The Issue The issue to be resolved is whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for her response to question nos. 122 and 222 of the civil engineering examination administered on October 31, 1997.
Findings Of Fact On October 31, 1997, Petitioner took the civil professional engineering licensing examination. A score of 70 is required to pass the test. Petitioner obtained a score of 69. Petitioner challenged the scoring of question nos. 122 and 222. As part of the examination challenge process, Petitioner's examination was returned to the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying where it was re-scored. In the re-score process, the grader deducted points from Petitioner's original score. Petitioner was given the same raw score of 6 on question number 122; however, on question number 222 her raw score of 4 was reduced to a 2. Petitioner needed a raw score of 48 in order to achieve a passing score of 70; she needed at least three additional raw score points to obtain a passing raw score of 48. Petitioner is entitled to a score of 6 on problem number 122. The solution and scoring plan for that problem required the candidate to obtain a culvert size in the range of 21-36 inches. The Petitioner incorrectly answered 3.1 feet or 37.2 inches. She is not entitled to additional credit for problem number 122 because she answered the question with the wrong size culvert. Problem number 122 required the candidate to use a predevelopment peak flow of 40 cubic feet per second (cfs). Petitioner used 58.33 cfs. She chose the maximum flow rather than the predevelopment peak flow. In solving problem number 122, Petitioner chose a design headwater depth of 4.8 feet. The correct solution required a design headwater depth of 5.7 feet. Petitioner made another mistake in problem number 122; she failed to check the water depth in the downstream swale. Petitioner concedes she was given sufficient information to solve problem number 122. She understood what the question was asking of her. She admits that she did not compute the critical depth of the water and that she did not complete the solution. Question number 222 had three parts. The candidate was required to determine the footing size, to select the reinforcing steel, and to provide a sketch for a concrete column located along the edge of a building. Petitioner understood the question and was provided enough information to solve the problem. Petitioner correctly checked the footing size as required by the first part; however, she did not select the reinforcing steel or show the required sketch. Therefore, Petitioner did not complete enough of the problem to qualify for a score of 4 points. She is entitled to a score of 2 points. The examination questions at issue here were properly designed to test the candidate's competency in solving typical problems in real life. The grader (re-scorer) utilized the scoring plan correctly. Petitioner has been in the United States for approximately eleven years. She lived in Romania before she came to the United States. In Romania, Petitioner used only the metric system in her professional work. While she has used the English system since moving to the United States, Petitioner is more familiar with the metric system. The Principles and Practice examination is an open-book examination. Petitioner took a book entitled the Fundamentals of Engineering Reference Handbook to the examination. When the proctor examined her books, she told the Petitioner she was not permitted to keep the handbook. The proctor took the handbook from the Petitioner. Petitioner protested the confiscation of her reference book because she had used the same book in two previous tests. About ten minutes later, the proctor's supervisor returned the book to Petitioner. Petitioner's book was returned at least ten minutes before the test began. She was permitted to use the book during the test. There is no persuasive evidence that the proctor's mistake in temporarily removing Petitioner's reference book caused her to be so upset that she failed the test. Candidates were not permitted to study their books prior to the beginning of the examination. Petitioner may have been nervous when the test began. However, Petitioner received a perfect score of ten points on the first problem she worked, problem number 121.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order confirming Petitioner's score on the examination and dismissing the Petitioner's challenge. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Bruce Muench, Esquire 438 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Dennis Bartin, President Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The single issue for determination is whether Petitioner is entitled to at least three more points on his response to question #121. If not, he has failed the examination.
Findings Of Fact Kenneth A. Carper graduated summa cum laude with a bachelor's degree from the University of Central Florida. In the nine years since graduation he has worked for an engineering firm primarily in the area of drainage design. Question #121 is the type of problem he deals with daily. The ultimate objective of the question is to determine whether the flow of an open channel with given specifications is subcritical or supercritical. The question required the computation of the channel's critical depth and normal depth. In the hypothetical situation described by the question, certain extraneous information was given. An appropriate answer required that this "red herring" be ignored. The ISSP is a standardized grading device by which a person subjectively grading a problem will consistently apply a score based upon specified types and numbers of deficiencies. The intent is to reduce the chance of over-leniency or an overly strict approach by different graders. The ISSP developed by the National Council of Engineering Examiners for question #121 provides in pertinent part: 10. QUALIFIED: All CATEGORIES satisfied, correct solution, well organized, all relevant ASPECTS fully addressed. Correct approach; numerical answers correct within rounding errors; conclusion correct; adequate written records. All parts are of equal weight (3 parts). 9. QUALIFIED: All CATEGORIES satisfied, correct solution but exces- sively conservative in choice of working values; or presen- tation lacking in completeness of equations, diagrams, orderly steps in solution, etc. All correct, as in 10 above, except for a single math/units error; or inadequate written record. 8. QUALIFIED: All CATEGORIES satisfied, errors attributable to misread table or calculating devices. Errors would be corrected by routine checking. Results reasonable, though not correct. All correct, as in 10 above, except for multiple math/units errors; or inadequate written record; or in combination. 7. QUALIFIED: All CATEGORIES satisfied. Obtains solution, but chooses less than optimum approach. Solution is awkward but reasonable. Same as 8 above, except for more gross errors; or in combination; or a single part of three parts required completely wrong or missing, with the other two parts correct. 6. QUALIFIED: All CATEGORIES satisfied, applicant demonstrates minimally adequate knowledge in all relevant ASPECTS of the item. Multiple math/units/records errors; or in combination; or one part completely missing or wrong, with other errors; or in combination. (Joint Exhibit 1) The grader of Carper's examination did not testify, but provided notations on the answer sheet. The solution required selection of an appropriate formula, which Carper did; it also required a trial and error mathematical computation of the value of "y." In the first part of the question Carper found "y" to be "... between 9.2 and 9.3, say 9.3'." The grader crossed out this answer with the notation,-- "not an engineering answer-Finish iteration to a close enough' final value." The grader's answer was 9.24. In the second part of the question, Carper indicated "y" was "... between 6.8 and 7.0, say 7.0'." The grader's answer was 6.99, and similar notations, were made, "not an engineering answer. Finish the iteration." It is apparent that the grader felt that the solution should be carried out to the nearest hundredth place. Yet, in a very similar question (#421), also requiring computation of normal depth, Carper's answer, 4.7' was marked "OK", and he received the full 10 points for his solution. Nothing in the instructions specifically requires a solution to the nearest hundredth. This is left to the judgement of the engineer. "Real world" engineering practice would not require a solution to the nearest hundredth place. The design of a large open channel is substantially less precise than the design of a bridge or multi-story building. In hydraulics, the practice is often to round up, for example, from a 9.8 to 10, as a conservative measure. It is also common to use estimates; for example, the roughness coefficient (resistance of the channel walls) is a textbook figure, rather than one derived from the structure itself. Given the lack of precision inherent in the formula, the computation of value beyond the tenth place serves no valid purpose. The sample solution to #121 provided by the grader specifically states "ignore backwater curve." While Carper's solution does ignore the "red herring," his work sheet does not affirmatively note that he did. Respondent claims that the grader could not know whether the back water curve was properly ignored, or just overlooked. At worst, this minor deficiency constitutes an inadequate written record. The appropriate score, based on the ISSP table reflected in paragraph 4, above, is "9." Carper selected the proper formula, performed the mathematics and arrived at answers reflecting acceptable engineering practice. The descriptions of deficiencies for the scores of less than 9 do not apply to Carper's solution for this question. Respondent's expert conceded that the solution did not contain a mathematics error. In making these findings I have considered and weighed the opinions of the three experts who testified in this proceeding. Both experts presented by Petitioner were qualified, without objection, in the engineering fields of hydraulics, hydrology and water resource management. They both have over 30 years of extensive practical experience in those fields, and they both have lectured or taught in colleges and universities. The weight of their testimony is tempered by their personal knowledge of Petitioner for eight or nine years and by their knowledge of the score he needed to pass the examination. Nothing in the substance of their testimony, however, revealed a bias in favor of their colleague, and their testimony was considered candid and forthright. They would have scored #121 as "9" or "10". Respondent's expert, a consulting engineer, employed as an Associate Professor in the University of Florida Civil Engineering Department did not know Carper, nor was he advised of the score he would need to pass. He would have given Carper a "6" or "7" on question #121, but more likely a 7, based on Carper's failure to carry his answer to "three significant figures." This opinion was not adequately explained in terms of acceptable engineering practice, but rather was based on acceptance of the test grader's judgement. (Joint Exhibit #2, Deposition, p. 29) Respondent's expert was less qualified than Petitioner's experts. His primary experience as a consulting engineer has been in review of the work of others, rather than active design.