Findings Of Fact Prior to November, 1987, Petitioners purchased adjoining Lots 56 and 57 located in West Vic Holiday Sands subdivision in Santa Rosa County. 1/ The two lots constitute substantially less than a fourth of an acre of land. Petitioners intended to place two two bedroom mobile homes on the lots for use as a weekend retreat for their families. When Petitioners purchased the two lots, the lots had an existing 900 - 1050 gallon septic tank on the property. The tank had been previously approved by the Department of Pollution Control in 1973 for Recreational vehicle/campsite use. The tank had never been permitted for use as a homesite, such as a two bedroom mobile home would require. A Recreational Vehicle (RV) is generally considered by HRS to be a motor vehicle with a maximum size of 8'x 35'. Anything substantially over that size, as Petitioners' two mobile homes were, would not be considered for RV use and would be required to obtain a homesite type permit. Petitioners were required by their proposed use of the property to obtain a homesite permit. However, Petitioners did not discover the homesite permit requirement until after they had purchased the two lots and after they had purchased two mobile homes at considerable monetary cost to themselves. The Petitioners did not think about investigating whether a septic tank permit would be required because the subdivision area had permanent residences already in place. However, the evidence demonstrated the majority of these residences are located on four lots. There are a few residences located on fewer than four lots and on lots the size of Petitioners. 2/ The residences with nonconforming septic tanks were permitted by HRS under a mistaken interpretation of the law by the local Health Department office. However, about a year prior to Petitioners' permit and at the request of the local office, the local office was audited and its interpretation was brought into compliance with state law. Petitioners were, therefore, no longer entitled to rely on the local office's previous misinterpretation of the law and in previously issuing permits authorized under that misinterpretation of the law. Petitioners applied for an existing septic tank permit on November 23, 1987. Because the existing tank did not have enough capacity or drainage area for the Petitioners' desired use and the size of the property was under one- quarter acre, Respondent informed Petitioners they would have to seek a variance from the usual septic tank permit requirements. 3/ Petitioners applied for a variance. Petitioners felt a hardship variance should be granted due to the amount of money they had spent on the property and the fact Respondent had granted other nonconforming permits under its mistaken interpretation of the septic tank law. Neither of the Petitioners appeared at the variance review committee meeting in Ocala, Florida, which considered their variance request. However, the local health official recommended approval of the variance since other tanks had been mistakenly approved previously. The committee reviewed Petitioners' application and other relevant information about the property. The committee determined that no hardship existed and denied the permit. Petitioners received the committee's letter of denial on February 20, 1988. The evidence showed that Petitioners had spent close to $14,000.00 in purchasing the property and preparing it for occupancy. However, monetary expenditures alone have never been considered sufficient to establish a hardship in permitting cases. Petitioners presented no evidence which would cause such expenditures to amount to a hardship. Use of their property is still available, although that use is not exactly what Petitioners had in mind. Moreover, Petitioners may still recoup the money spent on the mobile homes by renting or selling them. Under these facts, no hardship was shown by Petitioners. In essence, Petitioners failed to show any monetary losses as opposed to expenditures of a significant nature. Likewise, Petitioners failed to establish justifiable reliance on the Respondent's previous mistakes, i.e., estoppel. Respondent's mistakes were not known by Petitioners at the time the majority of Petitioners' expenditures were incurred. The evidence regarding the general appearance of the subdivision was insufficient to establish a basis for such reliance. Moreover, Petitioners had the opportunity and the initial burden to investigate any potential governmental requirements prior to their purchase of the property. Again, no hardship was established by Petitioners' utilizing the theory of estoppel. Finally, Petitioners failed to present any reliable evidence that the discharge from their septic tank would not adversely affect the health of the public or would not significantly degrade the ground or surface waters of the State. The fact that other nonconforming tanks are in place with relatively few observable problems does not support the further inference that one more nonconforming tank won't hurt in an already overloaded area. Under these facts, Petitioners are not entitled to a variance from the Department's septic tank requirements; and therefore, are not entitled to a septic tank permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent request for a variance from the septic tank permit requirements be DENIED and the request for a septic tank permit be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of January, 1989.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), should fine the Respondent, William Loiacano, d/b/a Gulf Coast Food Distributors, Inc., for maintaining a sanitary nuisance.2/
Findings Of Fact In 1990,6/ the Respondent, William Loiacano, d/b/a Gulf Coast Food Distributors, Inc., purchased property at 8402 Lemon Road, Port Richey, Florida, for purposes of relocating his on-going food distributing business. The prior owner operated a carpet business, with approximately five employees, at the location. The Respondent had about 45-50 employees. Shortly after the Respondent started doing business at the new location, he began to have problems with the existing septic tank system. The problem seemed to relate to the increased use of the toilets in the building by the added number of the Respondent's employees. In September, 1990, an HRS environmental health specialist inspected the premises and observed evidence of raw sewage bubbling to the surface from the septic system's drain field and flowing into a stormwater retention pond on the property.7/ The Respondent was directed to abate the nuisance, and a discussion of the Respondent's alternatives ensued. The Respondent rejected the first proposed alternative of connecting to a central public sewer. The nearest connection was over 1000 feet away and would entail significant cost to the Respondent. (The cost would have been even higher if gravity flow was not possible, and it became necessary to pump to the connection point.) The Respondent chose, with HRS' permission, the next alternative of trying to solve the problem by installing a second septic tank system on the property. The second septic tank system for which the Respondent applied, and which he had built, was designed for domestic use by 15 employees. In addition, after installation of the second septic tank system, the Respondent began processing a relish pack and a salad mix on the premises. The processing method for these products required the use of a great deal of water. On or about February 7, 1991, another HRS environmental health specialist inspected the premises and again found evidence of raw sewage bubbling to the surface, this time from the new septic system's drain field, and flowing into the stormwater retention pond. The amount of water flowing into the drainfields, from a combination of the use of the toilets in the building, together with the new processing operations taking place in the building, had overtaxed the double septic tank system, and the system failed. Given the quantities of water needed to process the new products, the Respondent should have anticipated, and probably was aware of, the system failure. The Respondent was directed to fix the problem within a week or stop the processing the new products on the premises. The Respondent tried several water conservation methods in an attempt to address the problem without having to either stop processing the new products or incur the cost of connecting to the central public sewer system. He knew, or should have known, that his efforts were futile, given the quantities of water needed to process the relish pack and salad mix. HRS also referred the matter to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. DER inspected on or about February 18, 1991, and told the Respondent that he could not dispose of the industrial waste from the operation of his business in the on-premises septic system without an industrial waste disposal permit. In connection with this, DER apparently advised the Respondent that he would be required to test the water in the stormwater retention pond for certain contaminants. The Respondent was unable to understand what he needed to test for, and how, and sought assistance from DER and HRS. Although there is evidence that HRS tried to help the Respondent by referring him to certain individuals employed by the DER for answers, the Respondent did not follow HRS' guidance. In any case, the efforts would have been futile, as the Respondent did not have enough property to dispose of the industrial wastes from the operation of his business on-site using a septic tank system. On or about June 19, 1991, a neighbor complained to the Respondent about the smell of raw sewage coming from the Respondent's septic system. The Respondent did not receive his neighbor's observations kindly. The neighbor complained to HRS and the Pasco County Sheriff's office. An HRS inspection on June 20, 1991, confirmed the existence of a sanitary nuisance on the premises. Again, raw sewage was bubbling to the surface from the new septic system's drain field and was flowing into the stormwater retention pond. HRS arranged for another meeting with the Respondent on June 27, 1991. At the June 27, 1991, meeting, HRS required that the Respondent stop processing the relish pack and the salad mix until he could hook up to the central public sewer. It was felt that the septic tank systems might be adequate pending connection to the central public sewer if the quantities of water required for processing those products on the premises were eliminated and if other preventive measures were taken. From June 27, 1991, forward to the date of the hearing, the Respondent purchased relish pack and salad mix from other suppliers rather than process them on the premises at 8402 Lemon Road. In addition, the Respondent continued to attempt to conserve water, had the septic tanks pumped out as frequently as required (sometimes practically daily), and had his employees utilize portable toilets in an attempt to avoid additional septic tank failures. After learning that excessive water use at the premises was partially a result of plumbing leaks, the Respondent also had the plumbing fixed. The Respondent also immediately initiated the long process of connecting to the central public sewer. He had a meeting with the assistant county administrator for utilities service for Pasco County on July 3, 1991. They discussed alternatives for connecting the Respondent's business. Initially, the County wanted the Respondent to pay to run a sewer line over 