The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondents, Anthony Crescenzo and Johns by John II, Inc. (collectively, Respondents), violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.022(1)(g), (k), (l)2., and (p), and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of the standards for onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems (OSTDS), pursuant to chapters 381 and 489, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 64E-6. Respondent Anthony Crescenzo is a resident of the State of Florida and holds DOH registration number SR0061541, to provide septic tank contracting services in Florida. Mr. Crescenzo owns and operates Johns by John II, Inc. (Johns by John), a Florida corporation located at 6252 Commercial Way, Weeki Wachee, Hernando County, Florida. Johns by John is authorized by the Department to provide septic tank services under Business Authorization number SA0041171. Johns by John provides OSTDS services pursuant to rules adopted by the Department and under the license, registration, and direction of Anthony Crescenzo. Winston and Dianne Wescott reside at 2245 Ring Road in Spring Hill, Florida, and have done so for approximately 19 years. Sometime in April 2014, Mr. Wescott noticed a depression and some saturated soil in his yard, near his septic tank. Mr. Wescott was concerned because of prior sink hole activity. After some telephone calls and an inspection by the insurance adjuster, Mr. Winston called Johns by John. On or about Saturday, June 7, 2014, a worker from Johns by John came to the residence and pumped out the drainfield. At that time, waste was coming out of the ground but was not backing up into the home. After the pump-out was complete, Mr. Wescott showed the technician the depressed area, and an exposed area that revealed that the outlet pipe to the septic system’s distribution box (D-box) was defective. The area had been exposed by either the insurance adjuster or the homeowner before the technician arrived. The technician telephoned Mr. Crescenzo, who advised that he would come out the following Monday or Tuesday to inspect the system and see what additional repairs were necessary. Mr. Wescott paid $205.72 for the pump-out of the drainfield. On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, Mr. Crescenzo met with Mr. Wescott to assess what repairs were necessary. When he arrived, the homeowner had already dug around the area, leaving the tank and the D-box at least partially exposed. Mr. Crescenzo advised that a new drainfield might be necessary, but did not state that it was absolutely required. He also explained that the repair would require a permit, and that they would do what they could to repair, as opposed to replace, the existing system. Mr. Crescenzo also explained that because of the need to obtain a permit, it might be four to six weeks before the job was completed. Mr. Crescenzo prepared, and Mr. Wescott signed, a Work Order/Proposed Drainfield Estimate form. Under “Job Description,” the following handwritten notation was provided: D-box collapsed down [illegible] point may have to replace entire system $2,500-$3,500. System will need to go in the front due to site conditions 4 bedroom house deposit required $1,000. The preprinted text on the form provided the following statements in bold-faced type: * NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR SPRINKLERS, WIRES, BROKEN PIPES, YARD, SOD OR DRIVEWAY DAMAGEDeposits are non-refundable. The form also provided for a 10-year warranty of any work performed. Although the language of the form is not clear, Mr. Crescenzo testified credibly that the warranty was applicable to repairs of the existing system as well as to replacement of the system. While the maximum the homeowner might have to pay is clearly indicated on the form, the costs of a repair short of replacement is not listed. Mr. Crescenzo testified that a $1,000 deposit is required for any job requiring a permit, as the permit itself is $300, and that he told the homeowner that he would not know the extent of the repair needed until he started the work. Mr. Wescott signed the estimate. Despite the language on the estimate that a new drainfield may be needed, Mr. Wescott understood that his drainfield would be replaced. While he admits signing it, he did not recall seeing the statement that deposits are non-refundable, notwithstanding that it is printed in bold type. His understanding appears to be based, in part, on a discussion between Mr. Wescott and Mr. Crescenzo about the continued vitality of the D-box. Mr. Wescott understood Mr. Crescenzo to say that the life of the septic system was approximately 19 years (the age of his home), and that if the drainfield was not replaced, the Wescotts would in all likelihood be calling him back in a matter of months to replace it because it was nearing the end of its expected life-span. He also understood Mr. Crescenzo to say that the D-box was obsolete and would not be replaced when the drainfield was replaced. Mr. Crescenzo, on the other hand, testified that he always maintained that they would try to repair the existing drainfield but may have to replace it. In the event that the system was replaced, D-boxes are no longer used and the existing one would not be replaced. Mr. Crescenzo denied stating that the life of a drainfield is 19 years, stating that drainfields do not have a standard life expectancy.1/ Mr. Crescenzo also emphasized that the work performed, whether a repair to the existing drainfield or a replacement, was subject to a 10-year warranty, thus making any statement that the company would just have to come back in a few months nonsensical. Mr. Crescenzo’s testimony is credited. Mr. Crescenzo applied for a permit on June 18, 2014, which costs $300. The permit application was to repair or replace the distribution box, not to replace the drainfield, and noted that the D-Box had collapsed. Mr. Crescenzo stated on the application that it may be possible to fix the D-Box and remove roots. The permit was issued for OSTDS repair on June 20, 2014. According to Stephen Kataro, an engineer for the septic tank program for Hernando County who approved the application and inspected the repair, the permit gave the option to replace the drainfield if necessary, based upon what was found during the repair. This approval is consistent with Department policy. On approximately July 3, 2014, Jeremiah Blake, a technician for Johns by John, went to the Wescott home to work on the septic system. Mr. Blake drove a Johns by John truck equipped with the standard equipment to install a drainfield. When he arrived at the home, the system was already uncovered. Mr. Blake discussed the repairs with Mr. Wescott, stating that he could do the drainfield or fix the D-Box. He determined that replacement of the outlet pipe leading to the D-Box addressed the problem, and that there was no need to replace the drainfield, as all drains were taking water. Mr. Blake completed the repair and used Mr. Wescott’s garden hose with a jet-spray nozzle to spray inside the D-Box and clean out the lines. There is an alternative repair method referred to as “jetting” that requires a separate permit that Respondents did not obtain. Jetting requires specialized equipment that Respondents do not own. The unrebutted testimony of both Mr. Wescott and Mr. Blake is that Mr. Blake used a simple garden hose to clear the lines. He is familiar with what the Department refers to as jetting, but has never operated jetting equipment. He uses the term “jetting” because it is an easier way to describe what he does with a simple garden hose to clear the D-Box of sand. When Mr. Blake replaced the pipe leading to the D-Box, he broke sprinkler lines in the area. Sprinkler lines are often, if not always, damaged in OSTDS repairs. Respondents had arranged the day before for a timed inspection, for which they paid an additional fee. The purpose of a timed inspection is to be able to complete the job and have it inspected as soon as it is finished. Mr. Kataro came out to the property at approximately 9:00 a.m., inspected the work performed, determined that it met permit requirements to restore function, and approved it.2/ Mr. Kataro left the site before Mr. Blake covered the system, consistent with standard practice. While Mr. Wescott was present when Mr. Kataro arrived to inspect the work, there was no testimony to indicate Mr. Wescott advised the inspector that he was unhappy with the scope of work performed. Mr. Blake had a backhoe on the premises for use in covering the area. He testified that he covered the system, including the broken sprinkler pipes, and that he always does so and then notifies the homeowner about the need to fix the sprinkler pipes. Both Mr. Blake and Mr. Wescott testified that Mr. Wescott asked Mr. Blake to remove some sod for him nearby, and paid him cash for doing so. According to Mr. Blake, Mr. Wescott seemed satisfied at this point. It seems inconceivable that Mr. Wescott would be willing to pay additional funds for Mr. Blake to remove sod if he had not covered the system he was supposed to cover and if he was unhappy with the work (or lack of work) performed, and yet not say anything to Mr. Blake about covering the completed repair. Mr. Wescott expected that since the drainfield was not replaced, he would receive some portion of the $1,000 he paid back. Had he realized that the repair would cost that much, he would have gotten estimates from other contractors. He viewed replacing the drainfield as preventative maintenance. Based on this belief, after Mr. Blake left the premises, Mr. Wescott called Mr. Crescenzo and asked about a refund. He did not complain, however, about the system not being covered. Mr. Crescenzo informed him that there would be no refund, as the work order clearly indicates that deposits are non-refundable. The Wescotts called the Johns by John office to get an itemized receipt for insurance purposes. There was some delay in receiving a receipt, so they went to the office to obtain it in person. Initially, they were given a receipt stating that the D- box had been replaced. When they questioned this and told the person working in the office that the D-box had not been replaced, she made some phone calls to verify the work performed. The office worker prepared a new receipt while speaking to someone, presumably Jeremiah Blake, on the phone. The new receipt stated, “connected tank to distribution box. Leveled D-Box to drainfield. Jetted drainfield lines.” The change in the description appears to have occurred more because the person working in the office misunderstood the scope of work performed, rather than any nefarious intent to defraud. Further, the reference to jetting was consistent with both Mr. Blake and Mr. Crescenzo’s shorthand notation for cleaning the line with the garden hose, as opposed to the alternative repair method requiring additional permitting. As noted in paragraph 16, the sprinkler lines were broken during the repairs. Mr. Wescott replaced the broken pipes, and placed bricks underneath them to hold them in place. He was still unhappy about not having a new drainfield in place, and felt that he had been defrauded. On August 4, 2014, Mr. Wescott filed a complaint with Albert Gray, the Environmental Manager at the Department. At the very end of his two-page letter, Mr. Wescott stated that the broken irrigation pipes have been repaired and the hole is still wide open with the tank cover exposed. The Department does not regulate the prices to be charged for repairs or installation of new systems: that is between the contractor and the homeowner. There is more involved to complete the job than the time that the workman is on the premises actually performing the repair. For example, in addition to the cost of the permit application, additional time is necessary to perform a site evaluation and soil test. Whether or not the drainfield must be replaced, the materials must be available to install should it be necessary, as well as the skilled workman and equipment (truck, backhoe, etc.). Further, it is clear that, had Respondents installed a new drainfield, the cost would have been much higher than what the Wescotts actually paid, not only to pay for the drainfield, but also to replace a large section of sod and a larger portion of the sprinkler system. Regardless of whether a new drainfield is installed, contractors are required to cover the OSTDS when they work on it. As a result of the Wescott’s complaint, Inspector Kataro went back out to the Wescott home to inspect the site. He found that the D-Box was lying open and exposed, with no earth covering the system. He took pictures of the area, which were admitted into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibits J and K. The pictures show two exposed sprinkler pipes, supported at one end by bricks. One picture shows a bucket positioned over the distribution box, while the other shows the box sealed but not covered. Mr. Kataro testified that the pictures look similar to what he saw when he inspected the property after the repair was completed in July 2014. However, he could not say whether the sprinkler system pipes were broken before, or whether the bricks supporting the pipes were there previously. The testimony is clear that, after the job was inspected, Mr. Wescott made repairs to the sprinkler system that would require the area to be uncovered and