The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner has the actual experience required for certification as a Class B domestic wastewater treatment plant operator.
Findings Of Fact By application filed September 16, 1991, James H. Redden applied for certification as a Class B domestic wastewater treatment plant operator. At the time of the application, Mr. Redden was employed as a laboratory technician at a Class B Collier County regional wastewater treatment facility. From August 15, 1978, to July 31, 1989, Mr. Redden was employed at the Colgate-Palmolive Company facility at Jeffersonville, Indiana. The Colgate-Palmolive treatment facility is an Indiana Class D industrial wastewater treatment plant. Mr. Redden is certified by the State of Indiana as a Class D industrial wastewater treatment plant operator. During his employment at the Jeffersonville facility, Mr. Redden held positions as an associate chemist, senior chemist/plant microbiologist, and wastewater treatment plant supervisor. His duties included daily operations and supervision of personnel, scheduling and performance of maintenance activities, budgeting, ordering, materials balance, sludge management, laboratory analysis, quality assurance and quality control programs, and compliance with various state and federal reporting requirements. Mr. Redden has no experience either in the operation of a drinking water or domestic wastewater treatment plant, or at a DER-permitted industrial wastewater treatment plant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order denying the application of James H. Redden for certification as a Class B wastewater treatment plant operator. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 9th day of April, 1992. APPENDIX The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner: The Petitioner did not file a proposed recommended order. Respondent: The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 2-4. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol Browner, Secretary Dept. of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Dept. of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 James H. Redden 1362 Chesapeake, Avenue Naples, Florida 33962 Francine M. Ffolkes, Esq. Assistant General Counsel 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact The applicant, Island Village Condominiums, prepared and submitted to the Department of Environmental Regulation a completed application for construction of its extended aeration sewage treatment plant. The relative distance and direction from the proposed treatment plant to major bodies of surrounding surface water are depicted in an aerial photograph which accompanied the application. The elevation of the surrounding waters in all directions is 39 feet. When the treatment plant is operated in compliance with its design features, the effluent from the plant will exceed the Department's standards for effluent discharge. The zone of discharge will be confined to the owners' property. Surface waters will not be involved in discharge. There will be no adverse impact upon ground waters. The treatment plant would not create a hazzard to the deep water wells of Point O' Woods Utilities, Inc. The treatment plant, as designed, meets or exceeds the engineering standards established by the Department. The likelihood of geologic subsurface failure is remote. Ground water levels are included on the schematic plan which accompanied the application to the Department. The tops of the holding ponds are above the 100-year flood level. The treatment plant will produce no noticeable odor. No exterior lights are to be used with the plant. The noise from the plant's operation would not travel more than 200 feet. The holding ponds would be more than 120 feet from the nearest surface water. The estimate of the cost is accurate at $98,000. Martin I. Gunn, Inc., is the developer of the property, which is also owned by the corporation, Island Village Condominiums, also known as Island Village of Inverness. The treatment plant will become the property of the home owners association and will be operated by the association from maintenance fees paid by the home owners. Martin I. Gunn/Island Village is not a public utility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the permit for the construction and operation of an extended aeration sewage treatment plant be issued to Island Village Condominiums subject to the general and specific conditions stated in the Department's original notice. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas V. Infantino, Esquire Post Office Drawer. B Winter Park, Florida 32790 Donald F. Perrin, Esquire New Bank of Inverness Building Highway 41, South Post Office Box 1533 Inverness, Florida 32650 William W. Deane, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria J. Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The ultimate issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether the Department should issue a permit allowing the construction of a wastewater treatment and disposal system as requested in the modified application filed by Thomas E. Wasdin. The applicant and the Department contend that reasonable assurances have been given that the proposed facility will not result in violations of any of the Department's rules or regulations. The Petitioner contends that the proposed facility is located too near to existing shallow water drinking wells and that the facility otherwise fails to comport with the Department's rules and regulations.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the president of Beach Woods of Brevard County, Inc. The corporation is the developer of "Beach Woods," a 376-unit planned unit development located in Melbourne Beach, Brevard County, Florida. One hundred eighty of the units have already been developed. Existing regional sewage treatment facilities operated by Brevard County are not adequate to accommodate the total number of units that the applicant proposes to develop. It appears that 24 more hookups are all that the existing facilities will tolerate. Beyond that number, a sewer moratorium is in effect, and unless the applicant can make some other arrangement for disposing of sewage, the development cannot be completed. The county has approved the planned unit development. In order to meet sewage treatment needs of the proposed development, the applicant is proposing to construct a "package sewage treatment plant" to accommodate waste that exceeds quantities that can be handled by existing regional facilities. Once the regional facilities are upgraded so that the development's sewage treatment needs can be accommodated, the applicant proposes to disassemble the package plant and utilize the regional facilities. The proposed plant would be a 50,000 gallons per day contact stabilization sewage treatment plant. Initially, it would be operated as a 5,000 to 15,000 gallons per day aeration plant. Once loads reach 18,000 gallons per day, it would become a contact stabilization plant. The Present collection and transmission system for sewage that exists at Beach Woods includes an 8-Inch collection station from which sewage flows to an existing lift station that pumps effluent via 6-inch pipes to the regional plant. When the proposed plant is completed, a computerized system would be set up to send effluent to the new plants when the limits that the regional plant can accommodate are met. Once the regional plant is upgraded to sufficient capacity, the bypass to the proposed plant would be eliminated, and all units would then be connected to the original collection system. The proposed treatment plant is based upon proven technology that has been in existence for more than 50 years. The plant should operate reliably, and proper consideration has been given to odor, noise, lighting, and aerosol drift. In close proximity to the plant, it is likely that there would occasionally be a "earthy smell" that would be noticeable, but not objectionable. Outside of the immediate proximity, no odor would be noticeable. Large fans would be operated in connection with the plant, and some noise would result. It does not, however, appear that the noise would be excessive or bothersome, even in the immediate vicinity of the plant. The plant would be lighted by street lights and would not result in any more excessive lights than normal street lights. The plant is not of the sort that aerosol drift is a likely problem. Adequate considerations have been given to providing emergency power to the plant in the event of a power outage. The plant could sit for at least 20 hours without power before any emergency would exist. If there was a power outage in excess of that period, emergency power sources are available. Consideration has been given to the 100-year flood plain. The plant has been placed at an elevation that keeps it outside of the 100-year flood plain. The land application system proposed by the applicant would utilize drain fields that would be alternately rested. Groundwater flows from the area of the proposed drain fields are in a southwesterly direction toward the Indian River. The Indian River in the location of the proposed facility is a "Class III surface water." Groundwater in the area of the proposed facility might be classified as either "G-I" or "G-II." Reasonable assurance has been given that the proposed sewage treatment plant would not operate in such a manner as to degrade surface or ground waters to the extent that any of the Department's specific water quality parameters set out in Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code, would be violated. The proposed sewage treatment plant comports with local requirements and has been approved by Brevard County. The Allans Subdivision is a residential development that is located directly to the north of the Beach Woods development. Petitioner utilizes a shallow water well as a source of drinking water. The proposed land application site of the sewage treatment plant is located within 500 feet of the Petitioner's well. There are at least two other shallow water wells that serve as drinking water sources located within 500 feet of the proposed land application site. The applicant indicated a willingness to move the proposed facility so that no part of it would be located within 500 feet of the shallow drinking water wells. The evidence establishes that the plant could be moved to accomplish that. No specific plan, however was presented. Potential factual issues could exist respecting appropriate buffer zones for any relocation of the facility, even a minor relocation. The applicant is proposing to develop areas within 100 feet of the proposed facility. The applicant does not, however, propose to locate any public eating, drinking, or bathing facilities within 100 feet of the proposed plant or land application area. No map was presented during the course of proceedings before the Department of Environmental Regulation that preceded the formal administrative hearing or during the hearing itself to establish present and anticipated land uses within one mile of the boundaries of the proposed facility. The facility of such a size that it could not inhibit any conceivable present or proposed future land uses except within 500 feet of the proposed facility. Evidence was offered at the hearing from which it could be concluded that the Department has, in the past, issued permits for sewage treatment plants located within 500 feet of existing shallow drinking water wells. The testimony was that this has occurred despite a requirement in the Department's rules that there be a 500-foot buffer zone between any such plant and a shallow drinking water supply. No specific evidence was presented as to why the Department has allowed such a breach of its rules or why it should be allowed in this proceeding.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent Laniger Enterprises of America, Inc. (Laniger), is entitled to the renewal of its domestic wastewater facility permit that was denied by Petitioner Department of Environmental Protection (Department).