1000 feet to the south of his property to enable the County to efficiently connect other businesses and property owners in that area. But this option would have been costly to the Respondent, and there was no guarantee that gravity flow was possible between the Respondent's property and the connection point. If not, the Respondent also would have to pay the cost of pumping to the connection point. The Respondent hired an engineer to design an alternative that would be less costly. He also sought the cooperation of his neighbors, who would be required to connect to central sewer when the Respondent did. The engineer also worked with those neighbors in designing an alternate connection. On or about September 9, 1991, another meeting was held among the Respondent and his engineer and the county's utilites construction team. As a result of this meeting, the County agreed to modify the connection route in accordance with the Respondent's proposal. The Respondent's engineer continued his work on the design of the connection. HRS inspections on or about September 11 and 25, 1991, revealed that the Respondent's septic system was failing again and that raw sewage again was bubbling to the surface from the new septic system's drain field and flowing into the stormwater retention pond. HRS arranged to meet with the Respondent again on October 4, 1991, along with a Pasco County deputy sheriff and a DER industrial wastewater compliance inspector. At this meeting, the Respondent felt that the deputy sheriff was threatening to arrest him for violation of the law, and he angrily terminated the meeting and asked all of them to leave the premises. In December, 1991, the Respondent arranged a meeting with the County and his neighbors to discuss sharing the cost of the connection route the Respondent was proposing to build. The neighbors, realizing the Respondent's weak bargaining position, refused to share the Respondent's costs. At this point, the County conceded to pay the approximate $9,000 to jack and bore under the road, but the Respondent was required to pay to run a sewer line approximately 300 feet to the south and to construct a manhole on his neighbors' side of the road, as well as on his side of the road. (The second manhole would be used by the neighbors to connect their properties to the line the Respondent was building when the County required them to connect.) The total cost to the Respondent for his part of the construction of the connection to the public sewer will be approximately $24,000. On January 17, 1992, the Respondent paid a $3,428 impact fee for connecting to the central public sewer, based on projected water use. On January 23, 1992, the Respondent applied for a force main interconnect permit. At the time of the final hearing, the jack and bore and the construction of the new sewer line connecting the Respondent's property to the central sewer were about to begin. The evidence indicates that, once HRS made it clear to the Respondent on or about June 27, 1991, that connection to the central public sewer was the Respondent's only remaining option, the Respondent moved with reasonable dispatch. The time it took to arrange to be connected to the public sewer was within normal ranges, and there is no evidence that the Respondent did anything to cause unnecessary delays. (Delays, if any, were caused by the need for the Respondent's engineer to work with and get cooperation from the Respondent's neighbors, who were not as anxious as the Respondent to have the new sewer line built.) There also is no evidence that the Respondent processed relish pack or salad mix on the premises after June 27, 1991. In addition, the Respondent continued to attempt to conserve water, had the septic tanks pumped out frequently (sometimes practically daily), and had his employees utilize portable toilets in an attempt to avoid additional septic tank failures. The evidence also indicates that, after June 27, 1991, all concerned were hopeful that the measures the Respondent was taking would prevent, or at least minimize, septic system failures pending connection to the public sewer. After June 27, 1991, HRS presented direct evidence of septic tank system failures only on two occasions in September, 1991. The evidence is that, after becoming aware of the system failures in September, 1991, HRS sought the imposition of a fine against the Respondent. The evidence suggests two other important motivating reasons for HRS' action: first, not being aware of the actions the Respondent took between June 27 and September, 1991, to connect to the central sewer, HRS mistakenly believed that the Respondent was ignoring its instructions; and, second, HRS mistook the Respondent's angry outburst at the meeting at the Respondent's place of business in September, 1991, when he felt he was being threatened with arrest for violation of the law, as being evidence that the Respondent was not genuine in his apparent concern and efforts to respond to HRS' guidance and instruction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) enter a final order fining the Respondent, William Loiacano, d/b/a Gulf Coast Food Distributors, Inc., in the amount of $5,000. RECOMMENDED this 29 day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of April, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns a tract of land shaped in a truncated right triangle with the width at the base of 208.7 feet, the length at the altitude of 406.9 feet, and the width at the truncation of 50 feet (Exhibit 1). The tea of this tract is 1.208 acres. Petitioner has lived on this property for nine years with a private well and septic tank without experiencing any difficulty with the septic tank. Some years back Petitioner converted stables on the property into a one bedroom guest house and installed a septic tank for this guest house. Petitioner proposes to construct a residence in the southeastern corner of his property for his daughter and her husband and needs a septic tank permit before a building permit will be issued. The drain field for the proposed septic tank would be located more than 200 feet from any existing well.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a variance for a reduced setback from Petitioner's well to Respondent Allen C.D. Scott, II's (Scott) septic system should be granted by the Department of Health.
Findings Of Fact Allen C.D. Scott, II, owns property designated as Lot 13, Block 11, Vilano Beach Subdivision, 40 Viejo Street in St. Johns County, Florida. Mr. Scott's property is undeveloped, except for a drinking water well located in the northwest quadrant of his property. The well was installed within the past year. There are residential homes on the north, south, and west sides of the property. The beach is on the east of the property. The property is 50 feet wide and 125 feet deep. The property is not served by a public or private utility; thus, Mr. Scott must provide his own drinking water well and septic system. Mr. Scott purchased the property from Alexander A. Morese, Jr. Mr. Scott was Morese's attorney of record for issues concerning this property and the proposed septic tank system. The neighboring property to the north of Mr. Scott's property is owned by Petitioner, May Bobbitt. Petitioner has two wells on her property. A fairly recently-installed drinking water well and an irrigation well. The irrigation well, is located 30 feet from a site on Mr. Scott's property proposed for an on-site septic system. The location of the proposed septic tank is less than the required setback from a septic system to an irrigation well of 50 feet. The potable drinking water well is 225 feet deep, pit- cased and terminates in the Floridan aquifer. It is within 65 feet of Ms. Bobbitt's septic tank system and is located 50 feet from the proposed site of Mr. Scott's septic system. The location of the proposed septic tank is less than the required setback from a potable drinking water well to a septic system of 75 feet. The initial permit for Ms. Bobbitt's drinking water well was denied based on its proximity to her septic tank. Ms. Bobbitt challenged the denial in an informal proceeding before DOH (DOH case number 97-023H). Mr. Morese played some role in that proceeding. In the meantime, the initial septic tank permit application filed by Mr. Morese was denied by DOH based on the location of Ms. Bobbitt's drinking water well. Mr. Morese appealed the denial to the DOAH Case No. 98-3283. Sometime in late 1997, DOH granted Ms. Bobbitt a variance for a 65-foot setback distance from her drinking water well to her septic system. The variance resulted after settlement of the administrative actions involving May Bobbitt and Mr. Morese's permitting her well and Mr. Morese's septic tank. The variance was granted because the construction of the well prevents contamination of the well from the septic system. Both cases were separately terminated. On November 5, 1997, Mr. Morese applied to DOH for a variance to reduce the setback distances from Petitioner's two wells to Mr. Morese's proposed septic system. Since Mr. Morese's property was 50 feet wide and Mr. Morese desired to build a two-bedroom home on the property, there was limited area available to construct the septic system. The proposed septic system is located in the only area available for such a system and is the same location proposed by Respondent Scott. A sign was posted on Mr. Morese's property notifying Ms. Bobbitt of Mr. Morese's variance request. The variance committee recommended approval of the Morese variance with specific provisos at their December 1997, meeting. Dr. Richard Hunter, Department of Health Deputy State Health Officer, approved the variance with provisos by letter to Mr. Morese on December 17, 1997. The letter stated the approval as follows: The onsite sewage treatment and disposal system shall be set back from the irrigation well on lot 14 by the maximum distance attainable but not less than 30 feet when installed. The onsite sewage treatment and disposal system shall be set back from the drinking water supply well on lot 14 by the maximum distance attainable but not less than 50 feet when installed. The onsite sewage treatment and disposal system drainfield elevation shall be based on a seasonal high water table no lower than 12 inches below existing grade based on William G. Harb's report of November 13, 1997. The variance approval was not challenged by Petitioner or any other neighbor. The variance was granted for a period of one year from the date of Dr. Hunter's letter. As indicated, Allen C.D. Scott, II, purchased the property from Mr. Morese. When Mr. Scott purchased the property from Mr. Morese, the variance was transferred to Mr. Scott. After Mr. Scott purchased the property, he hired an engineer to assist him in securing a Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) coastal construction control permit. The permit was finally issued on May 13, 1999. The variance granted Mr. Morese and subsequently transferred to Mr. Scott expired December 18, 1998. Thus, by the time Mr. Scott obtained his DEP permit to put fill on his property in order to construct his septic system, the variance for reduced setbacks from Petitioner's wells had expired. On June 14, 1999, Mr. Scott applied to DOH for a variance to reduce the required setbacks from Petitioner's irrigation and drinking water wells to his proposed septic system. Mr. Scott's variance application requested the exact same setbacks that Mr. Morese had been granted in December 1997. For the same reasons the variance review committee recommended approval of the Morese the committee recommended approval of the Scott variance. Dr. Sharon Heber, Director of Environmental Health, DOH, granted the variance by letter on July 2, 1999. The letter contained the same provisions as Mr. Morese received in December 1997. The evidence demonstrated that the requested variance would not adversely impact anyone's health or degrade ground or surface waters. Moreover, the evidence showed that the variance met all other Department criteria for an onsite sewage disposal system. Don Hallman, professional engineer, testified that the pit casing of Ms. Bobbitt's well provides an additional layer of protection from contamination sources. He further explained that Petitioner's deep well was cased in a consolidated formation which furnished protection from surface and lateral contaminants. Mike Turner testified that he has permitted and/or had experience with two thousand or more wells in his job with the St. Johns Water Management District. He stated unequivocally that Ms. Bobbitt's deep, pit-cased well was in no more danger from contamination from Scott's septic system, 50 feet away, than it is from the 65-foot reduced setback distance to her own septic system. Given these facts, Respondent is entitled to a variance for his proposed septic tank system.