Mr. Wescott acknowledged that he placed the bricks under the sprinkler pipes. Mr. Kataro recalled that Mr. Blake had a backhoe on the premises at the time of repair, but Mr. Kataro left the site before the area would have been covered. There is credible testimony that Mr. Blake covered the area and credible testimony that he did not. Other evidence presented is more consistent with a finding that the area was covered, at least minimally. The equipment for covering the area was by all accounts on site, and Mr. Blake used that equipment to remove sod for Mr. Wescott. It makes little sense for him to use the equipment to remove the sod but not use it for covering the D-Box and surrounding area. Moreover, had Mr. Blake covered the area, it would have to be uncovered to fix the sprinkler pipes. The Department did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Blake, as an agent of Respondents, failed to cover the D-box. Respondent Crescenzo happened to be at the Department on August 14, 2014, picking up permits when he learned of the complaint from Mr. Wescott. He was very upset about the complaint and immediately wrote a response while still at the Department. In his response, he denied stating that the drain field would definitely be replaced, and emphasized that by repairing the pipe leading to the D-Box the homeowner saved a substantial amount of money, including not only the cost of installing the drain field, but the re-sodding of his yard and more substantial repair of his sprinkler system. Although clearly unhappy about the complaint, Respondent Crescenzo stated, “If the homeowner wants the system just replaced they should have said that at the time of the job. Or we could still do it if they insist for the original agreed price.” Mr. Wescott has not elected to accept Respondents’ offer. In his response, Crescenzo also referred to “jetting,” but used it in the same informal manner as Mr. Blake. His informal reference did not change the unrebutted testimony regarding the scope of work performed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of May, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of May, 2015.
The Issue Whether the alleged violation exists and, if so, whether orders for corrective action should be made final against respondents or either of them?
Findings Of Fact On October 17, 1984, Sunshine acquired from R & F what had been a filling station at the corner of U.S. Highway 98 and Laurie Avenue in Bay County, Florida. The old gas pumps had been moved some time before October 17, 1984. Only loose pipe connections leading to the underground storage tanks remained. The deed K & F executed in favor of Sunshine made no mention of these tanks. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. Sunshine later contracted with Jake Walters, who began construction the following April to convert the site into a convenience store with gas pumps. On January 25, 1985, long before bringing any petroleum product onto the property, Jake Walters' construction foreman, John Kenneth Barnes, began taking up the two-foot slab of concrete that overlay K & F's underground storage tanks. The ground underneath the concrete smelled of gasoline. James Guris, who was overseeing the job for Sunshine, ordered work stopped and told Harold Millis, Sunshine's vice-president for real estate and construction, about the feel and smell of the soil. When Mr. Millis learned of the situation, he decided that DER should be notified. Because by then it was too late in the day to reach DER, Jim Guris called DER's office in Panama City on the following Monday, January 28, 1985. He spoke to DER's Grady Swann, who told him to file a discharge notification form with DER. Mr. Swann said removal of the underground tanks could go forward. Before removing the storage tanks, Mr. Barnes, or somebody at his direction, measured the depth of the tanks with a stick to determine how deep to dig. In this way two or three inches of gasoline were discovered in the bottom of each tank. Even though workmen secured a pump and pumped gasoline from each underground tank (into a 500-gallon tank mounted on a truck), they were unable to pump the tanks completely dry. In each of the three underground tanks, about a half inch of gasoline remained. With a crane and lifting rigs, they raised the tanks in an upright position, without spilling any gasoline. Except inside where the half inch of gasoline stood, the tanks and appurtenant pipes and tubing were dry. Mr. Guris ordered pressure tests done on the tanks, each a cylinder some five feet in diameter. Two of the tanks passed this test, but the third failed. That tank had a hole approximately one quarter inch in diameter a little left of center, about half way up one end of the tank. Groundwater on the site came within four and a half or five feet of the surface in early February of 1985. Because it contains less than 10,000 parts per million total dissolved solids, it is properly classified as G-II. A marine clay separates the surficial aquifer from the Floridan, but the surficial aquifer recharges the Floridan. Northeast of where the storage tanks were dug up and 300 to 350 feet way a two-inch well 390 feet deep supplies water from the Floridan aquifer to three households. Nobody has detected any odor or taste of gasoline in water from those wells. Grady Swann took soil samples on site on February 8 and again on February 26, 1985. On his first visit, he noticed no sheen on the surface of the water standing in the area excavated around the old tanks, smelled no odor emanating from the standing water and did not take a sample. On his second visit, he did notice evidence of groundwater contamination and took water as well as soil samples. Mr. Swann returned on March 11, 1986, with Kenneth L. Busen and Mike Wilson of DER's Operation Response Team and used a power augur to put in temporary wells from which additional water samples were taken. These tests confirmed suspicions that the old gas tanks had leaked and revealed groundwater contamination attributable to gasoline including, in some samples, more than 1,000 times the allowable concentration of benzene. Gasoline seeping through soil leaves residual hydrocarbons which contaminate percolating rain or other groundwater moving through the same soil. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6 depicts the probable initial configuration of the plume of hydrocarbons in the vicinity of the old tanks. Contamination is moving down gradient to the northeast, spreading out but growing more dilute. The steps called for by the proposed corrective orders are a reasonable way to mitigate environmental damage.
The Issue Are Petitioner’s outside water supply connections in violation of Rule 10D-26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and, if so, should Petitioner be assessed an administrative fine for such violation?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Petitioner is permitted by the Department in accordance with Chapter 513, Florida Statutes, to operate the Peace River Campground, (Campground) which is a Recreational Vehicle (RV) Park (182 spaces) and a Mobile Home (MH) Park (15 spaces), annual permit number 14-010-97. The Campground’s water is supplied by a community public water utility company. Each RV and MH space has an outside water tap as required by Chapter 10D-26, Florida Administrative Code. Many of the outside water taps do not have a backflow or back-siphonage prevention device installed on them. On February 6, 1997, the Department conducted a routine inspection of the campground and determined that the campground was in violation of Rule 10D-26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, for failing to have the required backflow or back-siphonage prevention. The citation required Petitioner to install backflow or back-siphonage prevention by February 28, 1997, the next scheduled inspection date. On February 28, 1997, the Department conducted a follow-up inspection of the Campground’s water system and determined that the alleged violation had not been corrected. Petitioner disagreed with the Department’s determination that the Campground’s water system was not in compliance with Rule 10D-26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, for failing to have the Campground’s water system designed or constructed to prevent backflow or back-siphonage. On February 28, 1997, the Department issued a citation of violation (citation) to Petitioner alleging a violation of Rule 10D-26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, for failing to have the Campground’s water supply connection designed or constructed to prevent backflow or back-siphonage. The Campground’s water connections at each RV and MH site have water taps which are above ground and have standard water shut-off valves. The Campground’s water system has good water pressure of approximate 70-100 pounds pressure per square inch (psi). The Campground’s outside water taps are neither constructed nor designed to prevent backflow or back-siphonage in the event the water pressure drops to a point which would allow backflow or back-siphonage, such as if the water main feeding the Campground’s water system broke. If the water pressure in the Campground’s water system should drop allowing backflow or back-siphonage, hazardous material could possible be injected in the water system. Although there has never been a recorded incident of backflow or back-siphonage into the Campground’s water system, without the some type of backflow or back-siphonage preventer being installed there remains a potential for this to happen. The Campground’s outside water connections would not prevent backflow or back-siphonage under certain conditions and are not in compliance with Rule 10D-26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code. There are six basic types of devices that are recognized by the Environmental Protection Agency and the engineering profession which prevent backflow and back-siphonage. These devices are: (a) air gaps; (b) barometric loops; (c) vacuum breakers--both atmospheric and pressure type; (d) double check with intermediate atmospheric vent; (e) double check valve assembler; and (f) reduced pressure principle devices. The Department does not mandate which device the Petitioner must install, only that a proper device be installed which will prevent backflow or back-siphonage. A hose bib vacuum breaker such as Department’s Exhibit 3 provide the minimum protection against backflow or back-siphonage and is considered acceptable for compliance with Rule 10D- 26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order assessing an administrative fine in the amount of $150.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Martin Scott, Esquire Department of Health Post Office Box 60085 Fort Myers, Florida 33906 George Lempenau, pro se Peace River Campground 2998 Northwest Highway 70 Arcadia, Florida 34266 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact The applicant, Island Village Condominiums, prepared and submitted to the Department of Environmental Regulation a completed application for construction of its extended aeration sewage treatment plant. The relative distance and direction from the proposed treatment plant to major bodies of surrounding surface water are depicted in an aerial photograph which accompanied the application. The elevation of the surrounding waters in all directions is 39 feet. When the treatment plant is operated in compliance with its design features, the effluent from the plant will exceed the Department's standards for effluent discharge. The zone of discharge will be confined to the owners' property. Surface waters will not be involved in discharge. There will be no adverse impact upon ground waters. The treatment plant would not create a hazzard to the deep water wells of Point O' Woods Utilities, Inc. The treatment plant, as designed, meets or exceeds the engineering standards established by the Department. The likelihood of geologic subsurface failure is remote. Ground water levels are included on the schematic plan which accompanied the application to the Department. The tops of the holding ponds are above the 100-year flood level. The treatment plant will produce no noticeable odor. No exterior lights are to be used with the plant. The noise from the plant's operation would not travel more than 200 feet. The holding ponds would be more than 120 feet from the nearest surface water. The estimate of the cost is accurate at $98,000. Martin I. Gunn, Inc., is the developer of the property, which is also owned by the corporation, Island Village Condominiums, also known as Island Village of Inverness. The treatment plant will become the property of the home owners association and will be operated by the association from maintenance fees paid by the home owners. Martin I. Gunn/Island Village is not a public utility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the permit for the construction and operation of an extended aeration sewage treatment plant be issued to Island Village Condominiums subject to the general and specific conditions stated in the Department's original notice. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 19th day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas V. Infantino, Esquire Post Office Drawer. B Winter Park, Florida 32790 Donald F. Perrin, Esquire New Bank of Inverness Building Highway 41, South Post Office Box 1533 Inverness, Florida 32650 William W. Deane, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria J. Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On May 4, 1979, the Department received from Hudson an Application for Variance from Rules 1704.244(1)(f), 1704.244(1)(h)(1), 1704.244(1)(i)(1) and 1704.4244(4), Florida Administrative Code. The request was for a period of twenty four months and was prompted by Hudsons alleged inability to meet the standards set forth in the rules at a secondary waste water treatment facility which is operated in conjunction with a pulp and paper plant in Palatka, Florida. The wastewater is discharged from the plant into Rice Creek and from the creek into the St. Johns River. Hudson stated in its request for a variance that no technology exists, now or in the foreseeable future, which would enable Hudson to meet the rule standards. Hudson further stated that it is presently utilizing the best available technology economically feasible at its Palatka plant. After reviewing the Application for Variance, the Department requested additional information concerning Hudson's application which involved: Hudson's inability to meet applicable water quality standards within the 800 meter mixing zone set forth in Rule 1704.244(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code. Hudson's inability to meet water quality standards within 10 percent of the total length of Rice Creek as required by Rule 1704.244(1)(h)(1), Florida Administrative Code. Hudson's inability to meet a dissolved oxygen level of not less than 4 mg/1 as required by Rule 17-4.244(1)(i)(1), Florida Administrative Code. and Hudson's inability to meet a minimum dissolved oxygen level of 1.5 mg/1 at any time or place. Due to its alleged inability to meet the applicable standards, Hudson proposed that the zone of mixing be extended into the St. Johns River and that average and minimum dissolved oxygen levels be inapplicable in the extended mixing zone. Hudson clarified its request on July 11, 1979, to include in the mixing zone that portion of Rice Creek between Hudson's point of discharge and Rice Creek's confluence with the St. Johns River and 2000 feet beyond the confluence into the river. Additionally, Hudson clarified its request for average and minimum dissolved oxygen levels 0.0 mg/1, respectively, within the modified mixing zone. On August 24, 1979, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to approve the variance subject to the following conditions: That the variance be in effect for a period of not ore than 24 months. That Hudson study alternative discharge and monitoring systems with details and scope of the studies to be approved prior to the effective date of the variance. That Hudson utilize its treatment facilities to the maximum extent to minimize BOD5 loading into Rice Creek and maximize dissolved oxygen levels. Within two months of the effective date of the variance, Hudson is to provide the Department a report outlining how the company will meet this requirement. That Hudson continue to apply new technology as it becomes available and conduct ongoing studies in this area and submit the same to the Department upon completion and That Hudson continue to study, stress and utilize water reuse conservation techniques to reduce the amount of water consumed per ton of product produced. Subsequently, the Department received from Hudson a technical program for continued water quality studies at Rice Creek. Following further communications and discussions, Hudson and the Department agreed on a six month study to replace the two month requirement concerning dissolved oxygen levels in the effluent. Eventually, the Respondents agreed on a study to encompass conditions 5(b) and (c) set forth, supra. Following receipt of a letter to the Department from the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Hudson agreed to incorporate into its study the issues raised by that agency. At the formal hearing the Petitioner and Intervenor, an adjoining property owner, pressed their objections to the Department's intent to issue a variance to Hudson. Hudson demonstrated that its wastewater treatment system at its Palatka facility utilizes the most effective and technologically advanced treatment system available. Hudson has made a major commitment towards upgrading its treatment facilities as new and practicable treatment technologies become available. Hudson's Palatka plant has the highest quality of effluent of any paper mill operating in the state. Hudson is unable to meet the present standards for discharge due primarily to the classification of Rice Creek as a Class III water body. Although classified as a Class III water, Rice Creek, even in the absence of the Hudson discharge, would be unable to meet the standards of the Florida Administrative Code for such waters at all places and times. There is no practicable technology currently available which would enable Hudson to meet Class III water standards. Hudson's annual average for discharge of Biochemical Oxygen Demand ("BOD") and Total Suspended Solids ("TSS") exceeded the Best Available Technology ("BAT") standard proposed by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency by 47% and 22% respectively. Hudson's permit levels only require the standards to be exceeded by 20% and 19%, respectively. Despite Hudson's good faith efforts to meet water quality standards, it is not presently possible to meet Class III criteria for discharge into the St. Johns River. Accordingly, a variance is required from the mixing zone and dissolved oxygen provisions of Chapter 17-4 Florida Administrative Code, if Hudson is to continue in operation. In the intended mixing zone proposed by Hudson, dissolved oxygen levels of 0.0 mg/1 could be expected at certain times of the year and under certain conditions. The variance does not authorize Hudson to discharge at levels in excess of its present permits. If the Palatka plant were to close, Putnam County and a surrounding area would experience severe economic harm due to the tremendous impact the plant has on the local economy. The water quality of the St. Johns River is not significantly affected by the discharge into Rice Creek.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Respondent’s license as a water well contractor should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint and Order entered herein by the District.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) was the state agency responsible for the conservation, protection, management, and control of water resources within its boundaries, and consistent therewith, the licensing of water wells therein; and for the licensing and regulation of water wells and water well contractors within the district. The three wells in issue herein were within the jurisdiction of the Petitioner, and Respondent was a water well contractor licensed by the District. On June 4, 1998, Respondent signed a contract with Karen Anne Grant, to drill a four-inch domestic water well on her property located at 33442 Larkin Road, Dade City, Florida. The property, on which Ms. Grant was building a residence, was a part of a pre-existing citrus grove. After application by the Respondent, SWFWMD issued WCP No. 606175.01 to him on June 1, 1998, and Respondent began construction of the well on June 15, 1998. His application reflected the well was to be drilled using the cable-tool method. Construction was completed on the well on or about July 7, 1998, but because the well was vandalized during construction by the dropping of an unknown substance (probably a piece of casing) down the well, the well was unsatisfactory and was not used. Respondent attempted to repair the well but was unable to do so. Respondent claimed the well was unusable and he would have to drill another one. Although he did not obtain a permit to close the well, he subsequently did so. He was paid $5,375.00 to dig this Well (No. 1). Because of the failure of Well No. 1, Respondent applied to the District for and received WCP No. 613349.01 on December 9, 1998, to construct a second four-inch water well on Ms. Grant's property. This was Well No. 2. He began construction that day and completed it on January 27, 1999. From the time of its initial use, Well No. 2 produced water which contained unacceptable amounts of sediment, debris, and sand. In addition to the unsatisfactory quality of the water it produced, Well No. 2 also failed to produce a sufficient quantity of water for domestic potable water use or grove irrigation. Respondent admitted to Ms. Grant that Well No. 2 was not satisfactory for grove irrigation, and in an effort to fix the water quality problem, installed a sand filter and sedimentation tank. Well No. 2 was not properly closed. It was covered with a PVC cap instead of a tamper-resistant watertight cap or valve as required, and Respondent did not properly seal the upper terminus of the well. Without obtaining a third WCP, on February 25, 1999, Respondent started construction of a third well on the Grant property. Respondent contends WCP No. 613349.01, pulled for Well No. 2, was not for that well but for Well No. 3. He argues that the second well was so close to the first well that he did not feel another permit was required. Though Well No. 3 was completed and produces water, the water quality is poor. It contains sand, sediment, debris, and rock, which results in clogging of plumbing fixtures at the Grant home. In addition, the volume of water produced is insufficient for comfortable home use. Well No. 3 is open down to 178 feet below land surface, beyond which point it is obstructed by sand. Use of a diagnostic tool available to the District reveals that the sand seems to be coming from around the well casing. Ms. Grant initially contracted with Respondent to dig her well in June 1998. Although Petitioner disputes it, the location of the well near the new house she was building was, she claims, by mutual agreement. Respondent did not express any dissatisfaction with the location of this or either of the other wells, He said he was familiar with the area and had worked all around there. Respondent started work on Well No. 1 on June 15, 1998 and it was completed on July 2, 1998. The house was not yet completed, and electric service had not been installed, though it was being arranged for. Before the well could be put in operation, however, Respondent claimed it was vandalized and his equipment, which he had left at the site, stolen. At this point, Respondent told Ms. Grant that he had run into an obstruction which he believed was pipe which had been dropped into the well at more than 100 feet. He said he had tried to get it out, but could not, and had to drill another well. The casing of Well No. 1 was not cut off at that time. Ms. Grant later discovered it had been cut off and plugged, but she does not know who did that. Ms. Grant used Well No. 2, which was located about 20 to 30 feet west of Well No. 1, for just about two months but was never satisfied with the amount or quality of the water it produced. Not only was the water quality low, but there was also insufficient volume for grove irrigation, one of the intended uses of which she had advised Respondent. When Grant complained to Respondent about the water quality, he suggested she run hoses constantly to clear the sand out. In February, 1999, just after Ms. Grant contacted the District to complain, Respondent said he would come by to cap Well Nos. 1 and 2, and start Well No. 3. On February 25, 1999, Respondent started Well No. 3 at a site about 200 feet north of Well Nos. 1 and 2, agreed upon by the parties after some discussion, and on March 5, 1999, he completed it. Respondent billed Ms. Grant $3,271 for this well, in addition to the $5,375 paid for Well No. 1 and the $4,585 paid for Well No. 2. Whereas the builder paid for the first two wells, Ms. Grant paid for Well No. 3, but she had the same problems with Well No. 3 that she had had with the prior two wells. An irrigation company called in to see what could be done to get water to the citrus grove indicated there was too much sediment in the water and not enough flow. About a year after Well No. 3 was completed, the Grants noticed the water pressure was dropping, and when they went to the well site, they noticed the pump was constantly running. As a result, they called another well driller who pulled the pump and replaced the impellers. After that, Ms. Grant contacted Respondent about the fact that the wells he had drilled had never worked properly. All he would recommend was to keep the hoses running. He indicated he would try to develop the well to rid it of debris but when he tried, he was unsuccessful. As a result of the situation with the three wells, the Grants had no water to their home; the pumps they installed were destroyed; they were unable to irrigate their 8-acre citrus grove; they suffered a resultant loss of income; and, they were forced to drill a fourth well. When Well No. 1 was closed, the casing was cut off at or below ground level. It did not extend one foot above the land surface, nor was the casing capped or sealed with a tamper- resistant watertight cap or valve. Examination of the well site by Sharon Lee Vance, then a technician IV for the District, on May 25, 1999, based on a complaint filed by Ms. Grant, revealed that the water quality was poor - cloudy with excessive sand and