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the administrative agency of the State of Florida having the power and duty to protect Florida's air and water resources and to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (2005),1 and the rules promulgated in Florida Administrative Code Title 62. Laniger is a Florida corporation that owns and operates the WWTP that is the subject of this case, located at 1662 Northeast Dixie Highway, Jensen Beach, Martin County, Florida. The WWTP is referred to in the Department permit documents as the Beacon 21 WWTP. The WWTP Laniger acquired the WWTP in 1988 in a foreclosure action. At that time, the WWTP was in a "dilapidated" condition and was operating under a consent order with the Department. After acquiring the WWTP, Laniger brought it into compliance with the Department's requirements. Laniger's WWTP is commonly referred to as a "package plant."2 The WWTP's treatment processes are extended aeration, chlorination, and effluent disposal to percolation ponds. The WWTP does not have a direct discharge to surface water. It was permitted to treat 99,000 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater. Its average daily flow during the past year was about 56,000 gallons. The east side of the WWTP site is adjacent to Warner Creek. On the north side of the WWTP site, an earthen berm separates the WWTP's percolation ponds from a drainage ditch that connects to Warner Creek. Warner Creek is a tributary to the St. Lucie River. The St. Lucie River is part of the Indian River Lagoon System. The Indian River Lagoon Act In 1989, the St. Johns River Water Management District and the South Florida Water Management District jointly produced a Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plan for the Indian River Lagoon System ("the lagoon system"). For the purpose of the planning effort, the lagoon system was defined as composed of Mosquito Lagoon, Indian River Lagoon, and Banana River Lagoon. It extends from Ponce de Leon Inlet in Volusia County to Jupiter Inlet in Palm Beach County, a distance of 155 miles. The SWIM Plan identified high levels of nutrients as a major problem affecting water quality in the lagoon system. Domestic wastewater was identified as the major source of the nutrients. The SWIM Plan designated 12 problem areas within the lagoon system and targeted these areas for "research, restoration and conservation projects under the SWIM programs." Department Exhibit 2 at 11-13. Neither Warner Creek nor the area of the St. Lucie River that Warner Creeks flows into is within any of the 12 problem areas identified in the SWIM Plan. With regard to package plants, the SWIM Plan stated: There are numerous, privately operated, "package" domestic WWTPs which discharge indirectly or directly to the lagoon. These facilities are a continual threat to water quality because of intermittent treatment process failure, seepage to the lagoon from effluent containment areas, or overflow to the lagoon during storm events. Additionally, because of the large number of "package" plants and the lack of enforcement staff, these facilities are not inspected or monitored as regularly as they should be. Where possible, such plants should be phased out and replaced with centralized sewage collection and treatment facilities. Department Exhibit 2 at 64. In 1990, the Legislature passed the Indian River Lagoon Act, Chapter 90-262, Laws of Florida. Section 1 of the Act defined the Indian River Lagoon System as including the same water bodies as described in the SWIM Plan, and their tributaries. Section 4 of the Act provided: Before July 1, 1991, the Department of Environmental Regulation shall identify areas served by package sewage treatment plants which are considered a threat to the water quality of the Indian River Lagoon System. In response to this legislative directive, the Department issued a report in July 1991, entitled "Indian River Lagoon System: Water Quality Threats from Package Wastewater Treatment Plants." The 1991 report found 322 package plants operating within the lagoon system and identified 155 plants as threats to water quality. The 1991 report described the criteria the Department used to determine which package plants were threats: Facilities that have direct discharges to the system were considered threats. Facilities with percolation ponds, absorption fields, or other sub-surface disposal; systems located within 100 feet of the shoreline or within 100 feet of any canal or drainage ditch that discharges or may discharge to the lagoon system during wet periods were considered threats. * * * Facilities with percolation ponds, absorption fields, or other sub-surface disposal systems located more than 100 feet from surface water bodies in the system were evaluated case-by-case based on [operating history, inspection reports, level of treatment, and facility reliability]. Laniger's package plant was listed in the 1991 report as a threat to the water quality of the lagoon system because it was within 100 feet of Warner Creek and the drainage ditch that connects to Warner Creek. Laniger's WWTP was not determined to be a threat based on its wastewater treatment performance. There was no evidence presented that Laniger's WWTP had ever had intermittent treatment process failure, seepage to the lagoon system from effluent containment areas, or overflow during storm events. Those were the concerns related to package plants that were described in the SWIM Plan and the Department's 1991 report. Laniger's WWTP was not determined to be a threat based on evidence that it was causing or contributing to excess nutrients in Warner Creek or in that part of the St. Lucie River nearest to Laniger's WWTP. No evidence was presented that there are excess nutrients in Warner Creek or in that part of the St. Lucie River nearest to Laniger's WWTP. The Department's 1991 report concluded that the solution for package plants threats was to eliminate the package plants and connect their wastewater flow to centralized sewage collection and treatment facilities. To date, over 90 of the 155 package plants identified in the Department's 1991 report as threats to the water quality of the lagoon system have been connected to centralized sewage collection and treatment systems. The 1999 Permit and Administrative Order On August 26, 1999, the Department issued Domestic Wastewater Facility Permit No. FLA013879 to Laniger for the operation of its WWTP. Attached to and incorporated into Laniger's 1999 permit was Administrative Order No. AO 99-008- DW43SED. The administrative order indicates it was issued pursuant to Section 403.088(2)(f), Florida Statutes. That statute pertains to discharges that "will not meet permit conditions or applicable statutes and rules" and requires that the permit for such a discharge be accompanied by an order establishing a schedule for achieving compliance. The administrative order contains a finding that the Beacon 21 WWTP is a threat to the water quality of the lagoon system and that the WWTP "has not provided reasonable assurance . . . that operation of the facility will not cause pollution in contravention of chapter 403, F.S., and Chapter 62-610.850 of the Florida Administrative Code." The cited rule provides that "land application projects shall not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards in surface waters." The administrative order required Laniger to connect its WWTP to a centralized wastewater collection and treatment [facility] "within 150 days of its availability . . . or provide reasonable assurance in accordance with Chapter 620.320(1) of the Florida Administrative Code that continued operation of the wastewater facility is not a threat to the water quality of the Indian River Lagoon System." As a result of an unrelated enforcement action taken by the Department against Martin County, and in lieu of a monetary penalty, Martin County agreed to extend a force main from its centralized sewage collection and treatment facility so that the Laniger WWTP could be connected. The extension of the force main was completed in April 2003. On April 10, 2003, the Department notified Laniger by letter that a centralized wastewater collection and treatment system "is now available for the connection of Beacon 21." In the notification letter, the Department reminded Laniger of the requirement of the administrative order to connect within 150 days of availability. On May 9, 2003, Laniger's attorney responded, stating that the administrative order allowed Laniger, as an alternative to connecting to the centralized wastewater collection and treatment system, to provide reasonable assurance that the WWTP was not a threat to the water quality of the lagoon system, and Laniger had provided such reasonable assurance. Laniger's attorney also stated, "due to the location of Martin County's wastewater facilities, such facilities are not available as that term is defined in the [administrative] order." On September 29, 2003, the Department issued a warning letter to Laniger for failure to connect to the Martin County force main and for not providing reasonable assurance that the WWTP will not cause pollution in contravention of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The Department took no further formal action until it issued the NOV in August 2005. Laniger's challenge of the NOV was consolidated with this permit case. The Permit Renewal Application In an "enforcement meeting" between Laniger and the Department prior to the expiration of 1999 permit, the Department told Laniger that it would not renew Laniger's WWTP permit. Later, when Laniger filed its permit renewal application, the Department offered to send the application back so Laniger would not "waste" the filing fee, because the Department knew it was not going to approve the application. Laniger submitted its permit renewal application to the Department on February 15, 2005. The Department considered Laniger's permit application to be complete, but proceeded to prepare the Notice of Denial without any technical review of the application. The Department denied the application on April 6, 2005. The Department's Notice of Permit Denial stated that the permit was denied because Laniger had not connected to the available centralized wastewater collection and treatment system nor provided reasonable assurance that the WWTP "is not impacting water quality within the Indian River Lagoon System." The record evidence showed that the "reasonable assurance" that would have been necessary to satisfy the Department was more than the reasonable assurance the Department usually requires for package plants, and more than the Department would have required if Laniger's WWTP was 100 feet from Warner Creek. Competent substantial evidence was presented that Laniger's WWTP is capable of being operated in accordance with the statutes and rules of Department generally applicable to package wastewater treatment plants. Laniger's 1999 permit expired on August 25, 