The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern generally whether the Respondents named above are liable for the contamination and violations alleged in the Petitioner, Department of Environmental Regulation's (DER) Notice of Violation and Amended Notice of Violation, pursuant to the relevant provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules contained in Title 17, Florida Administrative Code, as relevant to this proceeding and treated herein.
Findings Of Fact DER is an agency of the State of Florida charged, under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and related rules, with preventing and alleviating environmental contaminations, as pertinent hereto, including such issues involving ground waters of the State of Florida. The property in question in this proceeding is located at the northwest corner of Blount and Guillemard Streets in Pensacola, Florida. The legal description of that property and the state of the title of the property is as described in the Prehearing Stipulation filed by the parties at page two thereof. The Belleaus are the current owners of the real property at that location. Crown is the owner and operator of a commercial laundry and dry cleaning business situated on that property in the building(s) located thereon. Crown is a corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida and is a "person" within the meaning of Section 403.031(5), Florida Statutes. American Linen is a corporation authorized to conduct business in the State of Florida and is also a "person" within the meaning of that Statute. American Linen obtained the property by purchase by corporate warranty deed from Rentex (RCD) on April 23, 1979. It operated a commercial laundry at the property from that date until June 3, 1985, when it sold the laundry business to Crown and the real property upon which it operated to the Belleaus. In November of 1971, RCD, a Delaware corporation and a 100 percent-owned subsidiary of Rentex Services corporation (RSC), also a Delaware corporation, acquired the property. RCD owned and operated a commercial laundry and dry cleaning business on the property until April 23, 1979, on which date it sold the laundry business and property to American Linen. It actually operated a dry-cleaning service on the property during only 1974 and early 1975. Sketchley Delaware, Inc. (SDI), a Delaware corporation, purchased RSC, which then became a 100 percent- wholly-owned subsidiary of SDI in 1982. RCD, however, remained a 100 percent-wholly-owned subsidiary of RSC until 1983. In March of 1983, SDI merged with RSC, and the resulting corporation was named "Sketchley Services, Inc." RCD continued as a corporation, 100 percent-wholly-owned as a subsidiary of Sketchley. In October of 1983, RCD merged into Sketchley, and Sketchley survived. Respondent Sketchley has never held title to nor conducted any form of business on the property in question. On March 29, 1991, Sketchley was renamed "Jura Services, Inc." (Jura) and was converted to a close corporation under Delaware law. This controversy had its origins in May of 1986 when a representative of DER performed a routine sampling of tap water at the DER district office in Pensacola. Those samples were subjected to chemical analysis which revealed the presence of PCE, a widely-used solvent often associated with dry-cleaning operations. That tap water came from the public water supply for the City of Pensacola, supplied by a network of potable water wells. Upon learning of the PCE content in the water supply, DER began an investigation to attempt to locate its source. Analysis of a number of the Escambia County Utilities Authority (ECUA) wells (PW-6, PW- 8, PW-9, and east well) contained quantities of PCE in excess of the maximum contaminant levels for drinking water authorized by DER's rules. Those wells were taken out of service in June of 1986, subjected to carbon filtration which ultimately removed the PCE from the water supply for those wells, and the wells have since been put back in public service. A ground water investigation was undertaken by DER to determine the source of contamination in the upper portion of the sand and gravel aquifer and in the production zone of the deeper Floridian aquifer which supplies those wells. A total of 29 ground water monitoring wells (MW) were installed and sampled. An analysis of these was prepared (87-04 report). On February 7, 1987, DER and representatives of the utilities authority and Crown, the operator of the laundry facility, conducted an inspection and clean-out of the surge tank located in the floor of the Crown laundry building. A chemical analysis of three samples of liquid residue in the bottom of the tank revealed the presence of PCE in those sediments in concentrations of 1,952 parts per billion (PPB), 108.5 PPB, and 50 PPB. Additionally, one of the samples revealed trichloroethene at 34 PPB and 1, 2 dichloroethene at 52,800 PPB. Under certain conditions, these last two-named compounds are produced as bi-products of the breakdown of PCE. Based upon this inspection and the investigation of other potential sources, DER took the position that the surge tank at