rock particles. Ms. Vance tried to contact Respondent, whose name appeared on the permit as contact, by phone but always got his voice mail. Though she left messages requesting him to call back, he never did. Ms. Vance went back to the Grant site in July 1999 in the company of other District personnel. At this visit, Ms. Vance learned there were two wells. She located both and found that Well No. 1 was buried. When she first saw that well, she noted that it had been cut off below the surface, a fence post had been driven into the top, and the well had been buried. In Ms. Vance's discussions with Ms. Grant about this well, Ms. Grant categorically denied she was the one who cut off the top of Well No. 1 or buried it. She does not have access to the cutting equipment used to cut off the top of the well. Such equipment, however, is commonly used by well contractors. It was obvious to Ms. Vance that Well No. 1 had several problems. It was clearly not suitable for its intended use because it was cut off below ground level and was obstructed. It had not been properly abandoned. Though she dug down approximately one-and-a-half feet all the way around the casing, she could find no evidence of bentonite or any other approved closing medium. Even though Respondent now claims the second permit he pulled was not for Well No. 2 but for Well No. 3 instead, the permit itself appears to authorize the construction of Well No. Ms. Vance found several problems with this well, also. It was not properly sealed with bentonite or any other properly approved closure medium; a PVC cap had been applied to the top instead of a waterproof or tamperproof cap, and the PVC cap was cracked; the well was not suitable for its intended purpose because it was obstructed and produced both insufficient and poor quality water; and it was not properly abandoned. Ms. Vance observed a metal plate placed around the well top. She does not know what purpose it was to serve, but based on her experience and her examination of the site, she believes it was placed there to keep the casing from falling into the well. Notwithstanding, Ms. Vance's opinion that the second permit was for Well No. 2, Respondent contends he believed the permit for Well No. 1 was adequate to permit drilling of Well No. 2 without a new permit. Though his belief is incorrect, he admitted to obtaining a permit for Well No. 3. Therefore, it is found that Well No. 2 was not properly permitted. Well No. 3 was permitted. The water in Well No. 3 was not of good quality. She examined the sand filter which had been installed by the Respondent and found it to be full of sand. So was the settling tank. She also noted debris and unusual sediment around the well head. Based on water samples taken at the well, and the observations made, it was clear to Ms. Vance that the well was not properly seated and was pumping sand. Further, the well casing did not extend down to the static water level, and the well was not properly permitted. Ms. Vance further noted that the water from Well No. 3, in addition to the excessive sand, also had large pieces of rock and chunks of clay in it. This was unusual and indicated to her that there was a problem with the well's construction. The casing integrity as not good, which permitted an infusion of contaminant into the well. This condition is not unusual during the first day or so of a well's operation, but it usually clears up after that. In this case, it did not. Ms. Vance admits she does not know who cut Well No. 1 off below ground level. She knows the well was not properly abandoned as required by rule, however, because it was not properly grouted with neat cement grout or bentonite. She dug down beside the well for a total of two and a half feet without seeing any evidence of grout or bentonite. The fact that the well had pipe dropped into it, and the existence of the cutting off of the pipe below ground, made it inappropriate for the intended purpose of providing water for the home. Ms. Vance she does not know who cut off the pump; Ms. Grant does not know who cut off the pipe; and Respondent denies having done it. Though the work was clearly done by someone with access to well drilling tools, Respondent was not the only driller to work at the site. Therefore, it cannot be found that Respondent cut the pipe off below ground. It is clear, however, that Respondent failed to properly abandon and close Well No. 1, when he found it unusable, and it was his responsibility to do so. Well No. 2 also was not properly sealed by Respondent, according to Ms. Vance. A proper seal would include a good cap, not a cracked PVC cap, which would suffice only as a temporary cap. A proper cap would be one that is water tight and could not be readily removed. Ms. Vance admits she does not know who cracked the existing cap - only that it is cracked. This well, too, did not produce water fit for its intended purpose because of the existence of the tools which had been dropped into it. A permit was not obtained to abandon it. Under all these circumstances, Ms. Vance did not attempt to determine if it would produce sufficient water. Finally, Ms. Vance concluded that Well No. 3 was not properly seated. According to rule, the casing has to seat to or below the static water level. Based on the debris in the water drawn from this well, she was satisfied this well was not properly cased. Mack Pike, a water resources technician III for the District, does much of the well logging for the District. The equipment he uses goes to the bottom of the well and shows the diameter up to the point where the casing usually starts. Among other items, he uses a camera, which is what he used on the wells in issue here. On July 22, 1999, he went to the Grant property to look at Well Nos. 1 and 2. His first efforts to get into these wells were unsuccessful, so he stopped his effort and returned on May 10, 2000 with the camera. On May 17, 2000, he also ran the camera down all three wells. In Well No. 3 he found the pump at 176 feet. He found Well No. 1 cut off about one and a- half feet below ground level, with a log jammed into the casing top down to the level of the casing. The pipe had been cut with a torch, but the casing had not been properly sealed with bentonite. Use of the log to stuff the pipe was an improper seal. He found the well open below the log down to 128 feet, but obstructed below that. There was no water in the well. Respondent adamantly insists he used bentonite in all three wells, but since no trace of it was found in any of the wells by Mr. Pike or Ms. Vance, it is found that he did not. At Well No. 2, Mr. Pike found a welded slab around the pipe to keep the casing from falling in. The cap was cracked and was no good. The camera showed the well was closed off. He hit sand at 158 feet. The presence of sand indicated to Mr. Pike that the casing was not properly sealed. The well was unusable. Mr. Pike did not examine Well No. 3 until after he opened the sediment tank and found sand which appeared to have come from the surface. If the casing had been properly sealed, there should have been no surface sand. This means that the well was not properly seated. Respondent has been a licensed well contractor since 1989 and has drilled approximately 300 wells since that time. Though he claims he suggested alternate locations for the wells to Ms. Grant, she insisted the well be placed near her irrigation line. Respondent claims he was against this because the site was a transition area which raised the possibility of the pipe bending. Notwithstanding the advice he got from others regarding the siting of the wells, he agreed to place the well where Ms. Grant wanted it. Respondent claims he dug the first well and installed the pump, but the power was insufficient to run it. As a result, he pulled out the pump and told Ms. Grant that when she got the proper power to run it, he'd come back and reinstall the pump. It was when he returned to the site in response to her call that he found that the site of Well No. 1 had been vandalized. Though he recommended the well be abandoned, Ms. Grant did not want to do that, so he moved over 20 feet and started to drill again. He categorically denies having cut off the casing of Well No. 1 below ground level. It has been found that the evidence shows Respondent that cut the pipe on Well No. 1, is insufficient. Mr. Holt admits he did not seek a permit for this second well because his understanding was that one could drill like wells on the same premises without abandoning the pre- existing wells. He drilled the second well which, he claims, produced water for five to six months. However, it was impossible to stop the sand from infiltrating the well, and the well was not producing sufficient water to irrigate the grove. Because the water produced by Well No. 2 was insufficient in quantity to use the 5-horsepower pump called for in the contract, Respondent replaced it with a one and a-half horsepower pump. According to Respondent, he and Ms. Grant discussed where to site Well No. 3. Finally, Ms. Grant agreed to move it up the hill on which Respondent wanted to site it, as this would accommodate her irrigation system. Respondent was not comfortable with this because it was on the slope too close to the others, but he went along with it. As Well No. 3 was being constructed, Respondent discussed with Ms. Grant the need to close Well Nos. 1 and 2. She did not want to pay for the closings, so he decided to cap the existing wells. As a result, Well No. 2 is still a viable well, and though it will not irrigate the grove, it will, Respondent claims, provide sufficient water for the house. He admits placing the PVC cap on Well No. 2, but claims it was not cracked when installed. He also admits to placing the plate around the top of Well No. 2 because the drive shoe was bent. It broke off, and he was afraid if he did not reinforce the area as he had the casing would collapse when he tried to ream out the drive shoe to recover it. At the 126-foot mark of Well No. 3, Respondent hit a boulder through which the drill would not go. At that time, the hole below the casing was still good with no infusion. Respondent installed a pump and drew water, but, the pump soon began to pull sand. Respondent installed a filter, but it was insufficient. He ultimately drilled through the rock and placed the pump at 178 feet. That well is currently being used. Respondent claims that all wells in that area pull sand to some degree. He insists that Ms. Grant's wells just pull too much. He claims he could have quit, but because of his relationship with the builder, he felt obligated to drill a working well for Ms. Grant. Anthony Gilboy, who has been with the District for 20 years, is currently the District's manager of well construction. He is familiar with the statutes and the rules of the District relating to water well construction and abandonment. According to Mr. Gilboy, they are loose enough to permit some latitude in their application. There is a freedom to amend methodology where circumstances so dictate. A licensed water well contractor is required to obtain a permit to construct a water well. Once a permit is drawn, if the well needs to be changed, the permittee must apply for an amendment and then plug the old well consistent with District guidelines. Plugging is critical to prevent potential contamination of water and to preserve it. Rule 40D-3.042, Florida Administrative Code, permits multiple (up to 8) wells under a single permit for similar types of wells that have diameters of 4 inches or less, but not domestic water wells. There are different ways to drill a water well. One is by cable-tool drill in which a bit is hammered into the rock. As the casing is being driven down into the ground, it holds back the sediment. Another method involves the use of a rotary drill which employs water and bentonite to hold back sediment. It is possible to tell whether bentonite was used in the drilling process just by looking at the well. The bentonite adheres to the well casing and looks different from the surrounding soil. In fact, there is no soil appearing naturally in Florida that looks like bentonite. In the instant case, Respondent applied to use the cable-tool method. Bentonite traces were not found at the sites. When a well is drilled, the casing is to be poured in segments as drilling progresses. When a well is to be abandoned, one approved method of doing so involves the use of bentonite, a type of clay which swells to about 10 to 15 times its volume in dry form. Studies done by the District in conjunction with the University of Florida show that over all, bentonite is a better seal than natural soil, and it prevents surface water from settling down the side of the casing. Rule 40D-3.517(3), Florida Administrative Code, requires bentonite's use for this purpose, and a rule of the Department of Environmental Protection, though not specifically mentioning bentonite, requires that casings be sealed. The casing of a water well is used to seal off any unconsolidated materials. Rule 62-532, Florida Administrative Code, requires the casing be extended into the static water level at the time the well is drawn. If a well is not sealed, debris and sand can slide into the well and damage the pump and other equipment. If debris is seen, it usually means the casing was not sealed properly. After a well is completed, the rules of the District and the