2004. Laniger has operated the plant continuously since the permit expired. Whether the Martin County Facility is Available As discussed below in the Conclusions of Law, it is concluded that the Department did not have authority to require Laniger to connect the WWTP to the Martin County force main or to require assurance beyond the reasonable assurance generally required for package treatment plants in order to obtain a permit. However, because considerable evidence and argument was directed to whether the force main was available, that issue will be addressed here. The Martin County force main was not extended to the boundary of the Laniger WWTP site. The force main terminates approximately 150 feet north of the Laniger WWTP site and is separated from the WWTP site by a railroad and railroad right-of-way. Laniger presented undisputed evidence that the cost to connect to the Martin County force main would be approximately $490,000 and that cost was prohibitively high, given the relatively small number of households served by the WWTP. The Laniger WWTP is subject to rate regulation by the Public Service Commission (PSC). Laniger presented evidence suggesting that connection to the Martin County force main would result in rates that would not be approved by the PSC. The evidence was speculative and not competent to support a finding regarding PSC action. The evidence does show, however, that PSC rate regulation was not a factor that the Department considered when it determined that the Martin County force main was available. There is no Department rule that defines when a centralized sewage collection and treatment facility is "available." The determination that the Martin County force main was available to Laniger was made informally by members of the Department's compliance staff in the Department's St. Lucie office. Mr. Thiel testified that he considered the force main to be available because it was "in close proximity" to Laniger's WWTP. However, Mr. Thiel admitted that there is a difference of opinion within DEP as to when a facility is available and reasonable persons could disagree about whether a facility was available. Mr. Thiel thought that the cost to connect is a factor to be considered in determining whether a facility is available, but another Department employee did not think cost should be considered. There was no evidence that the Department took into account Laniger's cost to connect in determining that the Martin County force main was available. The Department simply assumed that the Martin County force main was close enough to the Laniger WWTP site that the cost to Laniger would not be prohibitive. In addition, the Department was aware of other package plants that had connected to centralized sewage collection and treatment facilities that were the same distance or a greater from the package plant, and the Department did not hear from the owners of the package plants that the costs were prohibitive. Timothy Powell of the Department stated that force mains are usually made available by extending the force main so that it is "abutting the property as much as possible." He also stated that he assumed that Martin County would extend its force main under the railroad and to the boundary of the Laniger WWTP site after Laniger agreed to connect. However, there was no evidence to show that this is Martin County's intent, and the Department did not tell Laniger that Laniger did not have to connect to the force main unless Martin County brought the line to the boundary of the WWTP site. If the Department had authority to require Laniger to connect to the Martin County force main when it became available, and in the absence of any rule criteria to determine when a centralized sewage collection and treatment facility is available, the determination would have to be based on reasonableness. Reasonableness in this context must take into account the cost of the connection. Cost is the inherent reason that Laniger was not required to connect to the Martin County centralized sewage collection and treatment facility without regard to whether the facility was available. Laniger showed that the cost of connecting to the force main is unreasonably high due to the need to construct a line beneath the railroad. Therefore, Laniger proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Martin County force main is not available.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order granting Laniger Enterprises of America, Inc., a renewal of its wastewater treatment plant operating permit. The permit should contain the same conditions as were contained in the 1999 permit, with the exception of those conditions derived from Administrative Order No. AO 99-008- DW43SED. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 2006.
The Issue Whether, under the facts and circumstances of this case, Respondent's license to practice engineering in the State of Florida, should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, L. Thomas Hubbard d/b/a The Hubbard Association, was licensed to practice professional engineering in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 006634 on August 17, 1962. Certificate of authorization number EB0003297 was issued to the firm, The Hubbard Association, Inc., on September 25, 1981. In March 1986, Respondent prepared a set of plans for the proposed City of Macclenny Wastewater Treatment Works Improvement Program, Sewage Treatment Facility ("Macclenny project"), and one volume of "Contract Documents and Specifications" ("specifications"), which were submitted to the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Bureau of Wastewater Management and Grants (Bureau) on or about April 24, 1986. All wastewater treatment plans designs must go to the DER for approval prior to construction, and if a public entity wants grant funding for its wastewater treatment facility, the project must be reviewed and approved by the Bureau (now called Bureau of Local Government and Waste Water Financial Assistance) which administers State grant programs for wastewater treatment facilities. The Bureau reviews grant project plans and specifications to ensure that they: (a) comply with administrative requirements of the grants programs; (b) comply with minimum Federal and/or State technical standards for wastewater facilities; (c) are suitable for bidding; and (d) present a constructible project. The plans for the Macclenny project depict an existing treatment facility, a new clarifier to improve the removal of solids (an expansion of about 130,000 gallons per day in treatment capacity), and a new effluent pumping station to pump to an overland flow field (field) through a force main pipeline to spray risers. The risers would spray the water laterally across the field. Water would collect in a central collection ditch, and run through a final chlorine contact chamber prior to discharge in Turkey Creek. A new agricultural building for equipment storage, and a new holding pond, which is an off-line pond for storage of inadequately treated water, are also depicted. The field in the Macclenny project is roughly 24 acres and is located in a large area between the chlorine contact chamber and the holding pond. The field in this system has 5 cells. A cell is an area of land that can be independently controlled to allow loading/resting cycles in the treatment process. Each cell in a given field should be as near equal in size as possible to provide for equal treatment of the wastewater during the loading/resting cycles. Loading/resting cycles allows a cell within the field to "rest" (no effluent being pumped on to that cell) so maintenance mowing or harvesting can be accomplished and to "load" the other cells to revitalize the bacteria that renews the treatment process. "Load" means to apply the effluent or treated wastewater from the existing facility to the field. Generally, forty percent of the field would be loaded with wastewater at any one time. On December 9, 1985, the Bureau had a predesign conference with Respondent in Macclenny to discuss design items. No plans or specifications for the Macclenny project had been submitted at that time, nor were they submitted at this conference. On February 18, 1986, an in-progress design review was held at Macclenny, with the Bureau staff available to answer Respondent's questions. On March 5, 1986, another in-progress design review meeting was held in Macclenny, with the Bureau staff present, at which time the plans were "fifty percent" (50%) complete. The unsigned and unsealed plans were given to the Bureau for a preliminary review. On March 25, 1986, the Bureau issued a few preliminary comments on the 50% completed plans and specifications. The purpose of the 50% complete review is to help the design engineer complete his plans and specifications. On March 31, 1986, Respondent transmitted to the Bureau a set of plans for the proposed Macclenny project. Respondent's transmittal letter, which the Bureau received with the plans on April 11, 1986, stated that "completed plans" were being transmitted. On April 21, 1986, Respondent transmitted to the bureau an additional set of the same plans for the Macclenny project, which Respondent again referred to as "completed plans" on his transmittal letter form which were received by Bureau on April 24, 1986. This transmittal also included specifications, a design data check list, design calculations, cost estimate, and plan of operation. The plans in this submittal are referred to as "the plans." It was Respondent's understanding that signing and sealing a set of engineering drawings signified a legal obligation that if someone takes the plans and builds a project it will work. Respondent's signature and seal are on the first sheet of the set of plans which was in the April 1986 submittal but not on the specifications. The plans were prepared, signed, sealed and submitted to the Bureau for review by Respondent. Respondent did not place any conditional language or qualification on the plans or write a letter advising the Bureau that the plans were not complete. It was Respondent's understanding that the Bureau would not review a set of plans unless they were signed and sealed, notwithstanding the completeness of the plans. Respondent did not consider the plans as completed, notwithstanding that he had signed, sealed and submitted them to Petitioner as "completed". It was Respondent's understanding that the plans were being submitted for review only, not complete for construction. An engineer may get answers from the Bureau without submitting plans that are signed and sealed as completed, such as the predesign conference or 50% review that occurred in this case. The Bureau considers plans that are signed, sealed and submitted as "completed" for review to be 100% complete and ready to bid. The Bureau considered the plans and specifications which Respondent submitted on April 24, 1986 as being final, complete plans and specifications for final review by the Bureau. The