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered, awarding Kenneth Carper 9 points for question #121, thereby providing a passing grade for the engineering examination. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4979 The following constitute my rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner 1-5. Addressed in Background. 6-7. Adopted in paragraph #11. 8. Addressed in Background. Respondent Addressed in Background. Adopted in substance in paragraph #3. Adopted in paragraph #10. Adopted in substance in paragraph #10. Adopted in paragraph #9. Adopted in substance in paragraph #5. Rejected as unsubstantiated speculation. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian E. Currie, Esquire SANDERS, McEWAN, MIMS & MARTINEZ, P.A 108 East Central Boulevard Post Office Box 753 Orlando, Florida 32802-0753 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 Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neal, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact The State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation is the administrative agency of the State of Florida charged with the duty to protect the water resources of the State and to administer and enforce the Florida Water Resources Act of 1972, embodied in Chapters 373, Florida Statutes, as well as the rules promulgated thereunder. The St. Johns River Water Management District is a unit of government established by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, also charged with the duty to administer and enforce that chapter and related rules. The Department of Environmental Regulation, pursuant to Section 373.103, Florida Statutes, and Section 317.104(8), Florida Administrative Code, has delegated to the District the power and authority to administer and enforce Part III of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations adopted pursuant to that part which implement it. Those rules are embodied in Chapter 40C-3, Florida Administrative Code. Stanley U. Monds is a licensed water well contractor licensed by St. Johns River Water Management District. He has been issued license number 2257. Mr. Monds is also registered by the District as a "water well driller." That registration bears the number 2257. The Respondent on various dates in 1984-1986 contracted to construct and constructed water wells from which water was to be drawn for drinking or other domestic purposes, within the geographical boundaries of the District, for the following named individuals: WELL OWNER COUNTY YEAR CONSTRUCTED Ray Howell Clay 1986 Clayton McCumbers Clay 1986 Joe Eddy Nassau 1986 Joe Eddy Nassau 1986 Kevin Brooks Clay 1984 Nancy Harris Duval 1985 Marcus Rhoden Baker 1985 Cecil Hagen Baker 1985 Ken Tenson Baker 1985 Jim Griffis Baker 1985 Tom Scott Baker 1985 Tom Ott Baker 1985 J. Ray Gatlin Baker 1984 J. Ray Gatlin Baker 1984 The Respondent never filed "well completion reports" with the District for these wells, as required by District rules. The Respondent also contracted to construct and constructed wells for domestic water use, including drinking, located within the geographical boundaries of the District for the following named individuals and thereafter filed well completion reports, however, the reports were actually filed more than 30 days after the wells were completed and thus in violation of District rules: WELL OWNER COUNTY DATE COMPLETED COMPLETION REPORT FILED James Hall Clay 3/10/86 5/06/86 Dennis Bennett Duval 6/16/83 5/04/85 Bennett's Hardware Duval 6/17/83 5/23/85 Don Tenbush Clay 1/08/86 10/1/86 In March 1986, the Respondent installed a water well for a Mr. Joe Eddy in Nassau County, Florida. This well was abandoned by the Respondent and a second well was drilled nearby in June 1986. The Respondent failed to properly abandon the first well by filling it from top to bottom with grout. The Respondent was warned of this condition and reminded to correct it by certified letter sent him by District personnel concerning his improper abandonment of the first well. He acknowledged receiving that letter in a conversation with witness J. C. Varnes, a District field representative. The Respondent, however, refused or failed to later properly abandon the first well by filling it with grout from bottom to top. In June 1986, the Respondent contracted to construct and did construct a second water well for the same Mr. Eddy on his property in Nassau County. That well penetrated multiple aquifers, but the Respondent refused or failed to complete the well so as to prevent cross-contamination of different aquifers or water-bearing strata by water of significantly different quality. This should have been prevented by proper casing of the well which Respondent failed to do. Further, the Respondent used PVC (polyvinylchlride) plastic casing instead of metallic casing in constructing the well and seated the casing by driving it into the ground which resulted in the plastic casing being cracked. The Respondent also failed to grout and seal the annular space between the well casing and the naturally occurring geological formations through which the well bore passed. Another certified letter was sent him by District personnel advising him of these violations of District rules which he acknowledged. He refused or failed to correct the well construction violations, however. Failing to case a well to the bottom of a well or having cracks in the casing allows water and/or other materials from one geological strata to enter the casing, migrate upward or downward and enter aquifers or water-bearing strata at other levels, thus posing a potential of cross-contamination of different aquifers or water-bearing strata due to improper "short casing" or due to cracked casing. In 1984, the Respondent constructed a water well for Kevin Brooks on his property in Clay County, Florida. The well was constructed into an "unconsolidated aquifer," but the Respondent failed to attach a well screen to the bottom of the casing as a filtering device, in violation of well construction standards promulgated by the District. In June 1983, the Respondent contracted to construct and did construct a well for Bennett's Hardware on its property in Duval County. He failed to grout and seal the annular space between the well casing and the naturally occurring geological formations from the bottom to the top of the well in violation of District well construction standards. In 1984, the Respondent constructed two four-inch water wells for J. Ray Gatlin on his property in Baker County, Florida. The Respondent failed to grout and seal the upper three feet of annular space in each of these two wells. He was sent a certified letter on July 14, 1986, advising him of the deficiencies in the well construction. He acknowledged receiving that letter in a conversation with witness J. C. Varnes, but failed to grout the well properly anyway. Also in 1984, he constructed an eight-inch water well for J. Ray Gatlin on property in Baker County, Florida. He failed to grout and seal the annular space between this well's casing and the surrounding geological formations from the bottom to the top of the casing. He also failed to install a water tight seal at the top of the well casing. After being sent a certified letter advising of these violations by District personnel, he acknowledged to Mr. Varnes once again that he had received that letter. He still failed to properly grout or seal the well after being so warned. On September 16, 1986, he was sent a second certified letter which he acknowledged receiving which instructed him to properly abandon the well. He refused to follow that instruction. In January 1986, the Respondent constructed a water well for Don Tenbush on his property in Clay County. He failed to grout and seal the annular space between the well casing and the geological formation surrounding the casing in this well from top to bottom. This well penetrated multiple aquifers or water-bearing zones and yet the Respondent failed to complete the well so as to prevent potential cross-contamination of different zones or aquifers by water of significantly different quality. He did not case the well all the way down to the producing aquifer at the bottom of the well. Here, again, he acknowledged receiving a certified letter advising him of these violations and requiring correction and yet failed to correct the violations. The Respondent began construction of a second well for Mr. Tenbush on the same parcel of property in January 1986 after abandoning the first well described above. He failed to properly abandon the first well by filling it from bottom to top with grout. He was notified of that deficiency or failure, but refused to correct that condition. In constructing the second well for Mr. Tenbush, he refused to or failed to extend the well casing from the land surface all the way down to the producing aquifer and to seat it. After being sent a certified letter advising him of this violation, receipt of which he acknowledged to Mr. Varnes, he again refused or failed to correct the violation. Both wells drilled by Respondent for Mr. Tenbush subsequently had to be abandoned by another water well contractor.
The Issue Whether Permit No. DO19-101251 issued to Mr. Vail on July 11, 1985 to construct and operate an on-site wastewater treatment and disposal system should be revoked?
