property, Petitioner filed for assistance from Respondent in the form of participation in the ATRP. Unaware of the true date of the cessation of use of the southernmost tank, Petitioner gave the date of last use for all tanks in the pit by stating that the "tanks were taken out of service between December 15, 1990 and January 15, 1991." Petitioner provided this response to Respondent's July 30, 1991 request for further information on August 6, 1991. Although Respondent made an initial determination to deny Petitioner's application in the middle of August, 1991, that action was not communicated to Petitioner. Instead, Petitioner's application was held by Respondent, pending possible amendment to Section 376.305(7), Florida Statutes (1991). Respondent held Petitioner's application for a total of almost nineteen months before issuance of a formal decision to deny the application on February 26, 1993. Respondent's denial of Petitioner's application was based upon the eligibility requirement restricting ATRP participants to those situations where the petroleum storage system has not stored petroleum products for consumption, use or sale after March 1, 1990, and the belief of Respondent's personnel that all storage systems on Petitioner's property had stored products beyond that date. Specifically, Respondent eventually gave notice that it intended to deny Petitioner's application for participation in the ATRP for the following reason: Eligibility in the Abandoned Tank Restoration Program is restricted to those petroleum storage systems that have not stored petroleum products for consumption, use or sale after March 1, 1990, pursuant to Section 17-769.800(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code.