Bureau reviewed the plans assuming them to be complete and followed normal procedures for reviewing a complete set of plans and specifications. On June 19, 1989, the Bureau issued 52 written comments based on its review of the plans and specifications it had received in the April 24, 1986 submittal from Respondent. The plans and specifications were submitted to the Department of General Services (DGS) by the Bureau for a review and opinion because the Bureau was concerned about the structural design. DGS responded to this request through Jim Berkstresser, P.E. on June 25, 1986. By cover letter dated July 18, 1989, Respondent filed written responses to the Bureau's 52 comments. The Bureau did not approve Respondent's plans and specifications for the Macclenny project submitted on April 24, 1986. On September 5, 1986, Respondent resubmitted plans in response to the Bureau's 52 comments. These plans had the same configuration as the April submittal regarding the overland flow treatment. On September 29, 1986, Respondent met with David Wolfe to discuss the field configuration for the proposed overland flow system and other outstanding issues related to the revised contract documents. The principal concerns were non- uniform flow and significant erosion potential. Respondent's plans did not follow accepted design criteria. At this meeting field configurations were discussed, as well as guidelines to be followed in design of the overland flow field, and a general field layout were developed. Respondent submitted another set of plans which the Bureau received on October 30, 1986, and that set was approved and stamped accepted by DER-BWMG on December 22, 1986. All sheets in the approved set are dated August 20, 1986, with the exception of the cover sheet on which Respondent failed to date his seal and signature, and sheets G-6 and G-7 which are dated October 24, 1986. Respondent signed and sealed the cover sheet and sheet G-7 of the approved set of plans, but did not seal any other sheets in the approved set of plans. A signature and seal on a set of plans indicates that the plans were prepared by, or under the direct supervision of the person signing and sealing them, and that the plans are complete and depict a project that will perform its intended function. A signature and seal on a set of plans means the engineer assures that the design is his design and that the plans and specifications are ready to be bid for construction. The design should contain criteria and information significant to ensure the project will work. Sheet flow is the primary treatment mode in an overland flow system. Sheet flow is where a thin layer of water is induced to flow in a very controlled atmosphere across a length of land that is functioning very similarly to a trickling filter. The acceptable range of slope of an overland flow system is 2% to 8% with the best results obtained in the lower range because of a longer "residence time". "Residence time" is the amount time the wastewater is on the field for treatment. The slopes must be even and uniform to maintain a constant velocity so as to minimize the potential for erosion and to maintain a constant depth of water throughout the filed so as to maximize the treatment. Cross slopes should be minimized and topographic lines should be as close to parallel as possible on the field. The plans for the Macclenny project shows: (a) slopes ranging from less than 2% up to 6%; (b) multiple compound slopes across the field and; (c) topographic lines that are not parallel. The specifications for the field do not set out the acceptable tolerances on the slopes or the acceptable level of compaction of the field for the contractor who is to construct the field and; therefore, lacks control over the final product. Contours in an overland flow field are important, and while it is desirable for them to be on 1-foot intervals, contours at intervals of 2 feet are acceptable provided the plans and specifications address what happens between the contours. Respondent's plans and specifications show contours at intervals of 2 feet but do not address what happens between the contours. The plans of the facilities that were approved prior to the submittal of any plans by Respondent called for a 2- 3 week loading/resting cycle. The standard practice is to have all cells within an overland flow field to be of equal size so that the area to be loaded at any given period of time is the same size. The cells in the overland flow field in the Macclenny project as depicted by the plans are not of equal size, and if operated on a 2-3 week loading/resting cycle would not provide a consistent amount of treatment and thereby result in varying levels of treatment of the effluent. It is standard practice to provide performance specifications for seeding the field with the primary grass cover and for overseeding when necessary to prevent wind and water erosion. There were no performance specifications in the plans and specifications on the Macclenny project submitted by the Respondent. Agricultural equipment is an integral part of the overland flow field system and has a direct bearing on whether the system will function over the long run. Specifications for agricultural equipment are necessary to determine if the system will work properly. There were no specifications for agricultural equipment submitted by the Respondent in the plans. It is standard practice to furnish spray nozzle specifications, such as nozzle size, degree of fanning, characteristics under varying pressures and how much water will be discharged by the nozzle, in a set of plans and specifications for an overland flow field. Respondent's specifications for the Macclenny project did not contain the necessary specifications for the spray nozzles. Compacting is a standard practice, and it is standard practice to show compaction requirements on plans or specifications. The usual practice is to investigate the soil and specify compaction, usually based on a foundation report by a geo-technical engineer, showing the safe beading capacity of the soil in what condition, with recommendations for compaction. The Respondent's specifications do not call for compaction of the soil under the clarifier slab. However, the Respondent's specifications do call for compaction in the holding pond and situations where an area is over-excavated and backfilled. Should the area under the clarifier slab be over- excavated and backfilled, then compaction is covered in the specifications but compaction would not be covered unless this occurs. Therefore, since the weight of the slab is carried by the soil beneath it, specifications for compaction should have been included in Respondent's specifications for any situation. Changes in temperature causes concrete to expand or contract which may result in cracking. Placement of a concrete slab may result in the slab bending which may result in cracking. Therefore, reinforcing a concrete slab is required to maintain the slab's integrity. The thickness of a concrete slab will determine the distribution of the reinforcing so that cracking is minimized. The clarifier slab in the Macclenny project is depicted as being 12 inches thick and shows number 6 bar reinforcing on 6 inch centers in the top of the slab but no reinforcing in the bottom of the slab. Failure to require reinforcing in the bottom of the slab could result in the slab cracking due to significant changes in temperature and soft spots in the soil beneath the slab. Failure to place reinforcing in the bottom as well as in the top of the slab is not in accordance with standards of the code of the American Concrete Institute (ACI), revised in 1983, and is a structural weakness. The chlorine contact chamber as detailed on sheets 5-6 and 5-7 is like a rectangular concrete box beneath the earth where the earth is within a few inches of the top of the walls. The walls are vertically reinforced with number 4 bars on 12 inch centers placed in the center of the 8 inch thick wall. When the tank is empty the reinforcing bars will be approximately 160 per cent overstressed from the active pressure of the earth. Additional reinforcing is needed in the walls to meet ACI standards. There are deficiencies in the vertical wall reinforcing of the chlorine contact chamber as detailed on sheets 5-6 and 5-7 of the Plans. On sheets 5-3, 5-4 and 5-7 of the plans, reinforcement through the construction joints is incorrectly detailed to assure that cracking of the concrete will not occur. Construction joints occur between different pours of concrete, such as where the walls meet the top of the bottom slab. The concrete bottom of the holding pond as detailed in sheet 5-8 of the Plans is large enough to require expansion joints to prevent cracking as the slab expands and contracts due to changes in the weather, yet no expansion joints are shown for the slab as detailed on sheet 5-8 of the plans. Neither the collection ditches nor the spray riser bases as detailed on the plans show any reinforcing to maintain the integrity of the concrete. While this is not a major structural weakness, it indicates a failure to comply with standard structural engineering practices. Although the plans call for relocation of an existing drainage ditch, the Respondent failed to consult DER regarding the permitting of such drainage ditch. A detention time of 30 minutes is required to properly disinfect wastewater and is-basic knowledge for all civil engineers, yet the plans called for only a fifteen minute detention time. It is standard engineering practice to provide flood level elevations on the site plans. Respondent failed to provide flood level elevations for the Macclenny facility site plans. The plans failed to: (a) provide elevations for high water alarm and pump off settings; (b) provide specifications for flume liner on sheet M-4; (c) show how to close an existing outlet on the chlorine contact chamber; (d) show where an effluent pump station was to be located; (e) show pressure relief valve locations and; (f) indicate quantities for purpose of contract bidding. The specifications list equipment and work items, such as pumping equipment, grit storage tank, case-out assembly, telescoping valve, air diffusers, portable pump, hose and couplings, that are inapplicable to the Macclenny project. There are inconsistencies in the plans and specifications, such as: (a) the plans showing one clarifier while the specifications call for two clarifiers, (b) the plans showing a 150 pound chlorine cylinder as opposed to a 1-ton chlorine cylinder in the specifications and; (c) the plans showing the clarifier with a 38-foot diameter while the specifications calls for a clarifier with a 40-foot diameter. Respondent was negligent in submitting incomplete plans to the Bureau as "completed plans" and in failing to utilize due care and failing to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles, with regard to the content of those plans which he submitted as "completed plans".