Findings Of Fact Mr. Vail is the owner and operator of a business called the St. George Inn and Restaurant (hereinafter referred to as the "Inn"). The Inn is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Franklin Boulevard and Pine Avenue on St. George Island, Florida. In May of 1984 Mr. Vail spoke with an employee of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services about obtaining a permit to construct a septic tank on his property for use by the Inn for the treatment and disposal of wastewater. Mr. Vail was instructed to submit a design of the septic tank for approval. Mr. Vail contracted with McNeill Septic Tank Company for the design and construction of the septic tank. The evidence failed to prove when Mr. Vail applied with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for a permit. As of March, 1985, however, Mr. Vail had not received approval or disapproval of his application from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Mr. Vail, therefore, went to the Governor's office to seek help in getting a response. Shortly after contacting the Governor's office, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services informed Mr. Vail that he needed to obtain a permit from the Department and not from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. On or about March 18, 1985, Mr. Vail filed an Application to Operate/Construct Industrial Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems (hereinafter referred to as the "Application"), with the Department. The Application was prepared by Brown and Associates Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors, Inc., Mr. Vail's engineering consultant. The Application was certified by Benjamin E. Brown, Professional Engineer. Mr. Vail signed the Application as "owner" and indicated that he was aware of the contents of the Application. In the Application, "St. George Inn Restaurant" is listed as the "Source Name." Under Part II, A of the Application, the applicant is asked to "[d]escribe the nature and extent of the project." In response to this request, the following answer was given: This project will provide a sewage disposal system for a one hundred and fifty (150) seat restaurant on St. George Island. Sizing of the septic tank system is based on 50 GPD/seat and secondary treatment will be provided by the design proposed. Under Part III, A of the Application, the applicant is asked to provide the following information and the following answers were given: Type of Industry Restaurant . . . . 3. Raw Materials and Chemicals Used Food preparation only. Normal Operation 12 hrs/day 7 days/week . . . . If operation is seasonal, explain This restaurant will be used the most during the summer months which corresponds with ocean/beach recreation & the tourist trade. Nowhere in the Application is it indicated that the permit applied for involved anything other than a restaurant. The Application gives no information from which the Department could have known that the proposed wastewater treatment and disposal system would handle waste from guest rooms or an apartment. In the Application Mr. Vail sought approval of a permit to construct and operate a wastewater treatment and disposal system to serve a 150 seat restaurant. In the Application Mr. Vail sought a permit for a system which was to have a design flow of 7,500 gallons per day based on 50 gallons, per seat, per day water usage. An employee of the Department wrote a memorandum dated May 5, 1985, recommending approval of the Application. The Department determined, however, that the size of the property on which the Inn was to be located was not large enough for the drain field necessary to accommodate a 150 seat restaurant. Therefore, Mr. Brown modified the proposed system and resubmitted application data indicating that a 108 seat restaurant would be constructed. The design flow of the new proposal was 2,160 gallons per day based on 20 gallons per seat per day. Mr. Brown had requested that the Department approve a system based upon the newly submitted design flow. The Department and Mr. Brown both agreed that this design flow was adequate; that it was reasonable to anticipate and provide for the treatment and disposal of a maximum of 2,160 gallons per day design flow. The effect of reducing the design flow and the number of seats was to allow a shortened drain field which could be accommodated by the size of the property the Inn was to be located on. On June 27, 1985, Mr. Vail arranged for a notice to be published in the Apalachicola Times. That notice provided, in pertinent part, the following: State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Notice of Proposed Agency Action on Permit Application The department gives notice of its intent to issue a permit to Jack Vail to construct a restaurant and on-site wastewater treatment and disposal system [sic] at Franklin Boulevard and Pine Avenue, St. George Island. The treatment consists of grease trap, septic tank, and sand filter followed by disposal into a drainfield. The project meets applicable standards and will not impair the designated use of the underlying ground water. There is no anticipated impact on surface waters or air quality. . . . . This notice was sent to Mr. Vail by the Department and he made arrangements for it to be published. Nowhere in the notice is it indicated that the system to be approved by the Department is for anything other than a restaurant. On July 11, 1985, less than four months after the Application was filed with the Department, the Department issued Permit Number DO19-101251 (hereinafter referred to as the "Permit"). In the cover letter sent with the Permit the Department indicated that the Permit allowed Mr. Vail "to construct and operate a 2,160 gallon per day, on-site wastewater treatment and disposal system serving St. George Inn Restaurant. . . ." The Department also indicates in the Permit that it is for the "St. George Inn Restaurant." The Permit also provides, in pertinent part, the following with regard to the purpose of the Permit: The above named applicant, hereinafter called Permittee, is hereby authorized to perform the work or operate the facility shown on the application and approved drawing(s), plans, and other documents attached hereto or on file with the department and made a part hereof and specifically described as follows: Construct and operate a 108 seat restaurant with an on-site wastewater treatment and disposal system. Wastewater flows shall be a maximum of 2,160 gallons per day generated by domestic facilities and kitchen wastes . . . Construction shall be in accordance with application dated March 18, 1985 and additional information submitted April 29, 1985, specifications and other supporting documents prepared by Brown and Associates and certified by Benjamin E. Brown, P.E. and submitted to the Department on June 5, June 17, and June 20, 1985. The Permit also contains the following "General Condition" number 2 and "Specific Condition" number 15: . . . . 2. This permit is valid only for the specific processes and operations applied for and indicated in the approved drawings and exhibits. Any unauthorized deviation from the approved drawings, exhibits, specifications, or conditions of this permit may constitute grounds for revocation and enforcement action by the department. . . . . 15. The Department shall be notified and prior approval shall be obtained of any changes or revisions made during construction. . . . . The Permit provides the following with regard to the effect of the conditions of the Permit: The terms, conditions, requirements, limitations, and restrictions set forth herein are "Permit Conditions", and as such are binding upon the permittee and enforceable pursuant to the authority of sections 403.161, 403.727, or 403.859 through 403.861, Florida Statutes. The permittee is hereby placed on notice that the Department will review this permit periodically and may initiate enforcement action for any violation of the "Permit Conditions" by the permittee . . . . During the week after the Permit was issued, Mr. Vail obtained a building permit from Franklin County for the construction of the "inn." In February, 1986, after construction of the Inn had begun, Department inspectors went to the construction site of the Inn. The Permit authorized this inspection and other inspections carried out by the Department. The Department determined that the Inn being constructed by Mr. Vail included a restaurant, an apartment on the third floor of the Inn with two bathrooms, and eight guest rooms on the second floor, each containing a bathroom. This was the first time that the Department knew that Mr. Vail's facility was to include guest rooms and living quarters in addition to containing a 108 seat restaurant. In March of 1986, the Department sent a warning letter to Mr. Vail notifying him of the violation of the General Conditions of his Permit: the use of the approved system for the treatment and disposal of wastewater from the ten bathrooms in the guest rooms and the two bathrooms in the apartment in addition to the 108 seat restaurant. On April 1, 1986, Department personnel met with Mr. Vail and Mr. Brown. The Department reminded Mr. Vail and Mr. Brown that the Permit requested and approved by the Department was for a 108 seat restaurant only. The Department had not authorized a system which was to be used for a 108 seat restaurant and ten additional bathrooms. Pursuant to General Condition 14, the Department informed Mr. Vail that it needed an engineer's evaluation of the ability of the system which had been approved to handle the additional flow which could be expected from the additional ten bathrooms. By letter dated April 1, 1986, the Department memorialized the meeting and indicated that Mr. Vail could operate a 100 seat restaurant and the apartment during the interim. By letter dated May 8, 1986, Mr. Brown asked for additional time to submit the evaluation requested by the Department. The Department approved this request by letter dated May 14, 1986. By letter dated May 16, 1986, Mr. Brown submitted an engineering evaluation which proposed modifications to the approved system to handle the additional ten bathrooms. By letter dated June 13, 1986, the Department indicated that the evaluation was generally acceptable" but requested additional information. In January, 1987, before the additional information was submitted, Mr. Brown died in an airplane accident. No evidence was presented to explain why the information requested by the Department in June of 1986 had not been submitted before January, 1987. In March, 1987, the Department inspected Mr. Vail's facility again. In April, 1987, the Department informed Mr. Vail that the Department would take action to revoke the Permit. Before the Administrative Complaint was issued, the Department requested that certain information be provided on behalf of Mr. Vail by an engineer in an effort to resolve the dispute. Mr. Vail did not, however, obtain the services of an engineer. Instead, Mr. Vail sent the Department information purporting to show the amount of water which had been used at the Inn. That information failed to prove the ability of the system that the Department had approved to handle