Department, Rules 40D-3.521(2) and 62-532.500(3)(a)4, Florida Administrative Code, respectively, require the upper part of the well to be sealed off to prevent infusion of contaminants. The seal must be tamper-proof and permanent. A fence post is not acceptable, nor is a cracked PVC cap. In addition, the upper terminus of a private well must extend at least 1 foot above the land surface. The purpose of this requirement is to allow the well to be found, and to prevent infusion of contaminant. (Rule 40D-3.53(2), Florida Administrative Code) According to Rule 62-532-500(4), Florida Administrative Code, all abandoned or incomplete wells must be plugged from top to bottom with grout (neat cement). The Rule and Stipulation 39 of the permit provide that the well drilling contractor is responsible for proper abandonment of a well. This is not conditioned on the willingness of the owner to pay. The contractor has the responsibility to do it. An abandoned well is one which the use of which has been permanently discontinued or which is so in need of repair as to be useless. These determinations must be made by the District, hence the need for the permit. In the instant case it was determined that Well Nos. 1 and 2 were not suited for their intended purpose, and they should have been properly abandoned. The process for well abandonment is not complex, but it does require the obtaining of a permit. At least 24 hours in advance of initiation of the plugging process, the contractor must advise the District that the process will be implemented. Thereafter, the well hole is filled with neat cement or bentonite grout. To abandon a well by any other method would require a variance from the District. Neither permit nor variance was sought as to Well Nos. 1 and 2. The standards adopted by the Department and the Water Management Districts are statewide in application. Construction of a water well without first obtaining a permit is classified as a major violation. The failure to properly abandon a well or the failure to use bentonite or neat cement in well closure are also major violations. Failure to construct a well so that the casing extends below the static water level is a major violation. Failure to seat or seal a casing into rock formation is a major violation. Failure to place a water-tight seal and failure to extend well casing at least one foot above the ground level are both major violations. Penalties may be assessed for these violations according to a schedule set out in the Department rules. However, these penalties may be adjusted based on such factors as the economic benefit to the contractor of his non-compliance; his history of non-compliance; the negligence or willfulness of his actions; and whether he acted in good faith. Under the circumstances of this case, Mr. Gilboy is of the opinion that the actions proposed by the District are appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent, Fletcher Holt be ordered to pay an administrative fine of $4,600; that 46 points be assessed against his water well contractor's license; and that he be required to properly abandon Well Nos. 1, 2, and 3, which he drilled on the Grant property. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 18th day of July, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Onofre Cintron, Esquire 305 North Parson Avenue Brandon, Florida 33510 Margaret M. Lytle, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 E. D. "Sonny" Vergara, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: By a Form of Agreement dated August 20, 1974, between petitioner as the contractor and respondent as the owner, petitioner agreed to perform all work required by the Contract Documents for the construction of the R.A. Gray Archives, Library and Museum in Tallahassee, Florida. The Contract Documents consisted of the Form of Agreement, Conditions of the Contract, Drawings, Specifications and all Addenda and Modifications thereof. These were the documents upon which petitioner's bid was based. A portion of the Specifications and Drawings were received into evidence as petitioner's exhibits 1 and 2. Section 15C of the Specifications, Volume 2, Set No. 41, contains the provisions relating to plumbing. Paragraph 3 of Section 15C pertains to soil, waste and vent piping. Paragraph 5 concerns rain water leaders and states "Insulate as specified." Paragraph 19(d) states that: Rain water leaders interior to building construction shall be isolated with 1" thick glass fiber sectional rigid pipe covering with integral vapor barrier (Exhibit No. 2, page 15C-6) The specifications do not appear to call for any particular type of insulation for soil or waste pipes. The legend for the plumbing drawings is contained on drawing P-1 of Exhibit No. 1. This legend illustrates that rain leaders are indicated by a symbol showing straight lines with the initials R.L. in between the lines. Soil or waste pipes are symbolized by a solid straight line. The drawing relevant to the issue in this case is drawing P-17. That drawing utilizes uninitialed, solid straight lines to indicate the type of piping required. No piping is denoted, according to the legend, as rain leader piping. Smith Insulation Company was petitioner's sub-subcontractor to perform the thermal insulation for the project's heating, ventilating and plumbing system. The bid price submitted by Smith was based upon the plans, specifications and drawings supplied by respondent. Frank D. Smith, president of Smith Insulation Company, testified that in interpreting the drawings concerning the plumbing for the project, he relied upon the plumbing legend contained on drawing P-1 of Exhibit 1. Inasmuch as drawing P-17 had no denotation for rain leader piping, Smith interpreted the drawing to require soil and waste pipes for which no insulation was specified. Smith testified that had the items on drawing P-17 been labeled rain leader, his initial bid would have been higher. If he had included the insulation required for rain water leaders, his actual costs would have amounted to an additional $5,000.00 and, with overhead and profit, the amount due petitioner from respondent would be $6,199.68. As a result of the mistake of Smith's superintendent, the piping in dispute on drawing P-17 was in fact initially insulated with "flexible blanket." On October 15, 1975, a site visit of the project was made and among the conditions noted on the respondent's project evaluation report was The contractor has insulated the storm water with flexible blanket. The specs called for rigid pipe covering. (Exhibit A) On October 22, 1975, Mr. Terry N. Thompson conducted a job site visit and reported in part as follows: 3. Insulation on the rain water leaders is not in accordance with the specifications and is not acceptable. Mechanical Contractor has been advised to have the insulation removed and the specified insulation installed. (Exhibit B) Smith Insulation Company removed the flexible insulation from the pipes in questions and replaced it with he specified insulation. Petitioner thereafter requested an increase in the contract price for the insulation by its sub-subcontractor in the amount of $6,199.68. The supervising architects for the project denied this request. Among those who prepared the specifications and the drawings were Fletcher and Valenti, architects and Healy, Hargan, and Matten, consulting engineers. Mr. Terry Thompson with the Healy firm was the project coordinator. He admitted that a difference in interpretation of drawing P-17 was a possibility. Mr. Charles Robert Scott with the Fletcher and Valenti firm admitted that the failure to denote certain piping on P-17 as rain water leaders could have been an error. It was Mr. Scott's opinion, however, that it was obvious from the drawings in question that the function of the pipes in question was to receive rain water. Mr. Nathan Nadler in respondent's Bureau of Construction agreed with Mr. Scott. He felt that the obvious function of the piping system in question was to drain rain water from the plaza decks. Regardless of the "obvious function" of the piping in question, the piping denoted in the drawing were soil and waste pipes. If respondent intended said piping to act as a rain water drain, drawing P-17, when interpreted in conjunction with the plumbing legend contained on P-1, is clearly erroneous.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that petitioner's request for reimbursement in the amount of $6,199.68 be GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of August, 1977. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William L. Gary Pennington, Wilkinson and Sauls Post Office Box 3985 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Kenneth F. Hoffman Rogers, Towers, Bailey, Jones and Gay Post Office Box 1872 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John Barley General Counsel Department of General Services Room 113, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Sections 400.102, 400.121, and 400.23, Florida Statutes, and Rule 59A-4.133(16)(d), Florida Administrative Code; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), is the state agency responsible for licensure and regulation of nursing homes operating in the State of Florida. Respondent, Golfview Nursing Home (Respondent/Golfview), operates a licensed nursing home at 3636 10th Avenue North in St. Petersburg, Florida. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the facility had fifty-seven (57) beds, but the usual occupancy was between thirty-two (32) and thirty-five (35). The Agency conducted an annual licensure survey of Golfview on April 3-5, 2001, during which the Agency surveyors evaluated the facility's compliance with state and federal regulations governing the operation of a nursing home. At the outset of the survey, on the morning of April 3, 2001, the surveyors expressed to Golfview staff concerns over the adequacy of the hot water temperature of the facility's dishwasher. One of the surveyors was concerned that the dishwasher was required to run four cycles before reaching 125 degrees, the specified temperature for operation of the type of dishwasher used at the facility. Based on the previous year's survey, Golfview staff members were aware of that concern and had a procedure in place to address the issue related to the dishwasher water temperature. Golfview established a procedure for achieving the specified hot water temperature of the dishwasher. The procedure was to run the dishwasher three cycles before running a wash cycle to overcome the cooling effect of a nearby air conditioner on the metal dishwasher. Golfview's standard dishwasher procedures did not include raising boiler temperatures. Nonetheless, in response to the concern raised by the surveyors regarding the dishwasher temperature, Respondent's maintenance director increased the temperature of the boiler at Golfview in order to increase the temperature of the water going into the dishwasher. The water at Golfview is heated by one 100-gallon boiler which is thermostatically controlled. The boiler is heated with propane gas and has a pilot light. Golfview has a circulating pump which circulates heated water throughout the building. The circulating pump is also thermostatically controlled. On the morning of April 3, 2001, and after the facility's maintenance director had raised the boiler temperature, the surveyors observed that the water temperature in some of the resident sink faucets seemed hot to hand touch. Consequently, the survey team leader asked the Agency's life safety inspector surveyor to test the water temperatures in resident rooms. Upon measuring the water temperature, the surveyor reported that he found the water temperature in one resident room to be 122 degrees Fahrenheit (hereinafter all references to temperatures will be in Fahrenheit degrees). However, that room was unoccupied and no resident was assigned to that room. Rule 59A-4.133(16)(d), Florida Administrative Code, requires the water temperature in resident rooms be between 105 and 115 degrees Fahrenheit. Later on April 3, 2001, the surveyors advised Golfview management of their concern that the water temperatures exceeded the rule requirements. In response, the Golfview maintenance director explained to the surveyors that he had increased the boiler temperature to accommodate the surveyors' concerns about the temperature of the dishwasher water and that he would reduce the boiler temperature. Soon after the maintenance director reduced the boiler temperature, the water temperatures in the resident rooms returned to the limits required by the applicable rule. On April 3, 2001, after 12:15 p.m., there were no resident rooms in which the water temperatures exceeded 115 degrees. Moreover, when the surveyors left Golfview at the end of the day on April 3, 2001, the water temperatures in the resident rooms were within acceptable ranges. Due to the surveyors' expressed concern over water temperatures in discussions with facility management, Golfview called its plumber on April 3, 2001, the first day of the survey. The plumber came to Golfview within thirty (30) minutes of being called and immediately began to work on and/or evaluate the hot water system. Plumbers returned to the facility the next day and continued to evaluate, work on, and/or adjust the hot water system throughout the April 2001 survey, including April 5, 2001. In fact, during most of the time the