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the variance should be granted by the Department of Health and Petitioner's challenge dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 8th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Charlene J. Petersen, Esquire Department of Health 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 May Bobbitt 41 Zamora Street St. Augustine, Florida 32095 Allen C. D. Scott, II, Esquire 101 Orange Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 William Langue, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health Bin A00 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 64E-6.022(1)(b)2., 64E-6.022(1)(d), and 64E-6.022(1)(p) by repairing an onsite sewage disposal system without a permit, resulting in missed inspections, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with enforcing the statutory and regulatory provisions pertaining to the practice of septic tank installations and repairs in Florida. See § 381.0065(3), Fla. Stat. (2003). Repair of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems must be performed under the supervision and control of a registered septic tank contractor. Respondent is the qualifying registered septic tank contractor for All Florida Septic Tank Service, Inc., having been issued the registration number SR00011389. Respondent has 15 years of experience in the field of septic system construction and repair. The qualifying registered septic tank contractor for Simmons Septic and Tractor Service, Inc., is Joey Wayne Simmons. The qualifying registered septic tank contractor for AA Septic Tank Service, Inc., is Billy Wayne Joyner. However, Mr. Simmons, Mr. Joyner, and Respondent work closely together, sometimes working together on a job and/or acting as the qualifying registered septic tank contractor on each other's behalf. On September 2, 2003, the septic disposal system at the residence of Jack Young was not functioning properly. Mr. Young contracted with one of the above-referenced septic tank services to repair the system. On September 2, 2003, Respondent and another employee of All Florida Septic Tank Service, Inc., along with two employees from AA Septic Tank Service, Inc., went to Mr. Young's residence to repair Mr. Young's onsite sewage disposal system. No one applied for a permit to make any repairs to Mr. Young's system. With Respondent acting as the registered septic tank contractor, the men used a backhoe to dig up the septic tank, which was buried three feet in the ground. Respondent then repaired the pump and ran a new one and one-quarter force main line to the existing header because the old line had been compromised by roots. Respondent also cleaned roots from inside the distribution box. Respondent then sealed the tank and directed the men to cover it up. No one called Petitioner's local office, the Duval County Health Department, to request an inspection of the repair before covering the tank. The work on Mr. Young's septic system involved the replacement of an effluent transmission line. It required a permit because it constituted more than a minor repair to the pump and distribution box. Respondent should not have performed the work without a permit from the Duval County Health Department. Because there was no permit, there was no request for inspection by the Duval County Health Department. When the work was completed, Mr. Young gave Respondent a check in the amount of $1,000, payable to Mr. Simmons. The check reflected payment for repair to the filter bed, otherwise known as the drainfield. Respondent indicated his receipt of the check by signing the AA Septic Tank Service, Inc.'s Daily Truck Log and Maintenance Report. In February 2004, Mr. Young's septic system began to fail once again due to root blockage in the lines. Respondent advised Mr. Young that a permit would be required in order to make any further repairs. Mr. Young refused to pull a permit or to pay for any additional costs. On February 17, 2004, Mr. Young contacted Petitioner to report the failure of his system's drainfield. On February 18, 2004, Petitioner's inspector confirmed that Mr. Young's drainfield had failed and was causing a sanitary nuisance. During the hearing, Respondent admitted that there are no disputed issues of material facts in this case. He stated that he agreed with everything. However, he did not agree that the work he performed for Mr. Young required a permit from and inspections by Petitioner's Duval County Health Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order, finding that Respondent violated the standards of practice and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Catherine R. Berry, Esquire Department of Health 515 West Sixth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32206-4311 James L. Smith All Florida Septic Tank Service, Inc. 8300 West Beaver Street Jacksonville, Florida 32220 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Timothy M. Cerio, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. John A. Agwunobi, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Whether Respondent John M. Williams deposited fill in waters of the state without a permit from the Department of Environmental Protection. If so, what is the appropriate corrective action and penalty?
Findings Of Fact Mr. Williams and the Cowford Subdivision Petitioner John M. Williams is a retired mechanic. In 1992, he became acquainted with the Cowford subdivision in Walton County, near Bruce, Florida. The subdivision fronts the Choctawhatchee River. Mr. Williams purchased lot 29 of the subdivision. Three or four years later, he bought lot 30. All told, Mr. Williams paid approximately $47,000 for the lots, an electric power line and an "above-ground" septic tank. The purchase price of the lots was $38,000. Running an electric line and installation of an electric light pole cost about $4,000. Mr. Williams paid about $5,000 for the septic tank and its installation. Mr. Williams' ultimate goal in purchasing the lots and adding the improvements was to build a house on the property for use in his retirement. Attempt to Obtain the Necessary Permits The septic tank was not purchased by Mr. Williams until after he had obtained a permit for its construction. At the county offices where he went to obtain the necessary permit, he was "sent over to the power company." (Tr. 216). At hearing, he described what happened there: I paid my money to get my power and they -- well, they informed me . . . once I got my power on I had 6 months to get my septic tank in the ground or they would turn my lights off. So here I had a $3,500 light pole put up and I couldn't very well see this thing going down. So, I went ahead to the Health Department. (Id.) Mr. Williams' testimony is supported by a Walton County Environmental Health Notice dated March 8, 1999, that states, "The Walton County Building Department will not be issuing approval for power for any residence until final approval of the septic system is obtained from the Walton County Environmental Health Office." P7, the first page after Page 3 of 3, marked in the upper right hand corner as PAGE 10. At the Health Department, on April 12, 1999, Mr. Williams applied for an "Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System" permit on a form bearing the following heading: STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ONSITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Authority; Chapter 381, FS & Chapter 10D-6, FAC P7, page 1 of 3. According to the form, he paid the $200 fee for the permit on April 29, 1999. The payment was made within a month or so after the installation of the power line. An attachment to the "Walton County Environmental Health Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System Application," made out by Mr. Williams on April 12, 1999, contains the following warning: OTHER AGENCY PERMITS: As the owner or agent applying for an OSTDS permit it is my responsibility to determine if the proposed development is in compliance with the zoning requirements of Walton County. I further assume responsibility to obtain any applicable permits from other State and Local Government Agencies. P15, page 2. (emphasis supplied) (See also P7, the second page after Page 3 of 3, marked in the upper right hand corner as PAGE 11). On May 5, 1999, about three weeks after Mr. Williams submitted the construction permit application, the site where the septic tank would be installed was evaluated by an EH Specialist, an inspector. On the same day, an Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System Construction Permit was issued for an "above-ground" 900-gallon septic tank. Installation With county personnel present and under county supervision, the septic tank was installed on a ridge on Mr. Williams property about 17 feet above mean sea level. Fill dirt was brought onto the site and placed on top of the tank to create a septic tank mound. No dredging of the property was done in connection with the installation. Chance Discovery After a complaint was registered with DEP about dredge and fill activity on one of the lots near Mr. Williams, Gary Woodiwiss, then an environmental specialist in the Department assigned to conduct inspections in Walton and Holmes Counties, visited the Cowford subdivision in July 2000. During the visit, Mr. Woodiwiss noticed the septic tank mound on Mr. Williams' property and that the mound, in part, consisted of fill dirt. Being of the opinion that the both the fill dirt and the septic tank system constituted "fill" and that the fill may have been deposited in jurisdictional wetlands, that is, "waters of the state," Mr. Woodiwiss consulted with DEP personnel about the status of the site and DEP jurisdiction. Ultimately, DEP determined that the site of the septic tank mound, within the flood plain of the Choctowhatchee River, was jurisdictional wetlands. The Department took action. DEP Action On November 16, 2000, Mr. Woodiwiss issued a memorandum to the DEP file with regard to "John Williams. Unauthorized Fill in Flood Plain." The memo states: Site is located next to Charles Riley who is the subject of Department action for filling jurisdictional wetlands. Williams