the maximum wastewater which could be expected from maximum use of the 108 seat restaurant and ten additional bathrooms. At best, the information submitted by Mr. Vail is partial proof that the system is capable of handling the wastewater that has been generated at the Inn for the period of time for which the information relates. No competent substantial proof has been submitted to indicate that the system is capable of handling the maximum wastewater flows which may be experienced or even that the system is adequately handling the current flow. All that has been proved is that there is no apparent problem with the system in handling the current flow. In September, 1987, the Department issued the Administrative Complaint. Pursuant to this Complaint, the Department has sought the revocation of the Permit and prescribed certain orders for corrective action. No application has been submitted by or on behalf of Mr. Vail to the Department to construct and operate a wastewater treatment facility designed to accommodate the sewage flows which may be generated by the Inn as it has been constructed. Although the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and other agencies were aware that the Inn includes a restaurant and guest rooms, the Department was never so informed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a Final Order requiring that Mr. Vail comply with all of the corrective orders, except Paragraph 18, contained in the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NUMBER 87-4242 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which Proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 Conclusion of law. 2 1. 3 6. 4 10. 5 12 and 13. 6 14. 7 15. 8 18. 9 19. 10 20. 11-12 16. 13 21. 14 23. 15 24. 16 25. 17 26. 18-19 27. 20 28. 21 29 22 Hereby accepted. Mr. Vail's Proposed Findings of Fact 1A 15. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. Hearsay and irrelevant. Although technically true, this is not the issue in this case. The evidence did not prove that the system "can in actuality handle three times the amount permitted." Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. 2A Not supported be the weight of the evidence. Exhibit 6 indicates that the Department was aware that the Inn included "hotel rooms" but not the number. Irrelevant. The evidence did not prove that the Department was aware of the scope of the project. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 3A Irrelevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. Even if this were true, the fact remains that the Department was unaware that the Inn included guest rooms or an apartment. Irrelevant. 4A-B Irrelevant. 5A-B Irrelevant. 6A 2-4. B 5. 6 and 11. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 12. 13 and 15. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 7A-C Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. 8A-D Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. 9A-B Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. 10-12 Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard L. Windsor, Esquire State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Mr. John Vail St. George Inn Post Office Box 222 St. George Island, Florida 32328 Dale Twachtmann, Secretary State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a candidate for licensure as a professional engineer. Petitioner took the licensure examination in October, 1992, and received an overall score of 68.10. The minimum passing score for the exam was 70. The examination used by the Department is a nationally recognized test administered and graded by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). The scoring plan utilized by NCEES in this case provided, in pertinent part, that the score of 4 would be given where the applicant's response showed more than rudimentary knowledge but was insufficient to demonstrate competence. Petitioner received the score of 4 on problem #120 and felt his answer should have received a higher grade. To receive a score of 6 on problem #120, Petitioner's solution would have shown minimum competence by indicating the required volume of solids taken as the required volume of fill with all other analysis and computations being correct. According to the scoring plan, only "modest" errors in cost analysis or volume analysis computations are permitted to receive a grade of 6. Petitioner admitted that his calculation of volume on problem #120 was incorrect, but felt that since the error was only 10-15 percent, such error was reasonable given that he had correctly analyzed the majority of the problem. Petitioner's calculations for problem #120 were approximately 5900 cubic yards from the correct answer. Since Petitioner's volume calculations were incorrect, no credit was given for the cost analysis. Petitioner's error was not a "modest" miscalculation as set forth by the scoring plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers, enter a final order denying Petitioner's challenge to the professional engineer examination administered in October, 1992. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 19th day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2652 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Paragraph a) is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph b) is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph c) is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph d) is rejected as irrelevant. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Ali Khalilahmadi 12755 S.W. 60 Lane Miami, Florida 33183 Vytas J. Urba Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755
The Issue Whether Petitioner should receive a passing score on the retake of the Minimum Standards Certification Examination for a firefighter, and whether Petitioner should be required to retake the Minimum Standards Certification Examination for a firefighter without repeating the Minimum Standards Course.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Tamara Lynn Rose (Rose), applied for certification as a firefighter on January 21, 1997. She completed a training course at the Broward Fire Academy. Rose took the initial Minimum Standards Examination for Firefighters in August 1997. She passed the written part of the examination, but failed the practical portion. On October 13, 1997, she retook the practical portion of the examination. The only portion of the examination results which Rose contests is the score received for the 1 3/4" Hose and Nozzle Operation of Part I of the examination. The hose and nozzle operation is a timed event. The hose advance exercise should be completed within two minutes. If the applicant takes over five minutes to finish the operation, 40 points are deducted from the applicant's score. In order to pass the practical examination, the applicant must score 70 percent or better on the examination. Rose took five minutes and thirty-six seconds to complete the hose and nozzle operation portion of the examination, resulting in a forty-point deduction and an automatic failure of the examination. The hose and nozzle portion of the examination consists of the applicant shouldering the hose load, advancing to the rear of the fire truck, making a u-turn and looping the hose, advancing to the front of the fire truck, bleeding the lines, advancing 100 feet, and knocking down three cones with the water coming from the nozzle. Rose had difficulty in getting the load out of the bed of the truck. The hose became tangled, and she had to stop and straighten out the hose. She walked to the front of the truck and began her hose drag, but the drag was slow and hard because the hose had caught on one of the truck's tires. She pulled the hose free. Because of the tangling of the hose and the hose catching on the tire, Rose lost too much time to be able to complete the hose and nozzle operation in a timely manner. The hose is loaded on the truck by students who are taking the examination. The loading is supervised by instructors who are certified firefighters. It is the responsibility of these instructors to correct any improper loading. The field representative from the State Fire Marshall's Office at the retest was Phillip Bagley. After retiring with 24 years with the Tampa Fire Department, Mr. Bagley began working for the State Fire Marshall in 1996. He has administered between 900 and 1,000 tests. He did not see any problem with the way that the hose was loaded on the truck. In his experience it is not uncommon for the hoses to become tangled, usually resulting from a failure of the applicant to get enough of the hose on the his shoulder causing the load to pull loose when the applicant steps down from the truck. The applicants are given an opportunity to inspect the hoses prior to beginning the examination. Prior to the examination being administered, the applicants are given an orientation and are advised that they should report immediately to the examiners any malfunction. At the time of the examination, Rose did not report to Mr. Bagley that the hose was improperly loaded. Rose also received a five-point deduction because she failed to form a loop during the hose advance portion of the examination. Rose is not contesting the five points that were deducted for failing to tie the safety knot during the 24-foot ladder extension portion of the examination or the five points that were deducted for not having her chin strap under her chin during the donning of the protective gear portion of the examination. Her total score for the retest was 50.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Rose's application for certification as a firefighter and requiring her to repeat the Minimum Standards Course prior to retaking the Minimum Standards Certification Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Karuna P. Rao, Esquire Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 33314 Tamara Lynn Rose, pro se 4051 Southwest 72 Terrace Davie, Florida 33314