Crown had discharged waste water containing PCE into the adjacent soils and that PCE migrated into ground water produced by the ECUA's public water supply wells, PW-6, PW-8, PW-9, and "east well". Although not stipulating that the samples were representative or to the conclusions to be drawn from the analytical results of testing the samples, the parties stipulated that proper physical and technical procedures and methods were used in the collection, preservation and analysis of all of the samples and the laboratory results were consequently stipulated into evidence. Jura, American Linen, Crown, and the Belleaus had no actual knowledge that any PCE had been deposited in the surge tank between 1971 and the date in 1979, when American Linen bought the facility. A commercial laundry has been operated on the subject property since 1971. The laundry was operated by RCD at that time, and in the summer of 1974 and during at least part of 1975, a dry-cleaning operation, in addition to laundry, was conducted by RCD at the site. The dry-cleaning operation involved the use of PCE. This was the only period of time when dry-cleaning operations were conducted on the property until 1985 when Crown conducted a dry-cleaning operation. Crown's operation, however, made no use of PCE, but rather, Crown used "stoddered solvent" as its dry- cleaning fluid. During American Linen's ownership and operation of the laundry at the site, no dry-cleaning operations, whatever, were conducted. At no time during American Linen's ownership and operation of the laundry at the site nor during the Belleaus ownership, and Crown's operation, of the laundry facility was any PCE used or stored on the property. Since laundry operations commenced at the site, the waste wash water from the laundry was discharged to the surge tank located beneath the floor of the Crown building. That tank intercepts and stabilizes wash water prior to its discharge to the municipal sanitary sewer system. The surge tank also served as a component of the laundry operation as a thermal recovery system. Although the surge tank and the commercial laundry and dry-cleaning businesses which have been operated at the site constitutes an "installation" for purposes of Section 403.031(4), Florida Statutes, the tank has never been used for the intentional storage or disposal of any "hazardous substances", as defined in Section 403.703(31), Florida Statutes, by any of the Respondents. The tank has never been used for the intentional disposal of any hazardous substances by American Linen, Crown, the Belleaus, or Jura. During normal laundry operations, lint, sand and other sediment accumulated in the bottom of the surge tank over a period of time. When the accumulated quantity of sediment became too great so as to interfere with the operation, the liquid and the sediments were removed periodically by a vacuum truck and manual labor, using shovels, buckets, and a dumptruck. The surge tank was cleaned out several times over the pertinent years, including 1976, 1978, or 1979 (before American Linen's purchase), as well as in 1980-81, 1983, 1987, 1990 and 1991. It was possibly cleaned in 1972 or 1973, as well. In the 1976 clean-out, the surge tank was cleaned thoroughly enough that the workers reported searching for loose change on the concrete floor of the tank. DER must prove a violation of Section 403.161(1)(a) or (b), Florida Statutes, in order to establish liability for purposes of Section 403.141(1), Florida Statutes, and Section 403.121(2), Florida Statutes. DER has also sought, as of the time of hearing, to impose liability on the Respondents, pursuant to Section 403.727(4), Florida Statutes, which imposes strict liability on the owner and operator or former owner and operator of a facility at which a release to the environment of a hazardous substance has occurred. Section 403.161(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that it is prohibited for a person to cause pollution so as to harm or injure human health or welfare, animal, plant, or aquatic life, or property. In this proceeding, DER did not establish with competent, substantial evidence that the alleged pollution by PCE caused any harm or injury to human health or welfare, animal, plant, or aquatic life, or property. No risk assessment was conducted to determine the potential harm or actual harm. No testimony was presented with regard to the possible health effects or injurious impacts of PCE in the environment. There was no evidence shown to establish what amount of PCE in the environment or ground water might cause or potentially cause such harm to human health or any of the other injurious effects referenced in the above-cited Statute. DER has not adduced any evidence of a preponderant nature to show that any Respondent is thus liable for a violation of Section 403.161(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Section 403.161(1)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that it is a violation to fail to comply with any rule of DER. Section 403.161(1)(b), Florida Statutes, is implemented with regard to ground water through former Rule 17-4.245(2), Florida Administrative Code, now