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the circumstances surrounding this case, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent, L. Thomas Hubbard guilty of violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and for such violation impose an administrative fine of $1,000.00 and suspend from the practice of engineering for a period of thirty (30) days, stay the suspension and place the Respondent on probation for a period of one year under terms and conditions the Board deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearing this 20th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0096 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Petitioner in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Findings of Fact 1. Rejected as not being necessary to the conclusions reached in this Recommended Order. 3.-12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, respectively, but modified. 13. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 14.-19. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17, respectively, but modified. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or subordinate or unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17 and 18 but modified. 22.-33. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 27, respectively, but modified. 34. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17 and 18, but modified. 35-37. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 38. Adopted in Findings of Fact 28 and 29, but modified. 39.-40. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate, but see Findings of Fact 37 and 38. 41.-5O. Adopted in Findings of Fact 28, 32, 29 (28-31), 29, 29, 32, 30, 32 and 32, respectively, but modified. 51. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 52.-53. Adopted in Findings of Fact (28-33) and 32, respectively, but modified. 54.-55. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. Adapted in Finding of Fact 55. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 58.-62. Adopted generally in Findings of Fact 28-33. 63.-66. Adopted generally in Findings of Fact 34-36. 67.-72. Adopted generally in Finding of Fact 37. 73.-74. Adopted generally in Finding of Fact 38. 75.-76. Adopted generally in Finding of Fact 39. 77.-79. Adopted generally or covered in Findings of Fact 13-15 and 28-39. 80.-82 Adopted generally or covered in Findings of Fact 40- 41. 83.-90. Adopted generally or covered in Findings of Fact 42 and 43. 91.-96. Adopted generally or covered in Findings of Fact 44 and 45. 97.-104. Adopted generally or covered in Finding of Fact 46. 105.-107. Adopted generally or covered in Finding of Fact 47. 108.-109. Adopted in Finding of Fact 48. 110.-115. Adopted generally or covered in Finding of Fact 55. 116.-117. Adopted in Finding of Fact 49 and 50. 18. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 119. Adopted in Finding of Fact 51. 120.-124. Adopted in Finding of Fact 52. 125. Rejected as immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 126.-127. Adopted in Finding of Fact 52. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Adopted in Finding of Fact 54. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Adopted in Finding of Fact 55. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Findings of Fact 13-15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19 except last sentence that is rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant. Rejected as being a restatement of Administrative Complaint and not a Finding of Fact but see Findings of Fact 15 and 19. Rejected as being a restatement of John Sowerby's testimony and not a Finding of Fact, but see Findings of Fact 15, 17 and 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. 6. Restatement of David Wolfe's testimony COPIES FURNISHED: Rex Smith Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Wings S. Benton, Esquire 1020 D. Lafayette Street, Suite 205 Post Office Box 5676 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-5676 L. Thomas Hubbard, pro se THA Building 3110 Spring Glen Road Jacksonville, Florida 32207
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to an operating permit for an existing domestic wastewater treatment facility operating in Naples.
Findings Of Fact On May 10, 1991, Respondent issued Petitioner a five- year permit to operate a 0.3 million gallon per day (GPD) domestic wastewater treatment plant known as the Rookery Bay facility in Naples. This permit, which is number DO11-187204, allowed Petitioner to operate an extended aeration plant, using chlorine for basic disinfection and disposing of the reclaimed water in two percolation ponds. The 1991 permit required Petitioner to allow Respondent access to the facility for inspections at reasonable times, notify Respondent of any violations of any permit conditions, maintain total chlorine residual of at least 0.5 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of effluent sample after at least 15 minutes’ contact time at maximum daily flow, maintain annual average effluent quality values for carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) and total suspended solids (TSS) of not more than 20 mg/L of effluent sample with maximum effluent quality concentrations of 60 mg/L in any single effluent sample, maintain a monthly average effluent quality value for fecal coliform of not more than 200 per 100 ml of effluent sample with a maximum effluent quality value of 800 per 100 ml in any single effluent sample, notify Respondent of any discharge from the percolation pond overflows, and monitor influent loading to the facility and apply for a permit modification if the monthly average influent flows approach or exceed the design capacity of 0.3 MGD or if the facility violates treatment standards. Respondent also issued Petitioner a five-year permit to operate a 0.15 GPD domestic wastewater treatment plant at the Rookery Bay facility. This permit, which is number DO11-167093, allowed Petitioner to operate a contact stabilization process plant. On December 29, 1995, Petitioner submitted a renewal application for permit number DO11-167093. Although the permit number references the smaller tank, the renewal application requests a permitted capacity of 0.3 MGD. By Notice of Permit Denial dated February 9, 1996, Respondent denied the permit application on the ground that Petitioner could not provide reasonable assurance that it would operate the facility in compliance with state standards based on a “continued and long standing pattern of noncompliance and violation of . . . rules and standards.” Petitioner’s operation of the Rookery Bay treatment plant has been poor. Respondent has brought an enforcement action against Petitioner, which signed a consent final judgment in January 1994. The consent final judgment required Respondent to pay $4500 in civil penalties. As it applied to the Rookery Bay facility, the consent final order required Petitioner to evaluate the facility to discover the causes of past violations and modify the facility to eliminate these violations. But Petitioner has not complied with material provisions of the consent final judgment. Petitioner’s operator has been held in contempt of court several times for violations at Rookery Bay and a nearby smaller treatment facility known as Port au Prince. Petitioner has several times refused Respondent’s representatives reasonable access to the Rookery Bay facility. At least twice, Petitioner has failed to advise Respondent of equipment failures that resulted in violations of treatment standards. On January 11, 1995, Petitioner cut off the power for several hours to a lift station pump serving a nearby a condominium complex. Predictably, the sewage backed up and overflowed into the street. Petitioner failed to restore the power timely or remove the overflowed sewage. On several occasions, raw or inadequately treated sewage has leaked from the tanks at the Rookery Bay facility. Petitioner has failed to eliminate this problem over the course of its five-year operating permit. On numerous occasions, Respondent’s representatives have detected violations of effluent quality. These violations have arisen inadequate detention time in the chlorine contact chamber. Consequently, the TSS and CBOD levels have repeatedly exceeded permitted standards. The parties dispute the adequacy of the capacity of the Rookery Bay facility. There is considerable evidence, including one statement in the application, that suggests that the facility’s capacity is seriously inadequate. Either the capacity of the Rookery Bay is, and has been, inadequate--in which case at least some of the violations are attributable to overcapacity operation--or, if the facility has had adequate capacity, the operational competence of Petitioner is below the minimum level necessary to provide reasonable assurance of proper operations at this facility in the future. Most likely, the Rookery Bay facility lacks adequate capacity, at least part of the year, and Petitioner lacks the minimum requisite competence to operate the facility in a responsible manner. The strongest evidence in the record suggests that the Rookery Bay facility serves, during peak season, 1500 mobile home connections and 400 apartment connections. These connections generate about 377,500 GPD of raw sewage. A slightly lower value is probable after consideration of the likely presence of recreational vehicles among the mobile home count. But this reduction, even without adjustment for dry-season infiltration and inflow, would not yield sufficient savings in raw sewage as to provide reasonable assurance that the Rookery Bay facility has adequate capacity to serve the present demand or adequate capacity to serve the demand projected over the five-year term of the permit that Petitioner seeks. Even if one were to credit Petitioner’s volume-to- capacity calculations, the results fail to constitute reasonable assurance of violation-free operation of the Rookery Bay facility. Petitioner's calculations leave little if any margin for error at present demand levels, and, given Petitioner’s singularly poor operating history at this facility, these calculations provide poor assurance of compliant operation of this troubled facility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying Petitioner’s renewal application for a domestic wastewater treatment operating permit for the Rookery Bay facility. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 9th day of May, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 9th day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Sanford M. Martin 2500 Airport Road, Suite 315 Naples, Florida 34112-4882 Thomas I. Mayton, Jr. Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Perry Odom General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue addressed in this proceeding is whether Respondent should be fined for violating provisions of Chapters 381, 386 and 489, Florida Statutes, governing septic tank installation and licensure.