was erroneously given a permit by Walton County health Dept. to install a septic system in 1999, which he subsequently installed. I visited the site with the administrator for the septic tanks program in Walton and she indicated that they would pay for the installation of a new system on a new lot for Mr. Williams. I recommend that the removal of the system and relocation of the inhabitants of the lot to an area outside of the immediate flood plain. P6. (emphasis supplied) Five days later, on November 21, 2002, a warning letter was generated by Mr. Woodiwiss under the signature of Bobby A. Cooley, Director of District Management for DEP. The letter advised Mr. Williams as follows: Recent Department survey data established at your property has determined that your entire lot is below the mean annual flood line of the Choctawhatchee River and is subject to dredge and fill jurisdiction of the Department. Any construction on the property including placement of a mobile home, septic tank and drainfield or other structures must first receive a dredge and fill permit from the Department. Preliminary assessment of your proposed development of the property indicates that you may not meet the public interest criteria of Chapters 403 and 373 Florida Statutes for qualifying for a permit. R5. By this letter the Department informed Mr. Williams both that he was in violation of the law by not having secured a permit for the filling of the site and warned that, on the basis of a preliminary assessment, it was not likely that he would be eligible for an after-the-fact permit. The assessment of whether the site was eligible for a permit was re-stated in writing again, but with added certainty in a Compliance Assessment Form (the Form) prepared by DEP personnel. In Section V. of the form, there appears, together with the signature of the "Section Permit Processor and a date of "11/09/2000", the following: Project is not permittable due to type of wetland system being impacted and project must not be "Contrary to the Public Interest". The project could affect the public health, safety and welfare and property of others. The project is of a permanent nature. P13. Although the permit processor entered her assessment on November 9, 2000, and other sections of the form were entered on November 1, 2000, by Mr. Woodiwiss, the Compliance Assessment Form bears a final date of February 1, 2001. The Form shows the "Event Chronology" that led to the issuance of the NOV. The chronology, consistent with the testimony at hearing, reveals the following: 25 Jul.00. Complaint inspection for fill in wetlands on adjacent lot. Found isolated fill areas in a slough and adjacent to an apparent upland area. Vegetation is 100% jurisdictional but soil is composed of alluvial deposits in ridge like configurations, one of which the respondent wished to live on. Solicited the jurisdictional team for a district assist in determining jurisdiction. 21 Aug.00. District assist. Hydrologic indicators and vegetation present in sufficient quantities to establish jurisdiction. John Tobe PhD. Requested that the mean annual flood be established on the site in order to augment his determination. October 11, 2000. District assist by Bureau of Survey and mapping and the establishment of a survey line of the 2.33 year (16.42 feet above MSL) mean annual flood elevation on the adjacent violation site. The whole site is clearly under the MAF, which extends approximately 200 meters up grade towards SR 20. The elevation of the MAF is consistent with hydrological indicators (porella pinnatta) that indicate such a flood elevation, as reported in previous studies. November 7, 2000. Met with Crystal Steele and Mike Curry of Walton County DOH to establish why Mr. Williams has a septic tank permit. They indicated that the permit was issued in error and that they would require the system to be moved. Ms. Steele stated that the County would pay for Mr. Williams to have a new system installed on another site because of the oversight. There are currently two moveable vehicles on the site, one of which is connected to the system, the other has a contained service for sewage. November 21, 2000. WLI [presumably Warning Letter Issued] November 27, 2000. Call to Mr. Williams. He wants to get money back or swap property for higher. I advised him to approach the owner Mr. Martin and make his situation known. January 22, 2000. Mr. Williams has refused to remove the fill and requests an NOV. P13, (emphasis supplied) MAF and Wetland Delineation There was considerable testimony introduced at hearing about establishment of the mean annual flood ("MAF") line for the purpose, among others, of its relationship to the elevation of the septic tank mound. The issue stemmed, no doubt, from Dr. Tobe's request that MAF be established in order to "augment his determination" with regard to DEP jurisdiction based on employment of the methodology in DEP's wetland delineation rule, see paragraph 13, above. Resolution of the issue is not necessary to augment the determination that all of lots 29 and 30 of the Cowford subdivision are located in wetlands that constitute "waters of the state." That the septic tank and the fill dirt were deposited on wetlands under the jurisdiction of DEP was clearly established by Dr. Tobe in his testimony at trial and the evidence in support of it. Petitioner concedes as much in his Proposed Final Order. Environmental Harm and Human Health Exposure Wetlands whose surface area is covered by the septic tank mound have been filled. The filling has caused environmental damage. An assessment of the damage was not offered at hearing but it appears from this record that the damage is minimal. During the time the septic tank has been on Mr. Williams' property, it has never been below the flood waters of the Choctawhatchee River and therefore has not yet caused direct hazard to human health. Corrective Action and Penalty It will be expensive to remove the septic tank; the expense will be more than the cost of installation. Petitioner fears, moreover, that it will render his property worthless. There is no evidence that Petitioner's violation of Department permitting requirements was willful. He has no history of violations previous to this one. Options to continued retention of a septic system through use of a portable wheeled waste remover or use of an upland drain field on another property are either not viable or so problematic as to be impractical. DEP Modification of its Position At the outset of the hearing, DEP announced that it no longer intended to seek civil penalties of $1,500 as it had intended when the NOV was issued. All that is sought by DEP by way of corrective action or penalty is removal of the septic tank and monetary reimbursement for the cost of the investigation of $250 (see Tr. 9, lls. 17-25, and Tr. 10, lls. 1-5.)
Findings Of Fact Rayco Properties, Inc. d/b/a Woody's Septic Tank Service is a company authorized by the State of Florida to perform septic tank construction and repair services. All of its contractors and other employees have practiced in the septic system business for many years. The registered contractor, who is the company qualifier, is the person responsible for all contracting services performed by the septic company and for compliance with the applicable regulatory statutes and rules. Donald P. Roberts is a registered septic tank contractor for Woody's Septic Tank Service. At all times material to these causes, he was the company's sole qualifier. At all times material, he was responsible for obtaining all necessary permits for the company. DHRS is the agency responsible for septic contractor registration, septic tank company authorization, and the enforcement of the statutes and rules pertaining to registration and authorization pursuant to Chapters 381 and 489, Part III, F.S. and Chapter 10D-6 F.A.C. This includes the authority to cite, fine, and to suspend or revoke registrations and authorizations. Donald P. Roberts has never previously been cited by the agency. Before 1991, permits were not required for repairs to septic systems. However, at all times material to these causes, repair, installation, and abandonment permits had to be obtained from DHRS, usually through its local units in the respective county public health unit offices. These offices take septic system permit applications, perform site evaluations, issue permits, and perform final inspections. At all times material, no permits were required for replacing dosing pumps, fixing cracked dosing tanks, maintenance of existing systems or service of existing systems. No permits were necessary for replacing a D (or distribution) box, which is a non-mechanical, non-electrical item that serves as a distribution point for pipes. At all times material, the act of installing a dosing tank was a repair that required a permit. At all times material, the act of abandoning a septic tank (pumping it out, punching a hole in it, filling it with dirt and covering it or hauling it away) also required a permit. The standard operating procedure for obtaining a septic system permit is as follows: 1) the contractor or landowner submits a permit application with a plot/site plan to the agency's county office; 2) the agency conducts a site evaluation, sometimes including soil borings and/or a percolation test; 3) the agency reviews and issues the permit; 4) the contractor performs the permitted work; 5) the contractor calls the agency for inspection before covering up with earth; 6) agency inspection occurs and the project is approved OR the contractor is told of a violation, perhaps cited therefor, and must fix any problems pointed out by the agency inspector. If there is a violation to be corrected, the contractor is supposed to call DHRS for re-inspections until the problem is solved and the job is approved by the agency. Some jobs are so routine that some county offices do not do a site inspection before septic system work is done or reinspect after septic system work is done. This appears to be discretionary within the local office. However, if a violation is noted, the problem must be corrected and reinspected or negotiated out. See Finding of Fact 15. An approved plot/site plan becomes part of the permit when the permit is issued, and contractors are expected to adhere to the combined items. Permits state the requirements for the project or job. If a contractor experiences problems on a particular job, such as a well that does not show up on the plot/site plan, he is expected to contact the local public health unit to try to resolve the issue. "Resolution" has traditionally been to revise the plot/site plan or modify the permit. In past years, this has been an informal procedure, sometimes accomplished by telephone calls from the field, sometimes by negotiations in the public health office. All but one of the alleged violations (the Mahalik property) in these causes arose after DHRS decided to strictly require contractors to stop work and apply for and receive a formal modification of the permit or a new permit when unforeseen problems were encountered on any particular job. This procedure was codified in new Rule 60D-6.044(5) F.A.C., effective January 3, 1995. At approximately the same time, DHRS also adopted a policy of forbidding its personnel to discuss such field problems with, or to issue permits to, anyone other than the qualifying registered contractor for each authorized septic tank company. The agency has pointed to no specific statute or rule which provides that