surveyors were at the facility, the plumbers were also there working on the hot water system. Based on the survey team's April 3, 2001, discussion with Golfview staff, the following day the team decided to conduct another check of the water temperatures in the resident rooms. On April 4, 2001, the thermometers to be used for the temperature checks were calibrated, and the surveyors measured the water temperature in 15 resident rooms. This water temperature check revealed that 4 of the 15 resident rooms had water temperatures higher than 115 degrees. On April 4, 2001, the surveyors were measuring the water temperatures in the resident rooms during the time the plumbers were at Golfview evaluating, working on, and/or adjusting the water system at the facility. On April 4, 2001, based on their water temperature measurements, the surveyors notified Golfview management that a situation of "immediate jeopardy" existed. Golfview immediately developed and implemented a plan of correction designed to protect staff, residents, and visitors from exposure to water temperatures in excess of that permitted by rule. Golfview provided its written plan of correction to the surveyors that same day. By 5:30 p.m. on April 4, 2001, the surveyors determined that an acceptable plan of correction had been presented and that the water temperatures were and would remain within levels required by rule. Because of the immediate action taken by the staff of Golfview as well as the physical limitations of the residents, residents of the facility were not in jeopardy of being burned or scalded by the hot water temperatures on either April 3 or 4, 2001. All but one of the residents required assistance with bathing and that resident is an alert, strong 55-year-old, wheelchair-bound male. With regard to residents needing assistance, the certified nursing assistants who provide assistance with bathing are specifically trained in the use of hot water with the elderly, including training to test water on themselves prior to bathing the residents. In total, throughout the three-day survey, including the period while the plumbers were adjusting the system, the surveyors found water exceeding 115 degrees in 4 out of the 15 rooms that were checked. The surveyors believed and noted on the survey report form that where the water temperature exceeded 115 degrees, the residents assigned to the room and other residents who might go into the rooms, were at risk for burning or scalding if they used the bathroom facilities. The survey report noted that the hot water temperature presented a potential for accident hazards from burns or scalding to skin, particularly for frail and elderly residents. However, despite the Agency's findings as reported and summarized on the survey report, the surveyors did not explain on the report nor did the Agency present evidence at hearing as to why or how the residents were at risk or in any imminent danger of being burned or scalded from hot water. The survey report indicated that on April 3, 2001, the administrator took immediate action to alleviate the potential risk of harm to any resident. The report stated in relevant part the following: Based on the excessive and fluctuating temperatures posing a serious threat to resident safety the administrator was advised of the nature of the problem and immediate jeopardy was identified. The administrator took immediate action, calling a plumber (who arrived within 30 minutes), made an announcement regarding the elevated temperature of the water over the intercom and requested that the hot water not be used until approval was given. Nursing staff then went back to each room and told all residents of the problem. The director of nursing staff stated showers were not to be given until the issue had been resolved. A department head meeting was held by the administrator. The plumber called in his supervisor to assist in determining the problem, temperature adjustments were made and following the lowering of the boiler temperature, temperatures were measured again and determined to be from 103 to 108 degrees F. The plumbers were scheduled to return 4/04/01 to further evaluate the systems. The facility administrator developed an acceptable action plan to maintain water temperature levels and ensure resident safety until it could be determined that the hazard was corrected. Based on the immediate action of the supervisor and the acceptable action plan to maintain safe temperature levels the jeopardy was removed at approximately 5:30 p.m. on 04/04/01. At the time of the April 2001 survey, Golfview had a written policy for monitoring and maintaining hot water temperatures at the facility. Included in the policy were requirements for regular monitoring and recording of water temperatures at the facility and for taking immediate corrective action in the event that water temperatures were found to be out of the designated range. Pursuant to Golfview's policy regarding the testing and regulation of hot water, the maintenance director is responsible for checking the water temperatures at the facility, including resident rooms, showers, and the kitchen dishwasher, and keeping a weekly written record of those temperatures on a log sheet. A copy of the log sheet, titled, "Weekly Hot Water Temperature Log Sheet," was attached to Golfview's policy regarding the testing and regulation of hot water. On the log sheet, spaces were provided to record the date of the testing, the name and title of the tester, the room where the hot water was tested and the temperature of that water. Finally, the log sheet included a section which directed the tester to document any concerns and plans of correction. On April 3, 2001, after reviewing Golfview's policy on hot water testing and regulation, the survey team requested copies of the weekly log sheets required to be maintained by the policy. Initially, the maintenance director told the survey team that there were no logs for them to review. However, the next day, the maintenance director provided the survey team with 13 sheets of paper on which he had recorded room numbers and the hot water temperatures in those rooms. Only 1 of the 13 sheets with room numbers and hot water temperatures included the dates the temperatures were measured. One of the sheets on which the maintenance director had recorded temperatures reflected the hot water temperatures as measured in selected rooms at Golfview on February 11, 2001, and March 29, 2001. On both days, the recorded hot water temperature for several rooms exceeded the temperature required by rule. The sheet noted that on February 11, 2001, four of the five resident rooms where water temperatures were measured had hot water temperatures of 116 degrees, one degree above what is required by rule. On March 29, 2001, at least seven of the resident rooms had water temperatures higher than 115 degrees. The maintenance director regularly measured and recorded the hot water temperatures at the facility. Typically, if he determined that the hot water temperature was not within the prescribed range, he made the necessary adjustments to the hot water system to resolve the problem. He did not nor did the policy require him to report the hot water temperatures to the facility administrator. The maintenance director did not record the concern or problem that existed on February 11, 2001, or March 29, 2001, that might have caused the elevated hot water temperatures in the facility. However, he recalled the problem that resulted in the elevated hot water temperatures on March 29, 2001. The credible testimony of the maintenance supervisor was that because the pilot light of the boiler had gone out, he came in about 5:30 a.m. on March 29, 2001. Upon arriving at the facility, the maintenance director relit the boiler and turned up the boiler temperature so that the water would reheat more quickly. He then continued to adjust the thermostatically controlled boiler while water temperatures stabilized and monitor water temperatures until they stabilized within proper range. When this process had to be implemented, it usually took about an hour to an hour and a half to adjust the hot water temperatures and get them back down to the required temperature range. Upon completion of the survey, the Agency documented its findings on a standard survey report form, titled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction." On the form, each deficiency is noted and referred to as a "tag." The tags cited on the survey form for the April 3-5, 2001, survey of Respondent's facility relevant to this proceeding were Tags F323 and F490. Tag F323, which references 42 C.F.R., Subsection 483.25(h)(1)(2001), requires that the facility ensure that the resident environment remains as free of accident hazards as is possible. On the survey form, the Agency has stated that Respondent did not ensure the control of the temperature of hot water used by residents in that 4 of 15 rooms surveyed had hot water temperatures in excess of the 115 degree allowable under Rule 59A-4.133(16)(d), Florida Administrative Code. Tag F490, which references 42 C.F.R., Section 483.75 (2001), requires that Respondent’s facility be administered in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently to maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. On the survey form, the Agency noted that Respondent was deficient in this area because it failed to administer the facility to ensure the highest practicable physical well-being of each resident. Specifically, the report noted that the excessive hot water temperatures placed the residents at risk for burns and scalding. The Agency assigned both the Tags F323 and F490 deficiencies noted on the survey form as Class I violations. The Complaint also classified both allegations as Class I deficiencies and imposed civil penalties of $15,000 for the former allegation and $10,000.00 for the latter allegation. Golfview has no prior deficiencies related to water temperatures. Furthermore, Golfview's maintenance director has been employed by Golfview for five years and has never experienced a deficiency for water temperatures during that time or during his prior employment at another nursing home. There is no indication that prior to the events of April 3-5, 2001, and through that time, that Golfview had experienced any incidents or resident injuries due to excessive hot water temperatures or had any complaints because of excessive hot water temperatures. The Agency's surveyor team member who was designated as the Life Safety Inspector and who took most of the resident room temperatures during the April 2001 survey did not testify at the hearing in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a Final Order finding that Respondent did not violate Rule 59A-4.133, Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, thus should not be assessed a civil penalty. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 6th day of November, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane Grubbs, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 117 South Gadsden Street, Suite 201 Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-0623 Michael P. Sasso, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North Suite 310-G St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
The Issue Whether application 23181 for a consumptive use water permit should be granted, pursuant to Chapter 383, Florida Statutes. Prior to the hearing, 16 individuals in the Wabasso, Florida, community petitioned to intervene as parties in this proceeding. By Order, dated August 26, 1976, intervention was granted. Thereafter, counsel for the Wabasso Citizens Association, a private, unincorporated association that included the 16 prior intervenors, requested that intervention include all members of the association. There being no objection to the foregoing request, intervention was granted accordingly. The public hearing in this matter included 22 exhibits and the testimony of 21 witnesses, nine of whom were members of the public. Lists of the exhibits and public witnesses are attached hereto. On January 8, 1975, the Town of Indian River Shores, Florida (hereinafter "Town"), and Lost Tree Village Corporation, Indian Rivers Shores, Florida (hereinafter "Lost Tree"), filed application 23181 for a consumptive use water permit with the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District (hereinafter "District"). The application requested a permit for the withdrawal of 393 acre feet per year of groundwater from two wells located on a parcel of land owned by Lost Tree at Wabasso, Florida. The requested use was for irrigation of two golf courses located on land owned by Lost Tree known as John's Island, a residential community located within the Town, and as an emergency public water supply for the Town. It was proposed that the water be transported by pipeline owned by Lost Tree from Wabasso to John's Island, a distance of several miles. Although the matter was set for public hearing to be held on February 4, 1975, an unfavorable staff report of the District, dated January 30, 1975, resulted in an indefinite postponement of the hearing. A hydrogeological report was prepared for Lost Tree by a consulting firm on February 12, 1976, and submitted by the applicant to the District. A subsequent staff report of the District was prepared on July 28, 1976. Thereafter, the matter was noticed for hearing to be held August 31, 1976. Pursuant to the request of intervenors, a continuance was granted until September 29, 1976. (Exhibits 5,6,7,8,19)