Rule 17- 28.700, Florida Administrative Code, which provides a cause of action for violation of ground water standards. In order to maintain a cause of action under that Rule, DER must prove that the Respondents violated either Rule 17-3.402(1), Florida Administrative Code (the "Free From" Rule), or Rule 17-3.404(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, which sets forth the ground water criteria alleged in the NOV and Amended NOV to have been violated. Concerning Rule 17-3.402(1), Florida Administrative Code, which establishes narrative, minimum health effects-based criteria applicable to ground water, DER has alleged that the Respondents failed to comply with this Rule, but introduced no evidence concerning any health effects of PCE in the ground water. DER produced no evidence whatever regarding the concentration, if any, of PCE, which may be carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, or toxic, or which would pose a serious danger to the public health, safety or welfare, or create a nuisance, or impair the reasonable and beneficial use of any adjacent ground water. Even assuming that some amount of PCE was released from the surge tank at some period of time, DER failed to present any evidence regarding the quantity of PCE which may have been released, and the concentration in the ground water which could have resulted from a release from the Crown property. It simply was not proven that the concentration shown in the wells, at which samples were taken, all resulted from any release, if any, which came from the Crown property. Thus, DER failed to adduce evidence which can demonstrate in a preponderant way a violation of the "Free From Rule" cited above or which would support its cause of action under Section 403.161(1)(b), Florida Statutes, with regard to alleged violation of this Rule. DER has also alleged that the Respondents violated Rule 17-3.404(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, cross- referencing and incorporating former Rule 17-22.104(1)(g), Florida Administrative Code, now Rule 17-550.310(2)(d), Florida Administrative Code, which sets forth the ground water standard, in the form of maximum contaminant level (MCL) for PCE. In order to demonstrate a violation of Rule 17-3.404(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, as to each Respondent, DER had to prove that the Respondents caused a release of PCE to the ground water, resulting in a concentration of PCE in the ground water greater than the MCL established by the Rule. Effective May 23, 1984, DER thus established 3 parts per billion as the MCL for PCE in drinking water and as the water quality standard for PCE applicable in Class G- II ground water, which is the classification of the ground water underlying the Crown property, and occurring at all of the supply wells and monitor wells involved in this proceeding. In order to demonstrate a violation of the MCL by release of PCE from the laundry property, DER had the burden of proving: (a) that PCE entered the surge tank; (b) that the surge tank, in fact, released it to the environment and to the ground water; (c) that the release of PCE occurred during the ownership and/or operation of the laundry by one or more of the Respondents; and (d) that the amount of PCE entering the ground water during ownership and/or operation of each Respondent caused the concentration of PCE in the ground water to exceed the MCL in effect at the time of each Respondent's ownership and/or operation. Proof of PCE in the Tank Rentex installed a dry-cleaning machine at the Crown facility during mid-1974. It was equipped with two PCE holding tanks with PCE being used as the cleaning solvent in the dry-cleaning process. There was a storage tank, four to five feet tall, which stored pure PCE. The other tank was an eight to ten foot tall "cooker" tank used to heat and reconstitute PCE used in the dry-cleaning process. The machine was located near the rear of the Crown building, close to the floor drains and the wash room. The dry-cleaning machine was dismantled and removed from the Crown facility to another dry-cleaning establishment in Baltimore sometime in late 1974 or the early part of 1975. The thrust of DER's case is that spills of PCE occurred from the dry-cleaning machine and its operation at the Crown facility which were allowed to enter the surge tank and thence leaked into the soil, the environment and the ground water. Indeed, several boil-overs of PCE occurred during the period of 1974 and early 1975, when the dry-cleaning operations were being conducted at the facility. Witnesses, Mathias and Hedrick, for DER, established that one spill of PCE in the amount of four to five gallons also occurred, along with several boil-overs from the laundry machine during that time period; however, the actual amount of PCE spilled or boiled over from the dry-cleaning machine and its operation was not established by DER. Mr. Mathias worked as a maintenance man at the facility during the relevant period when dry-cleaning operations were conducted by RCD. He established that there were several boil-overs of PCE from the cooker tank and that when PCE boiled over