only a qualifying registered contractor may pull a DHRS permit or which forbids DHRS personnel discussing modifying a permit with any other company employees. However, it is clear that only registered contractors may pull permits. Two exceptions are recognized: A landowner or homeowner may pull a permit for septic system work with septic system contractors as their "agents"; and in locations where DHRS has an agreement with a city or county plumbing permit office, DHRS acknowledges the local plumbing permits and does not require owners or plumbers to also pull a separate septic system permit from DHRS's local public health unit. I. Case No. 95-5973 Deltona Hills Golf & Country Club Respondents applied for a permit to do repairs to a septic system for Deltona Golf & Country Club on August 7, 1995. A dosing tank is a mechanical device which lifts wastewater to a drainfield. DHRS issued a permit to Respondent to replace the dosing tank with a 900 gallon tank. The original tank being replaced was a 50 gallon tank. Respondents properly abandoned the existing 50 gallon dosing tank and installed the high water alarm, but they installed a 750 gallon tank, contrary to the express terms of the permit. Travis Vickers, then DHRS's Environmental Specialist in the Volusia County Health Unit, ultimately cited Respondents for not complying with the permit and for not calling for re-inspection after the discrepancy in tank size was brought to their attention. Respondents' reason for installing the 750 gallon tank was that they had used a 3:1 ratio to the drainfield which is codified in the agency rules. Thereby, they determined that a 714 gallon tank would be the ideal size tank to install. Then they simply installed the next largest size tank without reference to the permit. Respondents' employees also maintained that when Mr. Vickers notified them they had installed the wrong size tank, they contacted someone else in the local county public health unit and that person orally approved the smaller size tank they had already installed. Therefore, they did not call Mr. Vickers again for re-inspection. The person who supposedly gave the oral authorization was not called to testify, and no written permit modifications or amendment were made, as required by the agency rules then in effect. In this light, Respondents' excuses for failing to install the 900 gallon tank according to permit specifications and failure to call for a re-inspection are not credible. Therefore, it is clear that Respondents installed a smaller tank contrary to the permit specifications and received no modification of permit as required by agency rules in effect at the material time. In making the foregoing findings of fact, I have not overlooked the fact that there are several ways to calculate the appropriate size of a dosing tank; that during his testimony, Mr. Vickers, himself, demonstrated at least two ways of calculating; or that Mr. Vickers' 900 gallon figure on the permit arose in part from considerations in addition to the published agency rules, which additional considerations were the result of workshops with septic system contractors and DHRS personnel which had been reduced to written form in a document nicknamed "the memo from hell," to which Respondent had no access in August 1995. However, that memorandum was designed to help DHRS personnel interpret the code and issue the permit. Its use by agency personnel in issuing a permit does not absolve the contractor of the responsibility to install the system according to the permit as issued, nor does it allow the contractor to unilaterally recalculate tank capacity at will on some other basis. At Deltona Golf & Country Club, Respondents simply did not follow the permit requirements or replace the wrong size tank and call for re-inspection. The fact that Respondents were able to demonstrate alternative methodologies of computation does not change those salient facts. Case No. 95-5973 Pine Street, Enterprise Florida a/k/a the Gleasons' Job Respondents applied for a repair permit for 450 Pine Street, Enterprise, Florida. Mr. and Mrs. Gleason, referred to by some witnesses as "the homeowners," were actually leasing the property. DHRS issued the permit to Respondents on October 3, 1995. It was valid for 90 days. The repair job occurred during a rainy period when the water table was high. Respondents had to drill wellpoints to lower the water table. Further, they were hindered by rain, mud, muck, and debris on the property. A two days' job turned into 15 days' work. Respondents finally installed the drainfield in a slightly different location than the approved location shown on the plot/site plan. Although contrary to the permit, Respondents' installation met minimum 10D-6 F.A.C. requirements, including those for setbacks. Respondents' employees testified that they chose to place the drainfield in an unpermitted location so as accommodate the Gleasons' urgent need for a septic system, because they considered the different location necessary to comply with Chapter 10D-6 F.A.C.'s setback requirements, and because the northeast corner where the drainfield had been permitted was covered with too much muck, and too many stumps, old tires, and pieces of tin and fencing to proceed there. In the experience of Respondent Donald P. Roberts, and Willie Suggs and Jerry Thompson, who also are registered septic contractors, drainfields are not always installed according to the plot/site plan, but the location may be negotiated with DHRS prior to inspection. Respondents claimed to have received oral authorization to relocate the drainage field from an official in the local public health unit, but that person did not testify. Also, Respondents admitted they never applied for a permit modification in writing or obtained an amended permit, as required after January 3, 1995. Therefore, the concept of an oral permit modification is not credible. See, Findings of Fact 15-16. Mr. Vickers inspected the work performed by Respondents on October 17, 1995. He arrived five hours late, creating bad feelings in Respondents. On October 18, 1995, Mr. Vickers notified Respondents that they had located the drainfield in a different area than the area shown on the plot/site plan and approved by the permit. After the violation notice was issued, Mr. Vickers refused to talk to anyone associated with the Respondent company except Donald P. Roberts, the qualified registered contractor, thereby creating further bad feelings in Respondents. To put it mildly, communication between the parties broke down completely. The Gleasons had sent a demand that Respondents complete the Pine Street project by October 25, 1995, but then, approximately October 18, 1995, they hired Acme Septic to complete the project. On October 19, 1995, Acme pulled a DHRS permit for the same repair project in which Respondents were mired at the Pine Street location. Acme then installed the drainfield in the same general area as shown on Respondents' permit's original plot/site plan. In doing so, Acme used Respondents' materials and built on their prior work. Acme successfully installed the drainfield as required by the permit and all agency rules. Under the circumstances, Respondents felt they had no duty to call Mr. Vickers for re-inspection of their discarded work. Despite considerable use of the word "abandonment," Respondents technically remain charged only with failure to comply with the permit and failure to call for re-inspection on the Pine Street Job. Case No. 96-0573 Avocado Street a/k/a The Hale Project The Avocado Street Project was a private residence to which Respondents were originally called to do repair work on a septic system. Many septic repairs do not require a permit. See Findings of Fact 8- Also, repair permits are not required where a problem is discovered on a larger project which has already been permitted, but if contractors discover a problem during the course of an unpermitted repair, which problem would otherwise require its own permit, contractors were expected, post-January 3, 1995, to stop work and obtain an (amended) permit. See Rule 10D-6.044(5) F.A.C. and Finding of Fact 16. Replacement of "like kind" parts of a dosing tank such as a pump, do not require a permit. Repair of a crack in a dosing or septic tank does not require a permit. Replacement of an entire dosing tank or septic tank unless there is already an umbrella permit does require a new permit. See above, Findings of Fact 9 and 10. It is not standard practice for DHRS to inspect/evaluate the site before a replacement permit or an abandonment permit is issued. Such inspections are discretionary in practice and such permits are often issued on the spot at the time of application. See Findings of Fact 12 and 13. At Avocado Street, Respondents pumped out the Hales' septic tank and discovered that the dosing pump was not working. Respondents replaced the pump, but also discovered that the existing dosing tank was inadequate. Due to the inadequacy of the existing dosing tank, dosing pumps repeatedly had burned up. Respondents sent an employee to pull a DHRS permit for replacement of the existing dosing tank, which permit they felt could be pulled immediately. Then they proceeded, without permit in hand, to replace the dosing pump and install a larger dosing tank. Andrew Trapp, DHRS' Environmental Health Specialist in the Orange City office, became aware of the Avocado Street situation only because of a phone call from an employee of the Respondent company asking if a permit had ever been issued. Because a permit never had been issued, Trapp's suspicion was aroused. Therefore, he performed the discretionary onsite inspection and found the new dosing tank. The Avocado Street work of Respondents did not represent a public nuisance. The agency intentionally and violationally issued an after-the-fact permit to Mr. Hale with an employee of Respondent as Mr. Hale's agent on August 23-24, 1995. Any other suggested dates for this permit application are rejected as computer error. The project was reinspected by agency personnel who oversaw Respondents' employees repair a tank leak. DHRS finally approved the whole project. II. Case 96-0573 Clyde Morris Boulevard a/k/a The IWS or BFI Job The Clyde Morris Boulevard property was leased by IWS/BFI from the City of Daytona Beach. Mastercraft Plumbing was the prime contractor responsible for connecting an existing septic system on the Clyde Morris Boulevard property to a public sewer system. Mastercraft hired Respondents to handle the abandonment of a septic tank which Mastercraft was replacing. Abandonment is more fully described above in Finding of Fact 10. Although DHRS presented some hearsay to the effect that Mastercraft expected Respondents to obtain the DHRS abandonment permit, there is no direct evidence for such hearsay to support or explain. Contrary evidence was presented that persons within the IWS/BFI hierarchies had led Respondents to believe that Mastercraft had pulled the necessary DHRS permit or an umbrella plumbing permit which would cover Respondents' abandonment activities. See, Finding of Fact 19. However, there is no direct, competent, or conclusive evidence one way or the other. Respondents' actual abandonment work was completed on or about April 10, 1995. Respondents charged Mastercraft for the work but not for pulling any abandonment permit from DHRS, because Respondents did not pull any such permit. Once Respondents discovered that Mastercraft had not pulled the DHRS septic permit, Jerry Thompson, as an employee of Respondent company, pulled a permit as Mastercraft's agent on May 9, 1995. As previously stated, pre- inspection is not standard practice and DHRS abandonment permits are often issued in a single day. II. Case No. 96-0573 Bridal (or Briddle) Path Lane a/k/a Oakridge Acres a/k/a Mrs. Mahalik's Property Respondents were called to repair a septic tank at Mrs. Mahalik's home on Bridal Path Lane in October 1994. Most of the work did not require DHRS permits. See Findings of Fact 8-10. Respondents charged Mrs. Mahalik, among other things, for installing a new 300 gallon dosing tank. Approximately four months later, in February 1995, Mrs. Mahalik telephoned the Flagler County Public Health Unit and asked whether Respondents' repair had been permitted. DHRS had no record of it. An after-the-fact application was made for the job and a permit for the Mahalik job was issued in March 1995 to Mrs. Mahalik with Respondent company as her agent. Replacement of a dosing tank required a permit under Rule 10D-6.043 F.A.C. in 1994 but Rule 10D-6.044(5) F.A.C., requiring the stoppage of work while applying for an amended permit, did not exist until January 3, 1995.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order finding Respondents Donald P. Roberts and Rayco Properties, Inc. d/b/a Woody's Septic Tank Service guilty as set out in the Conclusions of Law and assessing against both Donald P. Roberts and the company, jointly and severally a total fine of $4,450 and suspending both for 120 days from the date of the final order. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of November, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of November, 1996.