Findings Of Fact On August 3, 1989, and again in March, 1992, Respondent was hired by Janet Thompson to perform septic tank work on her septic tank system located at her home at 3168 Pins Lane, Gulf Breeze, Santa Rosa County, Florida. Her system was backing up into her house. Ms. Thompson contacted Mr. Burkett through his advertisement for Working Man Septic Tank in the Southern Bell Yellow Pages. Mr. Burkett recommended that a new drainline or finger be added to her septic system. Mr. Burkett did put in a new finger. However, the new finger was incorrectly installed, in that the drainline exceeded the maximum allowable width and did not have the minimum depth of aggregate in violation of the Rules of the Department regarding the installation of drainlines for septic tank systems. Mr. Burkett's work seemed to solve Ms. Thompson's backup problem. However, a few months later her septic tank system began backing up again. Ms. Thompson again called Mr. Burkett to come and fix the problem. Mr. Burkett recommended another drainline in an "L" shaped configuration. Mr. Burkett installed the new finger. However, he again installed the line incorrectly and violated the Department's Rules, in that the drainline exceeded the maximum allowable width and did not have the minimum depth of aggregate. Ms. Thompson's septic tank problem was corrected for a few months and then began backing up once more. Ms. Thompson called another contractor who finally solved the problem by properly installing an extensive drainline system by building the low area of the drainfield and utilizing three truckloads of aggregate. In May, 1990, William Davenport hired Respondent to do some preventive installation of a new drainfield to the septic tank system located at his home at 6220 East Bay Boulevard, Gulf Breeze, Santa Rosa County, Florida. Mr. Burkett only performed part of the work for which he was hired. The work Respondent did perform was incorrect and violated the Department's Rules regarding the installation of drainfields and lines for septic tank systems. Specifically, the work performed by Respondent was incorrect in that the drainfield exceeded the maximum allowable width, no barrier of building paper or other suitable material was installed to protect the infiltration bed and the aggregate did not meet the minimum depth required. Rules 10D-6.056(4)(a), (d) and (e), Florida Administrative Code. Finally, throughout the time period of the repair work on the Thompson and Davenport properties Respondent was not registered or licensed by the Department to perform such services and was advertising to provide such services under the name "Working Man Septic Tank Co." in the Southern Bell Yellow Pages. Both the lack of a registration and the advertisement of an unlicensed business violate the Rules of the Department. Rule 10D-6.075(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED, that the Department impose on Respondent a fine of $2,000.00. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank C. Bozeman, III Asst. District Legal Counsel D H R S 160 Governmental Center Pensacola, FL 32501 Kenneth P. Walsh Attorney at Law P. O. Box 1208 Shalimar, FL 32505 Robert L. Powell, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Kim Tucker General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 DIANNE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 1994.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the Civil/Sanitary Engineer Examination on April 15, 1988. He received a failing grade with an original score of 41 raw points. Since that time, he has been awarded an additional 3 raw points and has a score of 44 raw points. A passing grade is 48 raw points and is, therefore, 4 raw points from passage. Petitioner contests the score given him on three of the problems on the examination. They are problems 120, 122, and 421. He did not have the test booklet he used at the examination available to him at the hearing. Though he recognizes that the grader who assessed his scores was not allowed to look at his test booklet during the scoring process, many of his calculations for problems 120 and 122 were made in it. Problem 120 requires the examinee to compute 6 stations and the coordinates of the 6 points of the two involved curves on a railroad spur line. Petitioner computed the six points to what he considers an acceptable tolerance and had also started to compute the coordinates as required by Requirement (b). His solution page for Requirement (a) of this problem reflects only the six points, of which 5 are marked incorrectly, and bears the grader comment, "show computations." The second page, relating to Requirement (b), on which the first 3 calculations are marked as incorrect, reflects only cursory calculations and bears the grader comment, "Incomplete." Petitioner was awarded a score of "4" for his solution to problem 120. According to the National Council of Engineering Examiners Standard Scoring Plan Outline, the guideline relating to "4", "BORDERLINE UNQUALIFIED", reads: Applicant has failed to demonstrate adequate knowledge in one or more categories. For example, approach may be correct but the solution is unreasonable. Significant constraints may have been overlooked. Solution is unacceptable but marginally so. The scorer's remarks concerning Petitioner's solution state: A solution which fails to demonstrate an adequate understanding of horizontal curve geometry as a result of logic errors, math errors, and failure to complete several parts. According to Petitioner, he used the Civil Engineering Reference Manual in his calculations. He also contends that Requirement (a) is far more important to the problem than is Requirement (b). Once the former is achieved, it is easy to achieve the latter. Admittedly, Petitioner did not complete Requirement (b) and, therefore, does not expect credit for it. However, he contends that having completed Requirement (a) correctly, he should have been awarded more than 40% credit. Petitioner also contends that the use of the term, "Not To Scale" in the test problem was deliberately deceptive which was not necessary to test engineers at this level of achievement. In this case, Petitioner contends the lack of availability of the examination test booklet in which he did many of his calculations hinders him in demonstrating the correctness of his solution. These computations, he contends, would show his computations in Requirement (a) were "close enough" to be graded correctly and without these computations, the scorer would not know if he did them or merely copied the answers. He would not, also, have any way of knowing if Petitioner has knowledge of horizontal curve geometry. Mr. Lippert, a licensed registered engineer testifying on behalf of Petitioner, believed that the answers to the problems to be more important than the computations. In a practical application he may be correct. However, in the instant case Petitioner is a candidate for certification as a Professional Engineer and was being examined on his qualifications for that status. In such a situation, it is not at all unreasonable to expect the candidate to demonstrate his method of arriving at his solution to demonstrate his understanding of the concept sufficiently to indicate his answer was neither copied nor a fluke. Since the candidate is seeking a higher degree of recognition, a requirement that he demonstrate a higher degree of professional skill is not unreasonable. Under the fact situation demonstrated here, the award of a "4" as a grade for Petitioner's solution to this problem is appropriate. In Problem 122, the candidate was required to use and show equations for his calculations of (a), the average maximum and minimum sanitary wastewater flows expected, in gallons per day, for the total complex in issue; (b), the theoretical full flow capacity and velocity with no surcharge; and (c), depth and velocity of flow for the estimated maximum flow rate. The candidate was instructed to conclude, if possible, that the sewer is not overloaded. The problem deals with a troublesome wastewater disposal system for a retirement community of 490 units with a population of 1,475. Here, Petitioner was awarded an a score of "8" and feels he should have received more. As to (a), Petitioner cited in his answer the reference manual he was using, a manual used by many engineers and one accepted in the profession, yet the grader apparently felt that the use of only the title was insufficient. He wanted the author's name, publisher, date of publication, and other salient information. Petitioner felt this was unnecessary in light of the well known status of the book. In (b), the problem calls for 10" UCP pipe. All pipe, depending upon the material from which constructed, has a different diameter. Petitioner's solution was marked at least partially incorrect because he assumed the interior diameter of the pipe as .83' when the problem stated the interior diameter was 10". Petitioner contends that even with that unnecessary calculation based on an incorrect assumption, his solution of 2.295 feet/second velocity was sufficiently close to the grader's solution of 2.35 feet/second to be marked correct. Similarly, Petitioner contends his velocity in (c) was within a "tolerable" margin and that his conclusions is "OK". While the grader considered his method in this section as "OK", he marked the calculation almost entirely wrong. This may be related to the formula used by Petitioner in (b) which, he admits, is wrong. He contends he must have brought the wrong number over from his calculations which he accomplished in his test booklet. This booklet is not now available, but, in any case, would not have been seen by the scorer. Petitioner also claims that the gallons per capita per day figure of 100 is the standard "everyone uses" to calculate problems involving