from the top of the machine, some quantity would be sprayed onto the floor which was then hosed off into the floor drains, which communicate with the surge tank. He was unable to quantify the amount of PCE spilled on the laundry floor or which reached the surge tank, however. He was not able to definitively establish how many boil-overs he witnessed nor their severity in terms of the amount of PCE which was resultingly spilled on the floor of the laundry. He did not witness any spills of PCE other than those occurring in conjunction with boil-over events. Mr. Hedrick was also a maintenance man at the facility during RCD's period of ownership and its dry- cleaning operations. He knew of one incident in mid-1974 in which four to five gallons of PCE were spilled directly onto the floor of the laundry due to a hose connecting the holding tank to the cooker tank being inadvertently disconnected. That PCE was washed with a hose into the floor drains and thence into the surge tank. Mr. Hedrick could recall only two boil-overs of PCE from the dry- cleaning machines. These incidents involved PCE spraying over the top of the cooker tank but did not involve the release of any significant amount of PCE onto the floor. Mr. Hedrick established that employees were careful in handling the chemical because it was very expensive and they were careful not to waste it. After boil-over events which he described, he observed the level of the PCE in the holding tank, which did not appear to drop much as a result of the boil-overs. He was also responsible for refilling PCE into the holding tank as necessary. His experience was that he was not required to add PCE to the machine as the mere result of a boil-over because the boiling PCE escaped from the top of the machine mostly as foam with very little actual volume of PCE being discharged during such a boil- over event. Mr. Hedrick's testimony is corroborated by that of Dr. Mercer, an expert in hydrogeology, dense, non-aqueous phase liquid behavior (DNAPL), and the fate and transport of chemicals in the subsurface environment, presented by Jura. Dr. Mercer established that in a boil-over event, the PCE escaping from the top of the machine is pure PCE, chemically, but it escapes in the form of a foam or mist very near the boiling point of approximately 250 Fahrenheit. Because it is very volatile, most of the PCE escaping from the machine in a boil-over event, due to its volatility enhanced by its high heat, dissipates into the atmosphere. Whatever PCE did not volatilize would spread in a thin film over the floor of the facility and, because it was still a warm fluid, would continue to volatilize into the atmosphere. The small amount which did not volatilize would be washed into the floor drains and correspondingly diluted prior to entry into the surge tank, where it would be further diluted by the large volume of warm water present in the tank which would enhance dissolution and dilution. Consequently, the boil-overs would have produced only dissolved PCE entering the tank in small quantities, most of which would be flushed from the tank into the city sanitary sewer system through the outfall line exiting from the wall of the surge tank. Thus, the testimony of these witnesses establishes that only one spill of four to five gallons of PCE occurred in 1974, most of which was washed into the floor drains and into the surge tank. It was not established that the boil- over events materially contributed to the volume of PCE entering the surge tank during the dry-cleaning operations conducted in 1974 and early 1975. No PCE was shown to have been deposited in the surge tank after dry-cleaning operations ceased in 1974 or at the latest in early 1975 during the RCD ownership and operation of the facility. It was not shown that PCE was released or discharged to the environment by any other means since that time at or on the property or facility. Release of PCE to the Environment DER has thus established that some four to five gallons of PCE from a spill entered the surge tank in 1974 and that some minor quantities from boil-overs entered the tank through wash down of the laundry floor. DER also has the burden to establish the next evidentiary link; that the PCE was released from the surge tank to the environment. The surge tank consists of a poured concrete floor with concrete-block walls with a plaster or cement covering on the outside of the tank. The concrete-block mortar joints and concrete with which the tank is constructed are porous materials, although the specific porosity has not been quantified. The extent of coverage, the integrity and continuity of the exterior cement or plaster layer over the outside of the tank, and for the life of the tank, is not established. The surge tank was constructed in 1969 in conjunction with the construction of the laundry building. It is 20 feet long by 10 feet deep by 9 feet wide. It is stipulated that the surge tank leaks wash water at some rate because of the porosity of the materials and because of cracks and fissures which have opened in its walls since its construction. Testing of the tank in 1971 revealed that it leaked, at that time, at