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Petitioner successfully completed the answers posed on the April, 1987 professional engineer's examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the April, 1987 professional engineering examination and was advised that he failed the principles and practice portion of the examine. His raw score was 45 points and the parties stipulated that he needed a minimum raw score of 48 points to pass the examination. In his request for hearing, Petitioner challenged questions 120, 123 and 420. However, during the hearing, he only presented testimony and challenged question 420. Question 420 is worth 10 points and is set forth in its entirety in Petitioner's Exhibit Number 1. For reasons of test security, the exhibit has been sealed. Question 420 requires the examinee to explore the area regarding "braced excavations" and explores the principles involved in such excavations. Question 420 requires the examinee to calculate the safety factor for a braced excavation including the depth of excavation which would cause failure by "bottom heaving". Petitioner, in calculating the safety factor, made a mathematical error when he incorporated the B-prime value calculation which was inserted into the equation in making his calculations. Question 420 does not direct the applicant to apply the calculations to either a square excavation or to a rectangular excavation. Petitioner assumed the shape of the excavation to be square and calculated the factor of safety according to that assumption. In assuming the square excavation, Petitioner did not make the more conservative calculation that will be required in making the safety factor calculation for a rectangular excavation. In this regard, an examination of Petitioner's work sheet indicates that he referenced the correct calculation on his work sheet but the calculation was not transferred to or utilized in the equation. Respondent utilizes the standard scoring plan outline, which is more commonly known as the Items Specific Scoring Plan (ISSP) which is used by the scorers in grading the exam. The ISSP provides a scoring breakdown for each question so that certain uniform criteria are met by all applicants. For example, four points are given for a correct solution on a specific question regardless of the scorer. This criteria is supplied by the person or persons who prepared the exam. The criteria indicates "in problem-specific terms, the types of deficiencies that would lead to scoring at each of the eleven (0-10) points on the scale". The ISSP awards six points on question 420 when the applicants meets the following standards: "all categories satisfied, applicant demonstrate minimally adequate knowledge in all relevant aspect of the item." ISSP awards seven points on question 420 when the applicant's answer meets the following standard: "all categories satisfied, obtains solution, but chooses less than optimum approach. Solution is awkward but reasonable". The ISSP awards eight points on question 420 when the applicant's answer meets the following standards: "all categories satisfied. Errors attributable to misread tables or calculating devices. Errors would be corrected by routine checking. Results reasonable, though not correct". The ISSP awards nine points on question 420 when the applicant's answer meets the following standard: "all categories satisfied, correct solution but excessively conservative in choice of working values; or presentation lacking in completeness of equations, diagrams, orderly steps in solution, etc." The ISSP criteria for awarding nine points as to question 420 clearly requires that the Petitioner calculate the correct solution without mathematical errors. The Petitioner's answer was not correct regardless of the assumption as to the shape of the excavation since he made a mathematical error. The ISSP criteria for awarding eight points as to question 420 allows Petitioner to calculate the answer with mathematical errors with the requirements that the results are reasonable. Petitioner made a mathematical error although his result was reasonable. His answer fits the criteria for the award of eight points in conformity with the ISSP criteria. Petitioner received six points for his answer to question 420 whereas he is entitled to an award of eight points.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent enter a Final Order determining that Petitioner failed the principles and practice portion of the April, 1987 engineering examination. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of June 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 30th day of June, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Glen E. Wichinsky, Esquire 900 Glades Road, 5th Floor Boca Raton, Florida 33431 Michael A. Mone', Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Carlos Martinez Mallen, is an applicant for licensure by endorsement to become a professional engineer in the State of Florida. He filed his application for licensure with the Florida Board of Professional Engineers (hereinafter "Board") in January 1988, relying on the facts that he was licensed in Spain approximately 25 years ago and has approximately 30 years of experience as a professional engineer. The Board subsequently determined that he could not be considered for licensure by endorsement. Petitioner has never taken a licensing examination in the United States which is substantially equivalent to the examination required for licensure by Section 471.013, Florida Statutes, and described in Chapter 21H, Florida Administrative Code. Further, Petitioner has never been licensed in any state or territory of the United States, although he does hold a license to practice engineering in Spain. On the other hand, Petitioner's engineering experience record shows that he has considerable experience in the practice of engineering which would meet the additional experience requirements of Section 471.013, Florida Statutes. The Board, having determined that Petitioner does not qualify for licensure by endorsement, performed an analysis of Petitioner's application to determine whether his degree from the University of Madrid was an engineering degree which might qualify him to sit for the 1icensure examination and to ascertain if Petitioner could obtain licensure by that alternative method. An analysis was made by the Board's Education Advisory Committee to determine whether the curriculum for Petitioner's degree from the University of Madrid met the requirements of Rule 21H-20.006, Florida Administrative Code. This analysis was specifically directed to determine whether Petitioner's curriculum conformed to the criteria for accrediting engineering programs set forth by the Engineering Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology, Inc., (hereinafter "ABET"). The analysis of Petitioner's degree shows that, when compared with ABET criteria, Petitioner's engineering education was deficient four semester hours in mathematics and included no courses in engineering design, sixteen semester hours of which are required by ABET criteria. Further, Petitioner's education included no computer application of engineering design programs, a mandated requirement by ABET standards. Petitioner has never taken any of these courses subsequent to receiving his degree in Spain. Petitioner's degree, rather than being an engineering degree, is the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in chemistry. Petitioner's degree is significantly deficient in required course areas, so that it does not meet the Board's criteria. Petitioner thus cannot be considered as an applicant for examination since in order to sit for the professional engineer examination in the State of Florida, one must have an engineering degree which meets standards acceptable to the Board. Finally, Petitioner's background was reviewed to determine whether he could be considered for licensure under a different provision for licensure by endorsement. Petitioner has never held a professional engineer registration or license from another State of the United States. The Board has never interpreted the word "state" found in the statutes and rules regulating the licensure of professional engineers in Florida to include foreign counties. Petitioner is not a graduate of the State University System. Petitioner did not notify the Department before July 1, 1984, that he was engaged in engineering work on July 1, 1981, and wished to take advantage of a temporary educational waiver. As a result of the Board's review of all avenues to licensure available to Petitioner, Petitioner's application was denied either to sit for the examination to become a professional engineer or to be licensed by endorsement, unless and until he meets the educational requirements to sit for the professional engineer examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement and further finding that Petitioner's educational background does not meet the requirements necessary to take the examination to become licensed in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of March, 1990. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 28th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-5973 Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 0.00, .10, .20, .30, .40, .50, 1.10, 1.20, 2.20, 3.10, 3.20, 3.40, 3.60, 4.10, 4.11, 4.13, 5.00, 5.30, 5.40, 5.41, 5.50, 5.51, 5.52, 6.00, 6.10, 6.20, 6.21, 6.22, 6.23, 6.24, 6.25, 6.26, 7.00, 7.40, and 7.50 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument or conclusions of law. Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 1.21, 3.00, 4.00, 7.10, 7.20, 730, 7.41, 7.42, and 7.43 have been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 1.22 and 2.10 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed paragraphs numbered 3.30, 3.50, 3.70, 4.12, 4.20, 5.10, 5.11, and 5.20 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues involved in this proceeding. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-8 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Office of Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Carlos Martinez Mallen 33C Venetian Way #66 Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Rex Smith, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Trans/Circuits is a manufacturer of electronic printed circuit boards located at 210 Newman Way, Lake Park, Florida. Trans/Circuits' manufacturing operation involves the deposition of copper on plastic boards and the use of a lead or tin etch resist in order to create an electrically conducting circuit board. In the course of the manufacturing process, rinsewaters are used which become contaminated with copper and lead from the manufacturing process. These rinsewaters undergo chemical treatment to remove the metals and other contaminants, and are then discharged into an unlined percolation pond located behind Trans/Circuits' facility. About 36,000 gallons of effluent are discharged into the pond every day. The percolation pond discharges into ground water underlying Trans/Circuits' facility which groundwaters contain less than 3000 milligrams per liter (mg/l) of total dissolved solids. Trans/Circuits uses a Havviland brand wastewater treatment system. The system at present does not provide treatment sufficient to remove copper, fluoride, and lead from the wastewater effluent in compliance with the DER class G-II groundwater standards for these metals, i.e., 1.0 mg/l of copper, 1.5 mg/l of fluoride, and .05 mg/l of lead. Trans/Circuits has exceeded the effluent limitations for copper and lead at almost all times since at least June 1984. Trans/Circuits is not likely to comply with those standards for at least six months, by Trans/Circuits' own admission. The Operating Permit Application, Case No. 83-3676 Trans/Circuits requested a hearing to contest the DER Notice of Intent to Deny the application for an operating permit. The burden of proof and burden of going forward is therefore on Trans/Circuits to show that it is entitled to issuance of the operating permit. In this regard, Trans/Circuits did not introduce into the case any evidence relating to the operating permit application and did not introduce the application, itself. Further, Trans/Circuits did not present any evidence that its installation will abate or prevent pollution, or that it can provide reasonable assurances that the system which it seeks to operate will not discharge, emit or cause pollution. The Trans/Circuits facility has never been in compliance with DER standards and cannot provide assurances that it will be in compliance at anytime in the foreseeable future. Further Trans/Circuits has been operating without an operating permit at least since October 1983. The Month-to-Month Authorization, Case No. 84-0191 On September 17, 1982, DER issued a Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action (NOV) to Trans/Circuits. The NOV alleged that Trans/Circuits violated provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and DER rules in operation of its industrial waste water treatment and disposal system. Trans/Circuits requested and received an informal conference to discuss the allegations of the NOV, which conference was held on October 20, 1982. At the informal conference, DER and Trans/Circuits reached agreement on a resolution of the issues raised by the NOV. On November 4, 1982, a Consent Order was issued by DER, setting forth the parties' agreement and requiring Trans/Circuits to perform certain corrective actions. In the consent order, Trans/Circuits agreed not to discharge industrial wastewaters into waters of the state "without an appropriate and valid permit authorizing such discharge or having otherwise obtained Department authorization." At the time the consent order was issued, Trans/Circuits was operating pursuant to a DER construction permit which was issued for the purpose of allowing Trans/Circuits to make certain modifications to its treatment system to bring the system into compliance with DER effluent standards. The construction permit expired in January 1983, but Trans/Circuits continued to operate. About one month after the construction permit expired, DER notified Trans/Circuits that it was violating the consent order by operating without DER authorization. The parties met to discuss the matter, and agreed that Trans/Circuits would cease operation for one week to conduct bench-scale testing to identify problem areas and possible corrective actions. Trans/Circuits did cease operation and conduct the testing as agreed. Trans/Circuits presented the data resulting from their bench scale testing to DER, and represented that it had identified problem areas that needed correction. DER evaluated the data and agreed to allow Trans/Circuits to operate for a limited time to gather plant effluent quality data which would form the basis for DER's decision whether to allow operation to continue. DER did not take enforcement action to have Trans/Circuits cease operation at that time because DER wanted to give Trans/Circuits time to show that it could comply with the effluent standards as it claimed it could. On March 23, 1983, DER notified Trans/Circuits that there had been a significant improvement in the plant's ability to produce effluent of acceptable quality, and DER authorized Trans/Circuits to make modifications in order to improve effluent quality. DER at that time gave Trans/Circuits authorization to operate for an indefinite period, with the condition that DER would rescind its approval if the program of sampling and system approval did not continue. Trans/Circuits accepted the authorization on DER's terms. On April 12, 1983, DER granted Trans/Circuits' month-to-month authorization to operate ". . . provided continued improvement is made in your system's operation and the Department can reasonably anticipate system compliance." This authorization was in response to a request from Trans/Circuits for 90-day temporary operating approval in order to demonstrate that the system could comply with state standards. By letter dated October 5, 1983, DER withdrew its authorization for month-to-month operation of Trans/Cirouits' facility because it believed that compliance with state standards could no longer be reasonably anticipated. Despite Trans/Circuits' best efforts, the facility was not in compliance and DER had no assurance that continued operation would bring the facility into compliance within a reasonable amount of time. Trans/Circuits has never ceased operation since DER withdrew its month-to-month operating approval. Trans/Circuits has not had a DER permit for construction or operation of the facility since the expiration of their last construction permit in January, 1983. At a meeting on December 1, 1983, Trans/Circuits' general manager admitted that he was aware that Trans/Circuits' was in violation of the terms of the consent order by continuing to operate without DER authorization. Analysis of Trans/Circuits' plant effluent for April 1983, shows that average lead levels were 0.21 parts per million (ppm) (or mg/l), average fluoride levels were 2.45 ppm, while average copper levels were 0.51 ppm. These were the effluent levels existing when Trans/Circuits was granted its month-to- month approval for operation. Since the month-to-month authorization was granted, the majority of Trans/Circuits' effluent samples have not complied with the DER standards for lead, copper, and fluoride. Since April 16, 1984, five percent or less of Trans/Circuits' effluent samples have complied with the effluent standards for lead and copper. In the week or two prior to hearing, the majority of effluent samples contained lead at a concentration of 0.2 to 0-5 ppm (with some higher), and contained copper at a concentration of between 2 and 3.5 ppm (with some higher). The most recent data available indicate that Trans/Circuits is not in compliance with the effluent standards for lead, copper and fluoride. Daily average effluent concentrations for lead and copper are significantly greater now than they were when DER issued its month-to-month authorization. Groundwater samples just outside Trans/Circuits' property show violations of the DER standards for lead. The evidence shows that Trans/Circuits effluent quality has not improved since April 1983. Effluent concentrations of lead and copper have actually increased significantly since October 1983, when DER withdraw its month-to-month authorization. Trans/Circuits does not even expect to know before December 1984, whether its present system can attain compliance with effluent standards. The Construction Permit Application On March 8, 1984, Trans/Circuits applied to DER for a permit to construct modifications and improvements to the existing Havviland wastewater treatment system. Although the stated purpose of the requested construction was to upgrade the system to achieve compliance with the Riviera Beach Sewer Use Code so as to allow a sewer tie-in, Trans/Circuits had abandoned that purpose by the time of the hearing. Trans/Circuits now seeks to upgrade the systems so that the effluent can comply with the applicable standards for discharge to ground water. When DER received the application, it was reviewed by a DER engineer to see if it was complete. The engineer determined it was not complete, and notified Trans/Circuits on April 6, 1984, that additional information was needed to complete the review process, all of which information was necessary to determine whether a permit should be issued for the requested construction. Trans/Circuits' general manager objected to the request for additional information, claiming that all the requested information was not necessary to review the application. However, at the request of Trans/Circuits' counsel, a meeting was held between representatives of Trans/Circuits and DER to discuss the request for information that was needed for review of the application. Trans/Circuits thereafter, withdrew their objections, and agreed to provide the requested information. Trans/Circuits responded to DER's request for additional information on June 27, 1984, at 3:30 P.M. the day prior to hearing. Trans/Circuits delivered a packet of information to DER at that time that purported to be the requested information. Also at that time, however, Trans/Circuits told DER that it had already performed some of the construction for which a permit was sought, and that it was not sure what, if any, of the remaining construction would be undertaken. The information that was submitted to DER was not all of the information requested by DER. No flow diagram was submitted and waste effluent analysis was lacking. Without this information, it is impossible to determine whether or not reasonable assurance has been provided by Trans/Circuits that DER standards will be met. Even if all of the requested information had been submitted, DER could not issue a construction permit to Trans/Circuits because its future construction plans are now only speculative. Trans/Circuits does not know what modifications it intends to construct, or when exactly such modifications will be made. All that is certain is that Trans/Circuits does not intend any longer to construct the modifications for which it made application. DER evaluates applications to determines whether all proposed modifications works as a system. Trans/Circuits is the applicant for this permit and has the burden of showing that it is entitled to issuance of the permit. Here Trans/Circuits failed to present any evidence of what construction it actually plans to do, let alone that the purposed construction meets the criteria and that it is entitled to the permit.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation: Denying Trans/Circuits application for an operation permit; Denying Trans/Circuits application for a construction permit; and Withdrawing the month-to-month authorization for Trams/Circuits' operation. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of September, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 September, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner began employment with Respondent in November 1983. He was assigned to the Water and Sewer Department as a laborer. In 1986, Petitioner was transferred by the Respondent to the Water and Sewer Department water meter shop to be a water meter repairman. Petitioner continued his employment in that section until the spring of 1993. At that time, Petitioner accepted status under the Respondent's Disability Income Replacement policy. This arrangement is for an employee who is absent due to disability for more than 60 days. He then becomes eligible to receive payment of 60 percent of the employee's regular earnings. From the years 1986 into 1990, Petitioner enjoyed good health. During that period his employee work evaluations ranged from satisfactory to above satisfactory. In 1990, Petitioner developed psoriasis. In the beginning, the condition was controlled through medical treatment. However, in 1991, Petitioner was diagnosed with bladder cancer. As a result, while being treated for the bladder cancer in 1991 and 1992, to include two surgeries, Petitioner was unable to receive medical treatment for his psoriasis. Consequently the psoriasis became more severe. There was a change in supervisory personnel on April 4, 1991, which affected Petitioner's employment status together with that of other employees within the Water and Sewer Department. The change came about when Richard Davis, who headed the Water and Sewer Department was replaced by Henry Hicks. Respondent had found it necessary to replace Davis, because in Respondent's view Davis was not satisfactorily addressing the personnel issues within the Water and Sewer Department. When hired, one of the issues which Hicks felt he needed to address was a morale problem caused by employee perceptions that the Department of Water and Sewer employee rules were not being enforced in a consistent manner. Hicks was of the opinion that this perception existed, in part, because supervisors maintained a casual approach to employee counseling and discipline. Hicks, in his tenure, reminded the supervisors to formalize their procedures in dealing with employee counseling and disciplining. He required the supervisor provide documentation of any disciplinary action whether verbally given or by a written reprimand. This change in direction tended to increase the number of documented incidences of imposition of employee discipline within the Water and Sewer Department. The first employee evaluation which Petitioner received after Hicks' assumption of his position of director of the Water and Sewer Department was in 1991. The 1991 evaluation which Petitioner was given contained positive and negative remarks about Petitioner's work performance. In the spring of 1991, the Water and Sewer Department held a picnic, an activity in which the employees were encouraged to participate. As in prior years the Petitioner volunteered to be a member of the food committee for the picnic and was appointed to that committee. Members of the food committee would serve food at the picnic. At that time, the Petitioner's psoriasis was such that he was noticeably peeling and flaking. Howard Johnson, a supervisor with Respondent approached Hicks and told Hicks that several employees had stated that they, the employees, would not go to the picnic if Petitioner served food because they were afraid that Petitioner's skin would flake into the food. Having been apprised of this situation, upon a date prior to the picnic, Hicks met with Petitioner and told Petitioner what had been reported to Hicks and asked Petitioner to serve the needs of the picnic activity in some other manner than food service. Specifically, the Petitioner was offered the opportunity to help "set up" the picnic area. Petitioner did not accept the alternative offer to assist in the outing. Instead, Petitioner was offended and felt that he was unreasonably singled out due to his psoriasis. Nonetheless, the reaction by other employees to having Petitioner serve food and the response by Hicks to offer an alternative opportunity to assist in the activity did not constitute harassment or unreasonable conduct toward Petitioner. In association with the picnic for the spring of 1991, Bobby Thigpen, a supervisor with Respondent, made a comment to Petitioner about Petitioner's psoriasis and Petitioner's participation on the food committee at the picnic. Although Petitioner was mindful of Thigpen's candor about the subject, Thigpen's remarks contributed to Petitioner's hurt feelings concerning other employees not wishing Petitioner to serve food at the picnic. The remarks by Thigpen were not designed to harass Petitioner based upon Petitioner's physical condition. In addition, Petitioner did not report Thigpen's remarks to his supervisor pursuant to Respondent's "No times relevant to the inquiry, prohibited harassment on the basis of handicap status as well as other protected categories. The policy instructed the employee who believed that he had been harassed to bring the matter to the supervisor or to the Human Resource Department within the organization if the employee did not feel that he could discuss the matter with his supervisor. Respondent's employees are required to attend an annual meeting to review this policy. Petitioner did not complain to the Human Resource Department that he had been harassed by Thigpen through Thigpen's remarks regarding Petitioner's service on the food committee. No other competent proof was offered to the effect that Respondent's employees had made derogatory comments about Petitioner's physical disabilities. Because Petitioner's psoriasis was in a more severe condition, Petitioner would leave flakes of skin on chairs in the Water and Sewer Department break-room. When the Petitioner's co residue they would switch chairs rather than sit in the chair on which Petitioner had left flakes of skin. Although Petitioner found out that the other employees were switching chairs due to the flakes of Petitioner's skin being found on the initial chair, there is no competent proof that any employee ever commented to the Petitioner that the employee would be opposed to the Petitioner eating in the break-room due to his physical condition. Petitioner, together with other employees who were supervised by Dan Miller, had been harassed by Miller at times relevant to the inquiry. In Petitioner's instance, Miller's harassment was not directed to Petitioner's physical disabilities. Some of the remarks made by Miller to Petitioner were that Petitioner was short and fat and further derogatory comments about Petitioner's haircut and clothes. Miller had also called the Petitioner dumb or stupid because Petitioner asked Miller to repeat instructions over the radio that was used for communicating between the supervisor and his respective employees. Notwithstanding Petitioner's contention that he had told Miller that he was having trouble hearing because of psoriasis that had spread to Petitioner's ears, Miller denies that Petitioner had told Miller that psoriasis was affecting Petitioner's hearing, and Miller's testimony is credited. On the contrary, without knowledge of any physical disability concerning hearing which Petitioner had, and without regard for the reaction any other employees which Miller supervised might have, Miller made insulting comments to employees which he supervised when talking to them on the radio. Employees other than Petitioner to whom the insulting comments were directed had no known physical disabilities. James Scarberry, a co-employee who worked for Miller, overheard Miller yell at Petitioner on occasion having to do with Petitioner's job performance, not Petitioner's physical disability related to hearing. Petitioner asked Miller and a co-worker not to smoke in his presence because he had recently had bladder cancer surgery. Petitioner contends that this request was met with laughter and jokes. Miller testified that the request was not met with jokes or laughter. Instead, Miller recalls, and his testimony is credited, that Petitioner complained that Al Nichols, a co-worker, had smoked excessively in Petitioner's presence. The subject of Nichols' and Miller's smoking in Petitioner's presence was discussed among Miller, Nichols and Respondent, and it was agreed that Nichols and Miller would try not to smoke excessively in Petitioner's presence. No medical evidence was presented which tended to identify the necessity for Petitioner to be afforded a smoke environment due to his medical condition or that Petitioner had ever made requests other than that directed to Miller and Nichols regarding not smoking in his presence at work. Petitioner had made requests that he be provided light duty because of the problems he experienced with his knees due to psoriasis. These requests were directed to Miller, Petitioner's immediate supervisor. The requests were not always granted. When Petitioner was turned down for light duty it was based upon the fact that light duty was generally not available in the Water and Sewer Department for any employee. Moreover, at that time, employees in Petitioner's work assignment usually worked alone and it would adversely affect the production of the unit if two repairmen were dispatched to do a job which would ordinarily take only one repairman to complete. Petitioner presented no proof concerning denial of light duty at a time when a physician may have specifically recommended light duty for Petitioner. Concerning discipline directed to the Petitioner, on March 18, 1982, Petitioner stopped at a job site to which he had not been assigned. There he engaged David Lipps, an employee of Respondent, in a conversation. Lipps was a supervisor at the site and the conversation had to do with the meal policy which had been applied at the site. Eventually the conversation became an argument, at which point Lipps told Petitioner that he did not belong at the job site and asked him to leave. Lipps then reported the incident to his supervisor, Rodney Thompson and the matter eventually came to the attention of Hicks. Hicks discussed the matter with the Petitioner and Lipps and concluded that Petitioner had no business purpose for being at the Lipps' job site and that Petitioner was responsible for causing the argument with Lipps. Petitioner was issued a written warning on March 26, 1992. The disciplinary reprimand was not related to Petitioner's physical disabilities. On May 18, 1992, Petitioner received a written reprimand. The reprimand was based upon the Petitioner's conduct while on weekend standby duty. This assignment was in keeping with the periodic requirement to serve on weekend standby. On May 16, 1992, Petitioner was on a standby status with Lipps. Lipps was referred to as the "A" worker