Findings Of Fact The Town is a municipality that was incorporated in 1953. It is located east of the Indian River on an island and extends from the north boundary of Vero Beach for over 4 miles along the Atlantic ocean. In 1969, Lost Tree commenced developing a 3,000-acre tract of land located within the Town as a residential community. Prior to the initiation of this project, there had been very little development in the Town. In order to attract residents to John's Island, two 36-hole golf courses were constructed on the property, known as the North and South Courses, covering approximately 180 acres. At the present time, John's Island comprises over 600 residences, consisting of single and multiple family units, ranging in price from $65,000 to $500,000. The Town has a population of about 1,200, with 65 percent residing at John's Island. The present assessed value of property located in the Town is about $160,000,000 of which almost $66,000,000 is attributable to property in John's Island. The private golf club at John's Island has approximately 500 members, including about 150 from Vero Beach. The golf courses are considered to be the "heart" and "life-blood" of the community (Testimony of Ecclestone, Miller; Exhibits 5,11,12). The water supply of the Town comes from the water system of the City of Vero Beach, pursuant to contract, via a 16" water main which crosses the Indian River and ends at the northern boundary of Vero Beach. There, it is tied into a 12" water main of the Town. The Town has a one million gallon capacity underground storage tank and a 100,000 gallon overhead tank. The 16" main is the only waterline that crosses the Indian River and, in the event of a rupture, the Town would be limited to its stored supplies (Testimony of Miller, Little, Exhibits 5,17). The John's Island golf courses require irrigation of approximately 70 acres. In the past, irrigation water has been obtained from a system of shallow wells on the property, treated sewage effluent from the surrounding community, and stormwater, all of which is discharged into two ponds located on the courses. Additionally, treated potable water is obtained from the City of Vero Beach through two two-inch water meters that were installed in 1975. Prior to that time, an undisclosed amount of city water was obtained for irrigation and other purposes through city meters installed on fire hydrants in the area. The use of city water was required in order to supplement the resources available on the John's Island property. During the period May, 1975, through August, 1976, the amount of water obtained from the City of Vero Beach that was used for golf course irrigation totaled 54,057,000 gallons, an average of some 110,000 gallons per day. At the present time there is no water problem, insofar as irrigation is concerned, on the South Course which obtains irrigation water from sewage effluent and a number of shallow wells. However, test samplings over the years have shown a gradual increase in the amount of chlorides in the water and it is questionable whether such water will continue to be suitable for irrigation in the foreseeable future. Recent tests show the chloride content of the water at 450 ppm. The type of Bermuda grass on the golf courses can grow satisfactorily with water containing not more than 1,000 ppm. City water is used only on the North Course. The water obtained from the shallow wells in that area is highly saline in content. A recent water test showed a chloride content of 3,800 ppm. Additionally, immediately before an eight inch rainfall which lowered the chloride content to the foregoing figure, the greens on the North Course tested at 6,300 ppm in chloride content (Testimony of Luke, Little, Exhibits 6,7). During periods of drought, the City of Vero Beach has requested John's Island and other water users to either curtail or stop the use of city water for non-domestic purposes. Such requests have been received approximately six times during the past year. In April, 1976, the city water used for golf course irrigation at John's Island was shut off for a period of eight days as a result of a request from officials of Vero Beach. If insufficient irrigation water is not received for a period of 10 days to two weeks, it is extremely probable that a golf course would have to be replanted at an approximate cost of $60,000.00 to $80,000.00 and would require a period of six months for suitable growth. Both the Town and John's Island always cooperated fully with the requests of Vero Beach to curtail water use (Testimony of Luke, Miller, Little, Exhibit 17). At the time irrigation water sources were being explored at John's Island, a test well was drilled to a depth of 2020 feet into the Floridan aquifer underlying the property, but an inadequate quantity of water was developed. Lost Tree owns some 25 acres of land at Winter Beach, Florida, which is located west of John's Island across the Indian River. Although test wells there produced satisfactory water, it was not feasible to use this source due to prohibitions against excavation for such purposes in the Indian River. Due primarily to economic considerations of the high cost of using treated city water for golf course irrigation, and the inconvenience and possible hazards of water interruptions from that source, Lost Tree decided to supplement its resources from water withdrawn from wells to be located on a 4.869 acre tract of land it purchased in Wabasso. Although a deep well was considered at that site, state agencies advised that the Floridan aquifer was overloaded in that area to a degree of 200 percent. Accordingly, in 1973, two ninety-foot deep wells were constructed on the site approximately 500 feet apart into the underlying shallow aquifer. Pump tests showed that the chloride content was within satisfactory limits. Thereafter, Lost Tree in its own name and that of The Town, obtained necessary rights-of-way and permits for the placement of a system of pipes for transportation of water from the Wabasso wells to John's Island. These consisted of a 16" water line from the Wabasso site east over a newly constructed bridge and several existing bridges to Highway A1A where the size of the line south to John's Island was decreased to twelve inches. An agreement was entered into between Lost Tree and the Town on December 19, 1974 whereby the former agreed to supply emergency needs of the Town from water obtained from the Wabasso wells. About that same time, the pipe system was completed and the present application filed with the District (Testimony of Lloyd, Ecclestone, Exhibits 2,6,9). The area immediately surrounding Lost Tree's land in Wabasso consists primarily of residences, groves, and trailer parks. The residents of the unincorporated Wabasso area depend solely upon the shallow aquifer for their domestic water needs since there are no utility services in the area. Grove irrigation normally is accomplished by deep wells to the Floridan aquifer. After the application herein was filed in January, 1975, numerous letters of objection to the proposed withdrawal were filed with the District by residents of the Wabasso community and from local organizations. These objections, for the most part, expressed apprehension that the applicants would be withdrawing far more water from the well field than their fair share based on the size of Lost Tree's land in Wabasso. The objectors also claimed that the requested withdrawal would have a serious detrimental effect on existing users. They further protested the concept of extracting potable water from one area and transporting it to another area for irrigation use on recreational facilities. The initial Staff Report of the District on January 30, 1975, took such objections into consideration and recommended denial of the application based on the unsuitability of the well field site. It found that withdrawal of the requested water for golf course irrigation was not a reasonable and beneficial use because it greatly exceeded the water budget for the site, harmed existing legitimate users in the area by creating drawdowns of several feet which would increase the possibility of potable water supply wells running dry, harming potential future legitimate users by lowering the water table and exporting the water that they might have utilized, and because it threatened to harm such users and the resource itself by "upconing" saline water from the bottom of the aquifer into the fresh water producing zone of the aquifer. Although the report stated that there would be no objection to permitting an allocation on the order of 7.5 acre feet per year, which was the equivalent to the water crop, it was not recommended because such an allocation would do little to meet the applicant's needs for irrigation water (Exhibit 6, Composite Exhibit 20). Recognizing the need for further studies to support its application, Lost Tree hired a firm of consulting groundwater geologists and hydrologists to conduct an investigation of potential sources of irrigation water for both the John's Island and the Wabasso sites. The study confirmed prior conclusions that it was not practicable or feasible to develop the necessary irrigation water from sources available at John's Island. As to the Wabasso area, the report found that the shallow aquifer was not being fully utilized and that extraction of the proposed quantity of water would not exceed the capacity of the aquifer to provide it. It also determined that the presence of a continuous layer of impermeable clay within the Hawthorn formation effectively separates the Floridan from the shallow aquifer. No interference in the water levels of the Floridan aquifer should occur nor is it likely there would be salt water intrusion into the shallow aquifer. However, based on the formulation of a "mathematical model," it was predicted that the proposed withdrawal could adversely affect existing shallow wells within a few hundred feet of the applicant's well field by "drawdown" which could lessen the pumping ability of centrifugal pumps. Nearby existing wells, such as those located in a trailer park immediately west of Lost Tree's well field, could lose suction in pumping and thereby owners might experience delay in extracting water from the wells (Testimony of Amy, Exhibits 4, 8). Although one Wabasso resident who owns property near Lost Tree's wells has experienced a decrease in pressure in her well and poor quality water, and another nearby resident's well went dry, there is no clear evidence that Lost Tree's drilling of its two wells and consequent testing thereof caused these problems. Testimony of other Wabasso residents expressed their apprehension as to possible salt water intrusion and unavailability of water in the shallow aquifer if the requested withdrawal is approved. Other residents and public witnesses challenged the fairness of permitting one land owner to deplete local water supplies by withdrawals for transport to another area for recreational purposes (Testimony of Chesser, McPherson R., Pangburn R., Jackson, Mrs. S.B., Kale, Stout, Wintermute, Pangburn, K., Bidlingmayer, Willey, Gertzen). The District Staff Report, dated July 28, 1976, as supplemented by an addendum, dated August 30, 1976, reviewed the hydrogeological study submitted by the applicants and concluded that withdrawal of a specified amount of water from Lost Tree's Wabasso wells would represent a reasonable and beneficial use of the resource that did not appear to harm either the resource or existing users. It calculated the "crop requirement" for the golf courses on the basis of 135 acres. Testimony at the hearing established that the area required to be irrigated was only 70 acres. Consequently, the report's recommendation as to the annual water allocation for golf course irrigation was scaled down accordingly. Recommendations as to daily withdrawals were based upon the maximum billing by the City of Vero Beach for a 22-day period in January and February, 1975, plus a 20 percent allowance to provide a reasonable degree of operational flexibility. The conclusion of the staff that the withdrawal would not harm existing users is questionable in the light of the applicant's own hydrogeological study and testimony of its experts (Testimony of Winter, Exhibits 6,7,22). The Staff Report recommended that certain conditions be imposed upon any issuance of the requested permit. The following findings are made as to the reasonableness of such proposed conditions: Annual allocation of no more than 51.044 million gallons. FINDING: Reasonable. This permit shall expire 5 years after permit issuance. FINDING: Reasonable. The use may require reevaluation based upon developing needs of the area of withdrawal for higher priority uses of the resource. The total maximum monthly withdrawal from the two wells in Wabasso shall not exceed 6.931 million gallons. FINDING: Reasonable. The total daily withdrawal from the two wells in Wabasso shall not exceed 378,000 gallons. FINDING: Reasonable. Daily pumpage on a monthly basis shall be reported to the District during the following month. This data must be obtained through the use of an in line totalizing meter or meters at the well field. FINDING: Reasonable. Prior to the initiation of any pumping from the wells in Wabasso the