The Issue At issue in DOAH Case No. 04-4333 is whether Respondent committed the two violations of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.022 alleged in the citation issued on September 29, 2004, and, if so, whether the imposition of a $1,000.00 fine was properly imposed. At issue in DOAH Case No. 05-0695 is whether Respondent committed the three violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint issued on February 21, 2005, and, if so, whether his septic tank contractor registration should be revoked or some lesser penalty imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing the statutory provisions pertaining to the practice of septic tank contracting in Florida pursuant to Chapter 489, Part III, and Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes (2004). At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent Matt Beebe, was a registered septic tank contractor, having been issued registration number SR0971283, and was the qualifying contractor for his business, Southern Sanitation, Inc. ("Southern Sanitation"), having been issued registration number SA0970864. On June 7, 2001, Mr. Beebe was cited for installing a septic system without a permit, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.022, and paid a fine of $500.00 without contest. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Beebe also operated a septage disposal service business under the Southern Sanitation name, having been issued operating permit number 11-QN-0054. Improper Septage Disposal and Sanitary Nuisance On September 29, 2004, Kenneth Rech, the Department's environmental health and engineering director for Collier County, received a telephone complaint that a Southern Sanitation septage hauling truck had been seen emptying its contents onto a vacant lot at 295 Brandy Lane in Naples. Mr. Rech and his assistant, James Miller, drove out to the location to investigate the complaint. When he arrived at the location, Mr. Rech first spoke to the complainant, who lived across the street from the vacant lot. The complainant estimated that the Southern Sanitation truck left the lot about 20 minutes before Mr. Rech arrived. Mr. Rech and Mr. Miller investigated the site. Mr. Rech described the area containing the dumped contents of the truck as a low-lying wetland. The property was about ten acres in size. The owner kept horses on the lot. Mr. Rech testified that there was a strong smell of septage, though the dumped contents were light gray in color. Raw septage is generally black. Based on the smell, Mr. Rech concluded that the dumped contents included septage mixed with some other material. Mr. Rech telephoned Erin Kurbec to meet him at the dump site. Ms. Kurbec is a Department employee responsible for oversight of septage hauling and disposal businesses. Ms. Kurbec in turn phoned Mr. Beebe and asked him to come to the site. Mr. Rech testified that Mr. Beebe was "very agitated" when he arrived at the dump site, calling Ms. Kurbec a "liar," and protesting that the Department did not have the right to ask for his company's hauling logs. Because of Mr. Beebe's aggressive behavior, Mr. Rech phoned to request a Sheriff's deputy to come to the site. Mr. Beebe conceded that he was somewhat agitated because Ms. Kubec asked him to come to the site, but would not tell him why she wanted to see his truck. She would only say that it was a "spot check," which Mr. Beebe did not believe. By the time the Sheriff's deputy arrived, the situation had calmed down. Mr. Beebe told Mr. Rech that he had dumped approximately 3,000 gallons of "drillers' mud" on the site. Drillers' mud, or bentonite clay, is a colloidal clay sold under various trade names that forms a slick slurry, or gel, when water is added. The appearance of the material dumped at the site was consistent with that of drillers' mud. Mr. Beebe testified that the owner of the vacant lot asked him to dump the drillers' mud to fill in a low-lying, hard to reach area of the property. The liquid-like consistency of the drillers' mud made it ideal for filling this difficult portion of the property. Mr. Beebe's testimony as to having permission to dump materials on the property is credited. Mr. Rech took two samples of the dumped material from a pooled area about six inches deep. He used sterile sample equipment and containers. Because Mr. Beebe had alerted him to the possibility that there could be horse manure under the dumped material, Mr. Rech was careful to scoop the contents from the top of the dumped material. Mr. Rech provided one of the samples to Mr. Beebe to allow Mr. Beebe to have a laboratory of his choice analyze the material. Mr. Rech sent the other sample to the Department's Tampa laboratory, which found the sample to contain a fecal coliform count of 4,800 colonies per gram. The laboratory's report was stamped with the disclosure stating, "Sample does not meet the following NELAC requirements: 1) exceeds 6 hr. hold time; 2) this matrix is not certified under NELAC." NELAC is the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference, a voluntary association of state and federal agencies, the purpose of which is to establish and promote mutually acceptable performance standards for the operation of environmental laboratories. NELAC certifies environmental laboratories such as the Department's Tampa facility, which was not certified for solid matrices such as the sample provided by Mr. Rech. Dr. Philip Amuso is the director of the Department's Tampa laboratory. Dr. Amuso testified as to the testing procedures and the disclosure statement included on the laboratory report. He concluded that neither of the disclosures affected the validity of the fecal coliform count found in the sample. Dr. Amuso testified that the applicable testing standard calls for a sample to be analyzed for fecal coliform within six hours of the sample collection time. The sample in question was not tested within six hours. However, Dr. Amuso testified that the longer a sample is held, the lower the fecal coliform count will be, because the fecal coliform colonies tend to die off over time. Thus, Dr. Amuso testified that the fecal coliform count in the sample was likely understated, due to the failure to analyze the sample within six hours. Dr. Amuso testified that his laboratory chose to classify the sample as solid. The Tampa laboratory was required to note on its report that it is not NELAC-certified for solid matrices. However, Dr. Amuso testified that the classification of the sample had no impact on the analysis performed or the validity of the result. He explained that the laboratory could have classified the sample as a non-potable liquid, a matrix for which the Tampa laboratory is NELAC-certified, and the same analysis would have been performed and would have yielded the same result. Mr. Beebe forwarded his sample of the dumped material to Sanders Laboratories, Inc. ("Sanders"), a private environmental testing service. The Sanders laboratory classified the sample as a non-potable liquid and performed its analysis within six hours of the sample's collection. The Sanders laboratory report dated September 30, 2004, found the fecal coliform count to be 1,600,000 colonies per 100 milliliters. Placed in comparable terms to the Tampa laboratory's report, this sample showed a fecal coliform count of 16,000 colonies per gram, or about three times higher than the Tampa laboratory's sample. Dr. Amuso attributed this higher reading to the fact that Sanders ran its test within six hours of collection. Dr. Amuso testified that the fecal coliform count of 4,800 colonies per gram found in the Tampa laboratory's sample constituted "pretty significant" contamination. Mr. Rech testified that a count of 4,800 colonies per gram is about one-half of the count found in raw, untreated septage from a septic tank, and that such a count is "bad" in terms of public health significance. Mr. Rech testified that the fecal coliform count in the Sanders sample was "in the range" for raw untreated septage. Mr. Rech stated that the laboratory analyses led to the conclusion that there was a substantial amount of untreated septage mixed with the drillers' mud in the dumped materials. He concluded there was more septage than could reasonably be attributed to residue from a previous dump of septage in Mr. Beebe's truck. He added that it would be impossible to clean the tank of a septage disposal truck sufficiently to prevent fecal contamination of a subsequent non-septage load. Mr. Beebe conceded that Mr. Rech told him that he should not use a septage hauling truck for any other kind of load, especially where that load would be dumped on the ground. Before leaving the dump site on September 29, 2004, Mr. Rech and Ms. Kurbec handed Mr. Beebe the citation for failure to properly treat or dispose of septage and the creation or maintenance of a sanitary nuisance. The citation directed Mr. Beebe to pay a fine of $500.00 for each of the two violations. Mr. Rech testified that he and Ms. Kurbec were able to conclude from their on-site observations that Mr. Beebe had improperly disposed of septage and had created a sanitary nuisance. Mr. Rech stated that the subsequent laboratory analysis served to confirm those conclusions. Mr. Rech testified that untreated septage consists of human waste containing high levels of fecal coliform and viruses, bacteria, and parasites that cause a wide range of gastrointestinal and neurological conditions in humans. Mr. Rech stated that untreated septage dumped anywhere other than at a properly regulated disposal site constitutes a public health nuisance. He noted that the materials were dumped by Mr. Beebe within roughly 100 feet of residential drinking water wells. Mr. Beebe admitted that he dumped the contents of his disposal truck on the vacant lot, though he denied that it contained septage. He