sewage. Here, because he was taking an examination, he used a figure of 112.5 gallons per day, a compromise between 100 and 125, which he took from the reference manual without citing page number from which taken. Consequently, he contends the grader's comment that his figure is too high is in error but even if it was too high, he ran the calculations correctly and should be given full credit. It is his position that in a case like this, error on this high side, which would give greater capacity, is better than being short. Being correct would be even better, and Petitioner's solutions was not correct. In the scoring plan outline for this problem, an "8" is described as: QUALIFIED; All categories satisfied, errors attributable to misread tables or calculating devices. Errors would be corrected by routine checking, Results reasonable though not correct. and a "9" is described as: QUALIFIED: All categories satisfied, correct solutions but excessively conservative in choice of working values; or presentation lacking in completeness of equations, diagrams, orderly steps in solution, etc. The scorer's comments were: CQ. Fundamentals are correct. Solutions are basically correct and complete but contain math, unit, or tolerance errors making answers unacceptable; or the record is different, or in combination. Here, Petitioner contends that his ultimate solution, only .05 feet/second off in velocity is so close that the error is insignificant. It is close but the difference between an "8" and a "9" lies in the correctness of the ultimate solutions. "Close" is not "correct" and Petitioner's errors are not attributable to misread equations or devices but to his own improper assumptions. Because his calculations were done in a test booklet which is not now available it cannot be determined where the error originates which caused (c) to be marked as it was. Under the circumstances shown here, the score of "8" awarded is not inappropriate. Problem 421 calls for the candidate to find the required volume in cubic feet of on site storage so that post development flows on the parcel of land in question do not exceed the pre-development flows to the existing stream for the 25 year frequency rainfall. Petitioner determined the pre and post development numbers correctly but did the retention area in the old fashioned way resulting in his solution equating to 1/2 of the correct solution. The grader indicated that Petitioner's "procedures [sic] [were] in error here." Petitioner has a one page solution to the problem and got credit for his answer of "4.22" to the first stage of the problem as well as his answer to the second part. He admits, however, that his third step was wrong and that threw the problem answer off. He contends, however, that he was undergraded when awarded a "4" and while he admits to not deserving a "6", feels he should have received a "5". Grades for this problem were awarded on a 2-4-6-8-10 point scale. A "5" was not an authorized score. The scoring plan for this problem describes a "4" as: BORDERLINE UNQUALIFIED; Applicant has failed to demonstrate adequate knowledge in one or more categories. For example, approach may be correct but the solution is unreasonable. Significant constraints may have been overlooked. Solution is unacceptable but marginally so. A grade of "6" is described as: MINIMALLY QUALIFIED: All categories satisfied at a minimally adequate level. Here the scorer indicated: Pre and post calculation OK. An attempt at detention calculation made but no significant progress toward conclusion. Fails to demonstrate knowledge necessary to calculate detention as existing. Detention calculations fail to demonstrate knowledge of hydrograph [sic] nature of storage calculations. Only one data point obtained. The comments of the grader on the Petitioner's answer sheet clearly indicate that the answer given was incorrect and that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate adequate knowledge of the procedures in issue. Since there is no provision made to award any grade between "4" and "6", and since Petitioner's answer clearly, and by his own admission, does not qualify for a "6", the awarded score of "4" is appropriate. Based on the above, it is found that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the scores given him on the problems in issue were incorrect, unsupported, or inappropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered affirming the score awarded to Petitioner on questions 120, 122, and 421, respectively, of the Civil/Sanitary Engineer Examination administered to him on April 15, 1988. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of April, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 4th day of April, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard A. Smally Longboat Key, Incorporated 501 Bay Isles Road Longboat Key, Florida 33548 H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Petitioner, Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, (Board), was the Pinellas County agency responsible for the certification and regulation of construction specialties. Respondent was certified by the Board as an irrigation systems specialty contractor under license C-5997 in force at the time. Respondent was the qualifying contractor for Sun City Lawn Irrigation. On or about May 17, 1994, Respondent contracted with William J. Schneider, who resided at 5661 25th Avenue North in St. Petersburg, to install a lawn irrigation system in Mr. Schneider's front lawn. The automatic system was to incorporate 2 zones and was, according to the contract and the testimony of Mr. Schneider, to be connected to Schneider's then existing 1/2 horsepower electric pump which drew water from several wells on his property. Mr. Schneider claims there are four wells. No evidence was introduced to contradict that. On the day the system was installed, Mr. Schneider was not at home. Respondent's employees performed a test of the water capacity on Mr. Schneider's property. At first, the wells produced 10 gpm, which was adequate for the system, but after a few minutes of drawdown, they found that the wells were producing only 4 gpm, along with some air. At that time Mr. Freestone, Respondent's sales manager, spoke with Mrs. Schneider about the situation, advising her there were two options open. One was to install a larger pump and the second was to connect the system to the city water supply. Mrs. Schneider returned to the house, presumably to call Mr. Schneider to get his decision on the matter. He claims she did not reach him. Respondent claims that she thereafter returned with directions to install a water line for connection to the city system. This is completely contrary to what Mr. Schneider had wanted and to what is included in the contract. Mr. Schneider claims he did not want to connect to city water because of the added expense of doing so, and he claims he made this very clear to Respondent's employees at the beginning and at all times thereafter. In any case, the system was installed and was, somehow, connected to the city water system near the place where the water line enters the house. In addition, no backflow preventer was installed to insure against contamination getting into the water system as is required by the building code. Most, if not all, the work on this project was completed by Respondent's son and employee, Scott, who was not present at the hearing. Respondent attempted to introduce an unsworn written statement by Scott Bosworth, but it was not accepted. Scott advised Mr. Schneider, when he returned from work that day, that they had been unable to use his pump and wells. Nonetheless, Mr. Schneider paid Respondent in full for the work for which he had contracted, except for a supplemental charge in the amount of $190.95 for the tie in to the city water and the valves and other items connected therewith. Mr. Schneider claims that he made several calls to Respondent's office in an effort to correct the situation but was unable to reach anyone who could give him satisfaction. However, the evidence indicates that on at least one occasion, Mr. Schneider got through and was called back by Mr. Freestone with whom he discussed the situation and the additional charges. He was subsequently advised by counsel that he did not have to pay the additional sum and did not do so. Some time thereafter, Mr. Schneider was advised by the city that he would be fined because of the illegal installation. He then contacted another irrigation company, run by Mr. Williams, who examined the system and determined that the irrigation system installed by Respondent had been connected to the city water system and that no backflow preventer had been installed. A check with the city's building department revealed that no permit had been procured for this installation. Respondent's license to install irrigation systems does not include authority to connect that system with the public water system. That procedure must be done by a licensed plumber. Respondent and Mr. Freestone, the only individuals in the company who had the authority to arrange with a plumber to make the actual hook up to the city system, both deny that any arrangement was made by them to have the system connected to the city water system. Mr. Schneider arrived home on the day in question to find only Respondent's son, Scott, at work on the project. Scott indicated it would be necessary to move two bushes near the house to facilitate connection of the system with the water supply. Mr. Schneider contracted with Scott to move the bushes and remove them from the premises. Scott moved them but failed to remove them. In light of the fact that Scott was working on the system at the time Mr. Schneider arrived home, and the system was found to be connected to the city system thereafter without anyone else touching it, it must be concluded that the connection was made him. Respondent admits he did not come to the property in question while the system was being installed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued by the Board suspending the license of the Respondent for a period of six months with provision for withholding execution of the suspension for a period of one year conditioned upon such criteria as may be deemed appropriate by the Board. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 31st day of March, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road Largo, Florida 34643-5116 Larry J. Bosworth 8901 14th Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33716