permittee must survey all existing wells (with the owners' permission) located within 800 feet of each of these wells. Should it be determined that the permittee's pumping as recommended may adversely affect an existing well the permittee is to be held responsible for making timely corrective measures as deemed necessary at no expense to the owner, in order to preserve the water supply capability of that facility. A complete and detailed report of the survey and corrective measures taken by the permittee shall be submitted to the District. The District will then issue a notice authorizing the permittee to begin pumping as required. FINDING: Unreasonable. Although it is conceded by the applicants that adverse effects upon nearby wells may well occur, attempts to make determinations as to actual effects prior to full operation of Lost Tree's wells would only be speculative in nature. It is noteworthy in this regard that upon issuance of a temporary authorization to Lost Tree to withdraw water commencing in August, 1976, a similar precondition was imposed with a report of a survey and corrective measures taken to be submitted to the District prior to authorization to begin pumping. A cursory survey was performed by a representative of Lost Tree that consisted merely of attempting to locate surrounding wells by off-premises observation. No attempt was made to contact well owners or to obtain information as to the types of pumps on the wells. Such a survey is patently inadequate for the purposes desired by the District and it is considered impracticable and onerous to saddle the applicant with the burden of such a condition. Although withdrawals of water under the temporary permit commenced on September 18, 1976, and continued thereafter, there is no evidence that any complaints were registered by adjacent well owners as a result of the withdrawals (Testimony of Pearson, Exhibits 13, 14). For a period of 18 months after the first full week of operation in which no substantive complaints of adverse impact are received by the District, the permittee must assume full responsibility for taking the appropriate corrective to rectify any adverse impact their withdrawals create on any existing users within the area influenced by their withdrawal. Upon receiving a substantive complaint of adverse impact upon an existing user, the Executive Director of the District will issue a notice prohibiting any further withdrawals from the wells in Wabasso until corrective measures are taken by the permittee at no expense to the existing user, or until the permittee proves that their withdrawal is not the cause of the problem. The Executive Director of the District will issue a notice to resume withdrawals when the District has been satisfied that the situation is remedied. FINDING: Reasonable in part. The condition should be modified to extend the period of the permittee's responsibility for corrective action as to adverse impact on existing users to the entire life of the permit rather than for a period of only 18 months. Further, the District's prohibition of withdrawals after the receipt of a complaint is arbitrary and inconsistent with the method of administrative enforcement procedures as specified in Section 373.119(1), Florida Statutes. To help define the actual impact of the permittee's withdrawal a total of at least seven observation wells shall be installed. The observation wells shall be located between the permittee's wells and Indian River, two shall be located to the west and the remaining two shall be located either to the north or south of the permittee's wells. The locations and depths of these wells shall halve District concurrence. A continuous water level recording device shall be installed on one off these wells. FINDING: Reasonable. Although the installation and monitoring of a number of observation wells imposes a financial burden on the applicants, it is considered a proper requirement to assist in determining the impact of any withdrawal. The time for installation and specifications thereof should be set forth in any permit issued. Hydrographs from the recording device on one of the observation wells and from weekly hand measured water levels on the remaining observation wells shall be submitted to the District on a monthly basis. This data shall be submitted in the month following the period of record. All water level data shall be measured and recorded to the nearest hundredth of a foot and referenced to mean sea level. FINDING: Reasonable. By acceptance of this permit the permittee acknowledges that this permit confers no prior right to the permittee for the use of water in the amount allocated and for the purpose stated. FINDING: Unreasonable. The condition is ambiguous and involves legal aspects that are not proper for determination at this time. Any future application involving the use of the withdrawal facilities permitted herein, shall be considered as an application for a new use and it shall be reviewed accordingly. FINDING: Unreasonable. See comment in I above. All existing Floridan wells located on the applicant's properties must be abandoned in accordance with the current applicable standards of the Department of Environmental Regulation. Abandonment procedures must be carried out within 6 months of the date of issuance of this permit. FINDING: Unreasonable. The abandonment of existing Floridan wells involves subject matter not embraced within the application. An officer of the Lost Tree Village Corporation shall submit with each report required by the District a sworn and acknowledged affidavit that the report reflects the actual measurements or readings taken. FINDING: Reasonable. The Permittee shall obtain a water sample from a pumping well at the Wabasso well field site once a month, within five days of the end of the month. This sample shall be analyzed for chloride content, and the results reported to the District within 14 calendar days after collection. Should the District determine that a significant change has occurred in the chloride content of the water being withdrawn from the Wabasso well field, the District shall initiate a new review of the application. FINDING: Reasonable. Upon installation of the observation wells, a water sample shall be obtained from these wells and analyzed for the following parameters: Chloride Total Dissolved Solids Conductivity Sulfate Calcium Magnesium Sodium Bicarbonate This analysis shall be submitted to the District within 14 days after collection. During the last five days of the months of May and November of each year, during the duration of this permit, the permittee shall obtain one water sample from each of the installed observation wells. These samples shall be analyzed for Chloride content, and the results reported to the District within 14 days after collection. FINDING: Reasonable. If the permittee can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the District that the groundwater withdrawn by the south golf course well point system is no longer suitable for the irrigation of the golf course, the annual allocation shall be increased to 82.942 million gallons. FINDING: Unreasonable. Future needs should be the subject of modification of permit terms at an appropriate time, pursuant to section 373.239, F.S. An emergency authorization was issued to the applicants by the governing board of the District on August 30, 1976. This authorization contains certain special conditions including a requirement to conduct and submit a preauthorization survey and report concerning existing wells located within 800 feet of the applicant's wells. In addition, a condition of the authorization was that no withdrawals shall be made unless the City of Vero Beach had ordered the applicant to stop the use of water from its system for golf course irrigation. The evidence shows that neither of these conditions was met by the applicant, but yet withdrawals were made during the month of September, 1976 without District authorization (Testimony of Winter, Rearson, Exhibit 13). The applicant's disregard of these requirements indicates the need for a further special condition if a permit is granted, to ensure that adjacent land owners are protected in the event of adverse effects upon their water supply. To accomplish that, it is found that the following additional condition is reasonable and necessary: P. The Board shall require the applicant to furnish a bond in an appropriate amount, as authorized by Rule 16K-1.061, F.A.C. It is found that insufficient evidence has been presented to determine the merits of the request of the Town of Indian River Shores for an emergency water supply from the Wabasso wells.
Recommendation That a consumptive water use permit, with conditions as specified herein, be issued to applicant Lost Tree Village Corporation for the irrigation of its two golf courses at John's Island. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 1976. COPIES FURNISHED: John H. Wheeler, Esquire Post Office Box V West Palm Beach, Florida Sherman N. Smith, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 1030 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 William T. McCluan, Esquire 65 East Nasa Boulevard Post Office Box 459 Melbourne, Florida 32901 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of any or all of six alleged violations of the law governing lodging establishments and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent operates a lodging establishment known as Salazar's at 412 South 2nd Street in Immokalee. Respondent holds license control number 21-01901H. Petitioner's inspector inspected the lodging establishment on April 10 and 30, 1997. On April 10, the inspector completed a report citing violations. The alleged violations were the presence of expired fire extinguishers, a missing floor drain in the men's restroom, a locked women's restroom, leaking shower faucets in the showers in the men's restroom, no hot water in the showers in the men's restroom, a broken toilet in the men's restroom, no backflow device for the hose threaded to the faucet in the men's room, a chirping smoke detector suggestive of dead batteries, no cold water in one of the stalls in the men's restroom, a torn screen in the men's restroom, a strong smell of urine in the men's restroom, no hot water in the wash basin outside the women's restroom, a dumpster on dirt, and peeling paint in the shower stalls in the men's restroom. The inspector characterized the report as a warning. She mailed the report to Mr. Christman, who is Respondent's manager, and she gave Respondent five days from receipt of the report to correct the violations. However, several items bore asterisks, and, according to the form, Respondent had to correct these violations immediately. These violations were for the fire extinguishers, smoke alarm, lack of hot and cold water, and odor of urine. On April 30, 1997, the inspector returned and reinspected the lodging. She found nine violations. The alleged violations were expired fire extinguishers, a missing floor drain in the men's restroom, a broken toilet in the men's restroom, no backflow device between the faucet and hose, no cold water in one stall of the men's restroom, a torn screen in the men's restroom, a locked women's restroom, a dumpster on the dirt, and peeling paint in the shower stalls in the men's restroom. The only urgent violations remaining from the last inspection were for the fire extinguishers and lack of cold water. On May 29, 1997, the inspector returned and performed a second reinspection. She found the same violations as found previously, except for those concerning the dumpster and peeling paint. The following day, Petitioner issued Respondent the Notice to Show Cause that commenced this case. Respondent failed to repair or replace the torn screen in the men's restroom within the allotted time after the first inspection. It is no defense that the screen is immediately redamaged. Respondent made the women's restroom reasonably available to guests of residents by giving the key to a resident who made it available to women as needed. Respondent failed to repair the cold water in the men's restroom within the allotted time after the first inspection. Respondent failed to replace the missing floor drain or repair the toilet within the allotted time after the first inspection. Respondent failed to install a backflow device between the hose and the faucet within the allotted time after the first inspection. However, Respondent did not understand what Petitioner was requiring, and Petitioner's inspection reports did not clarify this requirement. Respondent was not available during the correction period, and he later had some trouble trying to obtain help from Petitioner in explaining what he needed to do. Although a backflow device serves the important purpose of preventing contaminated water from backflowing up the hose and into the public water supply, the circumstances of this case do not permit a finding of a violation.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, enter a final order imposing a fine of $1300 against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott R. Fransen Chief Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Robert J. Christman, Manager Salazar's 4799 State Road 29 South Punta Gorda, Florida 33935 Dorothy W. Joyce, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurant Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