theorized that the high fecal coliform counts in the laboratory analyses were caused by animal manure beneath the drillers' mud that he dumped on the property. Dr. Amuso conceded that no testing had been performed to establish the ambient level of coliform on the property, and further conceded that the laboratory tests do not distinguish human from animal feces in measuring the coliform count. However, as noted above, Mr. Rech knew that there were animals on the property and carefully took his sample from the top of the dumped material. Mr. Rech testified that the strong smell of septage, and the high coliform count found by the subsequent laboratory analyses left no doubt that untreated human waste had been dumped on the property by Mr. Beebe. The Department established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mr. Beebe dumped a mixture of drillers' mud and untreated septage on the lot at 295 Brandy Lane in Naples. Holding Tank On or before January 6, 2005, Mr. Beebe placed a 900-gallon domestic wastewater holding tank into a pre-dug hole at the newly built residence of Edward Ehlen at 616 Crescent Street on Marco Island. Mr. Beebe did not dig the hole, nor did he connect the holding tank to Mr. Ehlen's house. Mr. Ehlen testified that he contracted with the City of Marco Island in July 2004 to connect his new residence, an $800,000 house, to the city sewer system. The connection was to be completed no later than November 2004, when Mr. Ehlen and his family expected to take occupancy of the house. The city did not complete the connection and, therefore, allowed Mr. Ehlen to install a holding tank to be used until the sewer connection was completed. After the holding tank was installed, the city inspected the tank and gave Mr. Ehlen a temporary certificate of occupancy. On January 6, 2005, after Mr. Ehlen and his family had moved into their house, the Department discovered that the Ehlen home was using a holding tank to collect its wastewater. On January 7, 2005, the Department issued to Mr. Ehlen an "Official Notice to Correct and Abate a Sanitary Nuisance," finding that Mr. Ehlen was in violation of "Florida Statutes Chapters 381 and 386" because "plumbing discharge from your home is connected to a sewage holding tank which has not been permitted or inspected by this department." The Notice also provided, in relevant part: You are hereby directed to correct this condition by complying with all the conditions listed below. Apply for a "temporary" Holding Tank permit by close of business on Monday, January 10, 2005. [This permit will be valid for a maximum of 120 days, Permit fee is $185.00] Apply for an abandonment permit for the temporary holding tank by close of business Monday, January 10, 2005. [This permit will be valid for a maximum of 120 days. Complete tank removal will be required within 10 days of hook up to public sewer. Permit fee is $40.00] Have a licensed septic contractor excavate the holding tank for inspection of all connections and seals by this department by Wednesday, January 12, 2005. Sign and maintain a pump-out agreement with a licensed septage hauler until the temporary holding tank is properly abandoned and inspected by this department. Provide a copy of this agreement to the department by Wednesday, January 12, 2005. [Minimum required pump-out frequency to be every other day]. Complete hookup to Marco Island Utilities sewer system within 120 days of receipt of this notice. Failure to comply may result in administrative and/or civil enforcement action, including administrative fines of up to $500 per day per violation of law. On January 12, 2005, the Department issued a 120-day temporary permit to Mr. Ehlen for his holding tank. Also on January 12, 2005, Mr. Ehlen signed a contract with Southern Sanitation pursuant to which Mr. Beebe's company agreed to pump out the holding tank three times per week. Mr. Beebe conceded that he did not obtain a permit from the Health Department before he placed the holding tank in the hole on Mr. Ehlen's property. Mr. Beebe relied on Mr. Ehlen's statement that the City of Marco Island had approved the installation of the holding tank. Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.0101(7) provides that a construction permit must be obtained before the placement or installation of any holding tank. The Department established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mr. Beebe placed a 900-gallon domestic wastewater holding tank into a pre-dug hole at the Ehlen's residence without obtaining a Department permit. Mr. Beebe's good faith belief that Mr. Ehlen had obtained approval for the placement of the tank is noted as a mitigating factor, but cannot operate as a defense for a registered septic tank contractor's admitted failure to confirm the status of any permit with the Department prior to commencing work on the project. Collection and Hauling Log Mr. Beebe's annual operating permit from the Department authorizes him to pump septage from septic tanks and holding tanks and haul it to an approved treatment site for disposal and treatment. Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.010(7)(e) requires a septage hauler to maintain a collection and hauling log "at the treatment site or at the main business location" and to retain that log for a period of five years. The rule lists the following items for inclusion in the log: Date of septage or water collection; Address of collection; Indicate whether the point of collection is a residence or business and if a business, the type of business; Estimated volume, in gallons, of septage or water transported; Receipts for lime or other materials used for treatment; Location of the approved treatment facility; Date and time of discharge to the treatment facility; and Acknowledgement from treatment facility of receipt of septage or waste. On September 29, 2004, the date on which the Department investigated Mr. Beebe's dumping of drillers' mud and sewage on the lot at 295 Brandy Lane in Naples, the Department requested that Mr. Beebe provide his septage collection and hauling log. On September 30, 2004, Mr. Beebe faxed to the Department a single-page, typed document titled, "RE: Southern Sanitation, Inc. Truck Log for Trucks 1 and 2." The document stated that on September 29, 2004, "Truck #1" transported 3,000 gallons of "Well Drillers Mud" from Southern Well Drillers Services drilling site and disposed of it at 295 Brandy Lane. The document stated that "Truck #2" did not haul materials on September 29, 2004. Mr. Rech testified that this document did not satisfy the rule criteria for collection and hauling logs. He noted that this was not a log kept by the drivers of the trucks, but merely a statement from Mr. Beebe attesting to what the trucks had hauled on a single day. Mr. Rech also pointed out that the Department had inspected and authorized Mr. Beebe to haul septage in two trucks identified by their vehicle identification numbers, but that Mr. Beebe's single-page "log" provided no information specifically identifying the trucks in question. On February 3, 2005, the Department sent a letter to Mr. Beebe requesting that he produce, among other documentation, "your original collection and hauling logs for all domestic sewage and food establishment sludge and/or septage you collected and disposed of from January 1, 2004 through February 2, 2005." On February 11, 2005, Mr. Beebe responded to the Department's request, providing copies of "Septic Receiving Logs" maintained by the North County Water Reclamation Facility ("NCWRF"), the Collier County wastewater facility at which Mr. Beebe disposed of his loads. There were log pages for January through June 2004, and October through December 2004. The logs included the dates of disposal, the number of gallons and type of waste in the load (septic or grease), and the signature of the Southern Sanitation driver who dropped off the load. On March 8, 2005, Mr. Beebe submitted to the Department supplemental information covering January 2005. It includes a typed "Pump Job List" for January 2005, prepared on March 3, 2005. The list contains dates, addresses, and approximate gallons collected, including eight entries for pumping out Mr. Ehlen's holding tank. Individual trucks were not identified on this list. The supplemental information also included an NCWRF Septic Receiving Log for January 2005. Mr. Beebe testified that the Department had never asked him for an accounting during the eight years he has operated his business and that the Department did so in this case only after he contested the allegations in the Brandy Lane dumping case. Mr. Beebe appeared to believe that the Department was acting punitively in requesting documents that Mr. Beebe, as the owner of a permitted septage disposal business, was required to keep. Mr. Beebe did not contest the apparent fact that he did not keep collection and hauling logs for his trucks in the normal course of business. Such documentation as he provided was insufficiently detailed to meet the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.010(7)(e), and in some instances was cobbled together well after the fact in order to provide the Department with some documentation of Southern Sanitation's activities. Mr. Rech testified that the Department requires accurate logs of collections and disposals to allow it to monitor compliance and investigate complaints. An accurate, detailed, and contemporaneously-created log would have allowed the Department to discover what Mr. Beebe's truck had collected and dumped prior to the Brandy Lane dumping incident and would have allowed the Department to reconcile the amounts of septage collected by Mr. Beebe from January 2004 through February 2005, with the amounts of septage Mr. Beebe properly disposed of during the same period. The Department established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mr. Beebe did not maintain a septage collection and hauling log as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.010(7)(e). Improper disposal of septage The terms of Mr. Beebe's septage disposal service permit required him to dispose of his collected septage at the NCWRF. Dale Waller, the plant manager of the NCWRF, testified as to the procedures followed by sewage haulers at the facility. Mr. Waller testified that the facility has a computer capable of generating reports as to the quantity of disposals made by haulers, but that the computer system often does not operate correctly. Therefore, the facility's chief means of monitoring disposals is the "Septic Receiving Logs" discussed above. The Septic Receiving Log requires the hauler to record the date of disposal, whether the disposal consisted of septage or grease, the amount of disposed material in gallons, and the driver's signature and printed name. The number of gallons disposed is shown on a calibrated gauge when the waste is pumped out of the truck. Mr. Waller testified that this gauge is accurate within five per cent of the actual amount pumped. The county sends invoices each month to the hauler, based on the number of gallons and the type of waste disposed of at the facility. The Septic Receiving Log is maintained in the foyer of the NCWRF building, with a monthly sheet for each hauling company that uses the facility. No NCWRF employee monitors the haulers as they make their log entries. Mr. Waller testified that it is essentially an honor system for the haulers. Due to computer problems, the NCWRF had no computer records of disposals for the month of January 