and Petitioner was the "B" worker. The "A" worker was in charge of the work team. Petitioner arrived at the first job site 34 minutes before Lipps. When Lipps arrived, Petitioner complained that Lipps was an hour late. Petitioner then told Lipps that he had somewhere else to go that day. Lipps and Petitioner went to a second job and by that time Lipps told Petitioner that he was tired of Petitioner's complaining about having to work that day and concluded that Lipps did not have Petitioner's full cooperation. As a result, Lipps determined to leave the completion of the second job until the following Monday. Lipps reported the incident to his supervisor, Rodney Thompson. Petitioner had been previously counseled about his attitude concerning standby duty. Hicks reviewed the facts surrounding Lipps' complaint and decided to issue a written reprimand to Petitioner for making negative verbal remarks about Petitioner's duties and for failing to cooperate with his supervisor on standby duty. The disciplinary action was not for purposes of discriminating against Petitioner because of Petitioner's physical disabilities. Moreover, Hicks had reprimanded two other employees, Ed Swift and Bob Buckley for making negative verbal comments about job duties. Hicks did not know these other individuals to be suffering from any form of physical disability. In June of 1992, Petitioner applied for and was granted a leave of absence for an unspecified period. By June 2, 1992, Petitioner knew that he would need to go on extended leave beginning June 8, 1992. He failed to inform any of his supervisors that he was going on this medical leave. He did not show up for work on June 8, 1992. Hicks inquired of Petitioner on June 8, 1992, about not telling his supervisor that he was going to be on medical leave. Petitioner responded to the inquiry by indicating that he had told Scarberry, Petitioner's co-worker, of his intention to go on medical leave and that he had told a city clinic nurse that he was going on leave of absence. Hicks pointed out, correctly, that telling the nurse and Scarberry of Petitioner's intentions to take medical leave did not relieve Petitioner of the duty to directly inform a supervisor of that intention. Moreover, Scarberry had told the Petitioner that he, Scarberry, would not be at work the first day of Petitioner's medical leave, making it questionable that Scarberry would have advised a supervisor that Petitioner was hoping to be absent from work that day. Scarberry made Hicks aware that Scarberry had pointed out to Petitioner that he would not be at work on June 8, 1992. Petitioner's assertion that he wrote a note to his immediate supervisor, Miller, regarding the plan to be out on June 8, 1992, if true, is of no utility because the note was not given directly to Miller and was never indirectly received by Miller. Miller had not been at work June 5, 1992, the friday before Petitioner was missing from his job duty on June 8, 1992. Petitioner knew that Miller was not at work on June 5, 1992. As a consequence of not informing a supervisor that he was going to be on extended medical leave, Petitioner was disciplined. The action by Respondent on which Petitioner was given a written reprimand for failure to inform a supervisor that Petitioner was going to take extended medical leave did not constitute discrimination against Petitioner based upon his physical disabilities. Petitioner was allowed to take the extended medical leave. Noel Werner, a secretary in the Water and Sewer Department had also been reprimanded by Hicks for failing to follow proper procedures for obtaining authorization to take medical leave. Hicks is unaware of any physical disability that Ms. Werner may have. When Petitioner took leave in June of 1992, he believed that he would be eligible for Disability Income Replacement. However, in August 1992, Petitioner was informed that the Respondent's Risk Management Department had determined that he was ineligible because he was under the care of a licensed health counselor as opposed to an M.D. or a Ph.D. Carol Ingham, Respondent's Human Resource Director, learned of this circumstance and contacted the Assistant City Manager, Dick Lewis, and requested that Petitioner be granted an exception to the policy of not being eligible for Disability Income Replacement when using a licensed health counselor. As a result, Petitioner's request was reevaluated and he was ruled eligible for Disability Income Replacement through the policy pertaining to that status for the period August 4 through 30, 1992. Concerning his physical condition, in the spring of 1992, Petitioner was diagnosed with osteoarthritis in his knees. This meant he was disabled to do any persistent bending or kneeling, which was a requirement of his employment in the Water and Sewer Department. His condition also disabled him from doing his assigned work because his work as a water meter repairman involved walking distances of a 100 feet or more on a persistent basis and standing all day. Concerning the medical leave of absence which Petitioner took in the summer of 1992, this subject was discussed by Ingham in conversation with the city clinic nurse, Holly McLaughlin. They talked about the stress which Petitioner seemed to be experiencing and the failure to follow the policy of informing his supervisor of his intention to take medical leave. On June 15, 1992, Ms. Ingham met with Petitioner and his wife to discuss Petitioner's stress. At that time, Petitioner reported to Ms. Ingham that Petitioner's supervisor Miller had treated him badly and that Miller had also treated other employees badly. Petitioner told Ingham that Miller had called Petitioner stupid and had been abusive in conversation over the radio. No claim was made by Petitioner that Miller had made comments directed to Petitioner's physical disabilities. As a follow Ingham discussed Petitioner's remarks about Miller's conduct with a number of the Petitioner's co-workers. Ingham decided that Miller had, in fact, yelled and cursed at a number of employees he supervised, to include Petitioner. No other employee reported to Ingham that Miller had made derogatory comments in their presence concerning Petitioner's physical disabilities. Based upon Ingham's findings, Hicks determined to discipline Miller for his conduct directed toward employees whom Miller supervised. Miller received a written reprimand and was given the option of being demoted or seeking counseling through an employee assistance program. Miller opted to go to the employee assistance program. Moreover, Miller was told that if conduct toward subordinates continued that he would be subject to more severe discipline to include discharge. Miller's treatment of the employees he supervises has improved since the imposition of discipline. Petitioner returned to work in August 1992, following his leave of absence for medical purposes. At that time, he was issued a service truck which another employee had been using. Petitioner felt that he should have been issued a new truck which the Water and Sewer Department operated. The truck that Petitioner had been issued was dirty and smelly. Miller told Petitioner that the newer truck was assigned to an employee who needed the larger truck because that employee would be performing heavier work than Petitioner would be called upon to perform. Miller offered to have the truck which Petitioner had been issued cleaned up or detailed. Petitioner declined that offer. Petitioner complained about the truck that he had been assigned to a co-worker, Fred Sauls. He told Sauls that he was going to take the truck he was issued and drive it to city hall to show Ingham, the Human Resource Director. In fact, Petitioner reported the incident to Ms. Ingham. The Petitioner received a letter of reprimand on September 4, 1992, for complaining to a co-worker and Ms. Ingham about an everyday work related problem rather than following the chain of command. Prior to receiving that written reprimand, Petitioner had been specifically counseled by Hicks concerning handling everyday work related problems through Petitioner's supervisor. Those specific instructions on everyday work related problems were not countermanded by the general opportunity which Hicks had described for employees to go outside the chain of command when they did not feel that they would get satisfaction from an immediate supervisor, and the open door opportunity to consult with the Human Resource Director. In this instance, the response from Miller was adequate to meet Petitioner's needs in confronting an everyday work related problem and Petitioner had no reason to complain to Sauls or to complain to Ingham. The written reprimand given to Petitioner was not designed to discriminate against Petitioner based upon his physical disabilities. Hicks and Ingham became aware of the Petitioner's inability to perform his assigned job duties due to his physical disabilities and they looked for other duties that the Respondent might be able to perform in view of his physical disabilities. The only positions that were found for which Petitioner was otherwise qualified and physically able to perform were part-time positions that did not offer medical benefits. Upon further reflection, Ingham and Hicks offered to combine these two positions in the Respondent's Recreation Department into a single job which would allow Petitioner to continue working and to receive benefits. The combined position was at a lesser pay than the present position which he held. Petitioner decided that he would prefer to be placed in the status of Disability Income Replacement in lieu of the combined jobs. In April 1993, Petitioner accepted the status of Disability Income Replacement and has not returned to work.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations which dismisses the Petitioner's claims. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of June, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 13th day of June, 1994. APPENDIX The following discussion is given concerning the Proposed Findings of Fact of the parties: Petitioner's Facts: Paragraphs 1 through 6 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 7 through 14 are contrary to facts found. Respondent's Facts: Paragraphs 1 through 26 are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Ramputi, Esquire Scott, Gleason & Pope, P.A. 409 Southeast Fourteenth Street Ocala, Florida 34471 David H. Spalter, Esquire Fisher & Phillips 2310 One Financial Plaza Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee FL 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission Building F Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee FL 32303-4149