the rate of 6.5 gallons per day. No evidence establishes what the leakage rate before 1991 might have been. There is no direct evidence of a release of PCE from the surge tank to the soil or ground water. Michael Clark testified in this regard, as a member of the Operations Response Team of DER. In his opinion, DNAPL or "separate phase" PCE (undissolved PCE) had escaped from the tank into the ground water; however, he testified that he performed no calculations to determine the quantity of PCE which would have had to enter the surge tank in order to create a release of separate phase PCE. Mr. Clark assumed in the gravamen of his testimony that the contents of a 55- gallon drum of PCE had been released to the surge tank in a spill, in performing his analysis of the potential for release of PCE from the surge tank. He admitted, however, that the release of 55 gallons of PCE had been only hypothetical and no evidence was presented in this case to establish that 55 gallons of PCE had been spilled or otherwise placed in the surge tank. Mr. Clark was neither offered nor qualified as an expert in hydrogeology or any other field of expertise which could establish that he had any expertise in the movement of chemicals in the environment or in ground water or soils, nor as to the chemical state of those chemicals while in the soils or ground water at any point in time. Mr. Clark's opinion that separate phase PCE was released to the soil and then the ground water from the surge tank and that it resulted in the contamination found in the public water supply wells at issue, as well as in the monitoring wells, is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Inasmuch as Mr. Clark's opinion testimony did not demonstrate, by preponderant evidence, that separate phase PCE was released to the environment from the tank and there being no direct evidence of such a release, then inferential evidence must be used to establish whether such a release occurred. PCE was shown to be present in the tank in 1974 based upon the above-described events. The presence of PCE has been detected in the ground water immediately downgradient of the Crown property, as well as in the public drinking water supply wells and the monitoring wells, downgradient of the Crown facility. That evidence, together with the evidence concerning the porous nature of the materials of which the tank is constructed and the tank's condition, which has deteriorated over time, is sufficient to support an inference that some undetermined quantity of dissolved PCE escaped from the surge tank over some undetermined points or periods of time. DER, however, did not adduce evidence which could establish an inference that a release of dissolved PCE or separate phase PCE from the tank would be sufficient to cause the violations of the MCL for PCE found at the monitoring points in the vicinity of the Crown property nor is the evidence sufficient to establish when the releases, if any, which may have contributed to a violation of the MCL for PCE at the monitoring or sampling points may have occurred. The lack of sufficient evidence to support such an inference is pointed out by the testimony of witnesses Mathias and Hedrick, testifying for DER, concerning the quantity of PCE which entered the tank and by the testimony of Jura's expert witness, Dr. James Mercer, regarding the behavior of PCE upon entering the tank and upon a release to the environment. The finding that the evidence is insufficient to support an inference that the tank released sufficient PCE to cause a violation of the MCL for PCE is further supported by the evidence that DER did not exclude, through its PCE source investigation, other potential sources of PCE contamination in the ground water, other than Crown, particularly in view of the evidence concerning the cone of influence of the "east well" and the location of the contamination in the PW-9 well, located upgradient from the Crown facility. Dr. Mercer testified concerning the behavior of separate phase PCE with regard to the spill of four to five gallons of pure PCE from the holding tank, as found above. He established that because PCE is very volatile, much of the spill would have volatilized into the atmosphere, although at a slower rate than the boiling temperature of PCE released during boil-over events, as described herein. The spilled PCE, which did not volatilize, would have been washed down with a hose, diluting it and dissolving it in water prior to its entry into the floor drains and the surge tank. In the floor drains and in the tank, some of the PCE would have been entrained or bound up in the lint present in those locations; and some of the PCE would have made its way to the surge tank. Because of prior dilution and dissolution, a relatively small amount of pure PCE would have entered the surge tank. The presence of warm water in the tank would have promoted more dissolution and dilution of the chemical, such that most of the four to five gallons of pure PCE spilled would have become mostly dissolved PCE upon entry into the tank. Some of that would have then been washed out into a sanitary sewer system through the outfall