2005. The Septic Receiving Log for Southern Sanitation for that month showed six entries totaling 11,908 gallons of septage and grease, plus two early January 2005 entries of 3,450 gallons that were placed on the December 2004 log, for a total of 15,358 gallons. Mr. Waller testified that in March 2005, Mr. Beebe submitted a revised Septic Receiving Log for Southern Sanitation for the month of January 2005. Mr. Beebe also provided this revised log to the Department as part of his March 8, 2005, supplemental information for the month of January 2005. This revised log listed three additional disposals of septage in the month of January 2005: 2,550 gallons on January 17; 2,000 gallons on January 24; and 1,700 gallons on January 28. These additional 6,250 gallons brought the reported total disposals of septage and grease for January 2005 to 21,608 gallons. The NCWRF declined to accept the revised Septic Receiving Log as an official record of Southern Sanitation's disposals at the facility for the month of January 2005, because the NCWRF could not verify the additional disposals. Mr. Beebe was billed only for those disposals documented on the original Septic Receiving Log kept at the facility. As part of the March 8, 2005, submission of supplemental information, Mr. Beebe provided to the Department a "pump job list" for January 1 through 28, 2005. This list indicated that Southern Sanitation collected between 21,000 and 22,600 gallons of wastewater during the period specified, a number that roughly corresponds to the total number of gallons reported by Mr. Beebe in his revised Septic Receiving Log for the month of January 2005. At the hearing, the Department contended that because Mr. Beebe reported collecting between 21,000 and 22,600 gallons of waste, but could only verify the proper disposal of 15,358 gallons of waste, Mr. Beebe must have improperly disposed of at least 5,600 gallons and as much as 7,200 gallons of waste. In a similar fashion, the Department examined the amounts that Mr. Beebe reported pumping from Mr. Ehlen's holding tank, compared those amounts to the Ehlen household's water usage for the month of January 2005, and concluded that Mr. Beebe further underreported the amount of waste collected that month and, therefore, must have improperly disposed of even more than 5,600 to 7,200 gallons of waste. Mr. Beebe was forthright regarding the issues in these cases, even when his testimony was against his own interests. In light of his overall credibility, Mr. Beebe's denial that he made any improper disposals of waste is credited. No evidence was presented to show that Mr. Beebe actually made these improper disposals. The Department's contention was a surmise derived from discrepancies in Mr. Beebe's reports of collections and disposals. Based on all the evidence, the undersigned finds that the discrepancies in the reports were more likely due to Mr. Beebe's poor record-keeping and his after-the-fact efforts to create records complying with Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.010(7)(e), rather than any illegal dumping of waste. The Department failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Beebe improperly disposed of septage during the month of January 2005.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, the Department of Health, enter a final order imposing a $1000.00 fine for the violations described above, relating to DOAH Case No. 04-4333, and imposing a fine of $1,500.00 and a 90-day suspension of Respondent's septage disposal operating permit for the violations described above, relating to DOAH Case No. 05-0695. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 7th day of July, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael F. Kayusa, Esquire Post Office Box 6096 Fort Myers, Florida 33911 Susan Mastin Scott, Esquire Department of Health 2295 Victoria Avenue, Room 206 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 R.S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Timothy M. Cerio, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Respondent is registered with Petitioner for performing septic tank contracting services. In early 1991, Mr. Dennis Scott purchased a single family residence at 19169 Acorn Road in Ft. Myers. He purchased it as a rental property. About a year later, he began having problems with the septic tank system. He had the tank pumped out, but the problem returned a short time later. Mr. Scott told his maintenance man to contract with someone to fix the septic tank system. The maintenance man contacted Respondent. They agreed that Respondent would repair the system for $925. The record is silent as to specifically what the maintenance man told Respondent or what he told the maintenance man. In any event, Respondent and Mr. Scott did not converse. Respondent enlarged the existing drainfield, although the record does not indicate that he did so because he was asked to do so by the maintenance man or because Respondent thought that this repair would fix the problem. On May 28, 1992, Respondent and a team of employees appeared at the Acorn Road address to repair the septic tank system. Respondent left the site shortly after the men began work. Mr. Scott had nothing to do with the hiring of Respondent or even with paying him. Because Mr. Scott was unavailable, a friend wrote Respondent a check when the job was finished, and Mr. Scott later repaid the friend. On August 25, 1992, the system backed up again. Mr. Scott was not alarmed because of recent heavy rains. When the system backed up again a month later, Mr. Scott called Respondent, but could not get a call returned at first. Eventually, someone at Respondent's business said that he would come out and take a look at the system. In early December, 1992, the system backed up again and no one had come out to look at it from Respondent's business. At the request of Mr. Scott, another contractor visited the site and, on December 14, 1992, dug up the drainfield. The original drainfield had been installed improperly so as to run slightly uphill. This caused the system to operate inefficiently, although hydraulic pressure was evidently strong enough to draw the sewage through the drainfield. The record is unclear whether the extension installed by Respondent also ran uphill or whether Respondent improperly designed the extension. Mr. Scott and the second contractor testified that the extension ran uphill. However, one of Petitioner's inspectors inspected the drainfield addition before it was covered and certified that it was acceptable, which meant that it did not run uphill. The source of conflicting evidence, inasmuch as it comes from an employee of Petitioner, undermines Petitioner's case. The record is equally deficient to hold Respondent liable for poor design of the Acorn Road drainfield. There is no indication of what Mr. Scott wanted or, more importantly, what the maintenance man told Respondent. In any event, the evidence does not establish that Respondent installed an uphill drainfield. In early 1994, a house was listed for sale at 817 Gleason Parkway in Cape Coral. The listing agent informed the agent who had found a prospective buyer that there might be a problem with the septic tank system. The agent called Respondent's business and asked for a preclosing inspection of the septic tank system. The parties postponed the closing until the inspection could be completed and any necessary funds reserved to fix the system. The drainfield for the septic tank system at 817 Gleason Parkway was elevated due to the relatively high water table in the area. Even so, the system was poorly designed because the drainfield was too low and too small, based upon applicable requirements of law at the time of the original construction of the system and its renovation five years ago. Respondent was familiar with the system. He had reconstructed the system in 1990, although he did not redesign the new system, and had maintained the system since. He was aware that the tank had an automatic alarm that sounded when the fluid level became too high. In fact, Respondent conducted a cursory inspection due to his reliance on the automatic alarm in the tank, the imminent availability of centralized sewer service in the area, and possibly his unwillingness to disappoint a real estate agent by jeopardizing a pending sale. Among other omissions was his failure to probe the drainfield to determine its condition. Had Respondent conducted a competent inspection, he would have found that the stones in the drainfield were greasy, indicative of a failing system. Much of the time sewage water stagnated beside the drainfield mound. If pooled water were not present at the time of his inspection, the tall dollarweed growing on the mound should have alerted him to the prevailing damp conditions. Additionally, Respondent should have noticed lawnmower tracks through the typically soaked areas around the drainfield, as well as the thick grass that was uncut due to the soaked ground under it. Although water may not have been erupting from the drainfield mound at the time of Respondent's inspection, a reasonably close examination of the area would have revealed a small hole where sewage had erupted in the recent past from the mound. Instead, Respondent certified on April 4, 1994, that the "septic tank was in good working order." Respondent had been contacted to inspect the septic tank system, including the drainfield. Respondent was aware of the scope of his assignment, and his certification implied that the entire system was in good working order. Within two weeks after Respondent's certification, the system failed completely. Petitioner ordered the new owner to incur substantial expenses to repair the onsite system until he could tie into centralized sewer services.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order imposing against Respondent a $500 administrative fine and suspending his license for 90 days. ENTERED on March 30, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on March 30, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-2: adopted or adopted in substance. 3: rejected as recitation of evidence and subordinate. 4-5: adopted or adopted in substance. 6-15: rejected as recitation of evidence and subordinate. 16: adopted or adopted in substance. 17-19: adopted or adopted in substance. 20: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-2: adopted or adopted in substance. 3-4: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, recitation of evidence, and subordinate. 5: rejected as irrelevant. 6: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, recitation of evidence, and subordinate. 7-9: rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. 10: rejected as irrelevant. The rule speaks of harm to any "person," not to a customer or other person in privity with the contractor. 11: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 12: adopted or adopted in substance, but Petitioner's indirect responsibility does not excuse Respondent's grossly incompetent inspection of the system. 13-14: adopted or adopted in substance. 15: rejected as unnecessary. 16-17: rejected as subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Mastin Scott, Senior Attorney Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services P.O. Box 60085 Ft. Myers, FL 33906 Thomas B. Hart Humphrey & Knott, P.A. P.O. Box 2449 Ft. Myers, FL 33902-2449 Kim Tucker, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Robert L. Powell Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