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, is the state agency charged with regulating waste water treatment facilities and any sanitary nuisance which may emanate as a result of such operations pursuant to Chapters 381 and 386, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Larry G. Delucenay d/b/a Madhatter Utilities, Inc., owns and operates the Foxwood Waste Water Treatment Plant which is permitted and certified by the Department of Environmental Regulation. Respondent, in operating the Foxwood system, discharges its treated effluent water by means of two percolation ponds and a drip field located adjacent to the Cypress Cove Subdivision in Pasco County, Florida. Respondent owns and controls percolation ponds which are located adjacent to the Cypress Cove Subdivision and pumps human waste from a sewage treatment plant to percolation ponds in the Cypress Cove Subdivision. Respondent's percolation ponds are located approximately 50 ft. west of several residences and the ponds are accessible to the public. The ponds are elevated from 3 ft. to 5 ft. above the adjacent residential lots in the subdivision. However, there is a sand berm approximately 8 ft. high with a 12 yd. base which serves as a barrier between the percolation ponds and the Cypress Cove residences. On August 5, 1991, environmental health specialist Burke observed liquid flowing through the sand berm. He also observed erosion patterns in the sand on the berm which indicated liquid was flowing through it. Mr. Burke, while in the company of two other employees of Petitioner, observed liquid flowing from the percolation ponds onto Lake Floyd Drive to the south of the ponds. An improperly designed nearby lake exacerbated the flooding into Lake Floyd Drive. Respondent's waste water treatment system is designed according to the manufacturer's specifications. Pasco County allowed a number of developments to be built in the area without an adequate drainage system which adversely impacts Respondent's system to the point whereby untreated drainage outfall is draining into the southeast areas in Cypress Cove. Specifically, Respondent's pond #4 is designed to handle a water level up to 67.33 ft. During the investigation of the case, the water level in that pond was approximately 3 1/2 ft. higher than the designed capacity and was therefore causing overflow into the southeast areas of the development. (Respondent's Exhibits A, B and C.) Noteworthy also was the fact that a developer failed to complete a connection which has impacted Respondent's percolation pond and has forced the water to rise approximately 9 ft. higher than the designed capacity which has resulted in an overflow approximately 3 ft. to 4 ft. into the neighboring subdivision. As a result of the overflow, waste water spills over the percolation ponds and prevents the water from draining through the berms as designed. Petitioner's consulting engineer, Robert William Griffiths, credibly testified that a number of agencies having oversight responsibility such as Pasco County, the Southwest Florida Water Management District and the Department of Environmental Regulation, mandated that the drainage system be completed prior to the entire build-up of Cypress Cove. Despite the mandate, the drainage system was not completed and the County allowed the development to continue. Respondent is properly treating and chlorinating sewage in its plant which complies with Petitioner's requirements for the treatment of sewage in systems designed such as Respondent's. Respondent properly treats sewage flowing through its ponds and its berms are properly maintained. As early as October 1989, Respondent consulted and retained an engineer, Gerald E. Towson, who was commissioned to investigate the specifics of designing a waste water treatment plant based on concerns raised by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER). As a result of that charge, Towson investigated the area and observed flooding and the stormwater runoff in the Cypress Cove neighborhood and attempted to find a solution to alleviate the problem. Consultant Towson also investigated Respondent's treatment plant to determine if the system was functioning as designed. Based on his observation and inspection of the treatment facility, the facility was operating as it was designed and properly filters and treats the effluent. However, based on Respondent's inability to control the stormwater runoff in the neighborhood created by the excess buildup, Towson concluded that there was no workable solution to the problem. As a result of Towson's inability to find a workable solution to handle the concerns raised by DER, Respondent suggested that Towson locate another wastewater treatment site which he found in a surrounding area. Respondent negotiated a lease arrangement with the landowner and initiated the permit process with DER. After the completion of numerous documents and engineering studies required by the Department of Environmental Regulation, Respondent was able to get the leased site permitted by DER as a slow drip irrigation system during March 1991. However, while construction of the system was scheduled to start during March 1991, as a result of vigorous protests from area neighbors, construction was delayed. Respondent thereafter investigated several sites but was unable to fine a suitable area near Cypress Cove. Towson completed a lengthy and cumbersome process in getting Respondent's construction application processed by DER. Initially the application was filed and following a DER review, a Notice of Intent to Issue was given. Hillsborough County thereafter reviewed the project and following their review, Hillsborough County issued its Notice of Intent to Grant and public notice was given. Based on Respondent's inability to comply with the neighbor's concerns regarding setback problems, DER withdrew its permit during May of 1991. Thereafter, Petitioner became involved in connecting with the Pasco County Public System. That connection was ultimately made and the County gave its approval following a delay based on a review occasioned by an employee who had been on vacation. Upon getting the approval, Petitioner ordered the equipment from a supplier which included installation of a magnetic meter and the necessary hookups into the Pasco County System. A "phased in" connection has been completed and the stormwater runoff problem has been abated. When the problems raised by DER and ultimately Petitioner was first brought to Respondent's attention, Pasco County did not have the capacity to handle the hookups required by Respondent's system. Respondent, has been involved in the installation of waste water treatment plants since 1967. Respondent is qualified as a Class "A" Licensee Waste Water Operator. He has been accepted as an expert in numerous administrative hearings. Respondent purchased the Foxwood System during 1982. Respondent utilized a 13 acre tract near Lake Floyd Drive. The system was licensed and designed with a flow capacity of 300,000 plus gallons per day. During the time when the Administrative Complaint was issued, the flow capacity was 220,000 gallons per day. The storm water system which was to have been completed by developers in the area was not connected to the public system and the County granted numerous other permits to daycare centers and several parking lots were constructed for other newly constructed commercial buildings in the area. As a result of the excess runoff created by the development in the area, Respondent's system was impacted and the water level was raised in the percolation ponds to the point whereby an overflow resulted. Petitioner adduced no evidence which showed that any physical or emotional harm resulted from the runoff. At all times while the concerns were being raised by Petitioner and other oversite agencies, the effluents in Respondent's systems were properly treated. Respondent vigorously attempted to abate the runoff created by the excess buildup in the area despite the fact that the problem was raised by Pasco County and over which Respondent had no control. Throughout the process of attempting to find alternate solutions and ultimately getting permitting approval to start construction of an alternative waste water treatment system, Respondent operated in good faith. When no alternate site became available, Respondent initially made application to connect with Pasco County System and that connection has now been made.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint herein in its entirety. DONE and ENTERED this 29 day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 29 day of April, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: THOMAS W CAUFMAN ESQ HRS DISTRICT V LEGAL OFFICE 11351 ULMERTON RD - STE 407 LARGO FL 34648 RANDALL C GRANTHAM ESQ COTTERILL GONZALEZ & GRANTHAM 1519 N MABRY - STE 100 LUTZ FL 33549 RICHARD S POWER AGENCY CLERK DEPT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 1323 WINEWOOD BLVD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0700 JOHN SLYE ESQ/GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 1323 WINEWOOD BLVD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0700