line. Since separate phase PCE is denser than water, any of it in that form entering the tank would sink to the bottom of the waste water in the tank, coming to rest on the layer of sand, lint and other sediments on the bottom of the tank. Dr. Mercer established that any separate phase PCE from the referenced spill would thus form a layer on top of accumulated sediments at the bottom of the tank, approximately .14 inches thick, assuming that it was evenly distributed over the bottom of the tank. In order for separate phase PCE to penetrate the pore spaces in the sediments, it would have to displace the waste water or wash water already occupying those pore spaces. If the layer, established by Dr. Mercer, was as thin as .14 inches thick, such a thin layer would not penetrate the pore spaces of the sediments because they would be filled already with wash water. That thin layer of separate phase PCE would not exert sufficient hydraulic pressure to displace that water because of the capillary pressure barrier formed between the water in the pore spaces and the separate phase PCE layer on top of the sediments. The capillary pressure effect is the pressure difference between two liquids, which creates a capillary pressure barrier, inhibiting the penetration of separate phase PCE into the pore spaces of the sediments. Dr. Mercer testified that a thickness of 4.7 inches of separate phase PCE, resting on top of the sediments, would be necessary to overcome the capillary pressure barrier between the wash water and the pore spaces of the saturated sediments and the separate phase PCE layer lying on top of those sediments. Therefore, most of the separate phase PCE would remain as a layer on top of the sediments. Dr. Mercer opined that if separate phase PCE does not reach the sediments in the bottom of the tank in sufficient volume to maintain the movement of the chemical through that porous medium, the separate phase PCE, which does settle to the top of the sediments, will tend to dissolve over time, partially into the wash water above the layer of PCE at the bottom of the tank and partially into the water occupying the pore spaces within the layer of sediments in the bottom of the tank. Any separate phase PCE, which dissolves into the overlying wash water, will become extremely diluted. Eventually, most of that dissolved PCE would be discharged through the tank's outfall to the public sanitary sewer system. Any separate phase PCE, which is able to overcome the capillary pressure barrier and move into the pore spaces of the sediments, by displacing wash water within those spaces, would become trapped within those pore spaces, because of an effect known as "residual saturation". When a separate phase liquid moving through a porous medium is not of sufficient volume to maintain its movement, it tends to physically break apart into globules of separate phase liquid within those pore spaces. As more globules form within the spaces, the movement of the separate phase liquid decreases until at some point the flow stops. When the flow stops, the globules of separate phase liquid become trapped within the spaces. The point at which a sufficient percentage of pore spaces are filled with globules of separate phase liquid is called "residual saturation". Because of the effect of residual saturation on any separate phase PCE at the bottom of the tank, Dr. Mercer concluded that separate phase PCE within the pore spaces of the sediments would be unable to flow and would effectually be trapped in the sediments in the bottom of the tank until those sediments were removed, either through dissolution into the wash water in the tank as flushing occurs through use of the tank over time or when the sediments were removed during clean-outs of the tank. Therefore, little, if any, separate phase PCE could have been released from the tank to the environment. Dr. Mercer's testimony was unrefuted and thus demonstrates that most PCE entering the tank would dissolve into the wash water already present, flow through the outfall to the sewer system, or become dissolved in the free water and water occupying the pore spaces in the sediments at the bottom of the tank. The evidence supports the finding that little, if any, PCE would be released to the soil surrounding or underlying the tank as a result of the spill of four or five gallons of PCE from the dry-cleaning machine. No evidence was presented to establish the quantity of PCE which could have escaped from the tank as a result of the spill of four or five gallons of PCE into the tank nor was any evidence presented which would establish during what period of time the release to the environment may have occurred. Charles Ferst testified as an expert in environmental engineering concerning the amount of PCE which may be released from the tank over time. Mr. Ferst testified that the leakage rate of the surge tank likely increased over time until reaching the current rate established in the evidence of 6.5 gallons per day, as determined by the 1991 test. Although the surge tank leaked at earlier periods, Mr. Ferst could not determine when the tank started leaking and could not calculate the leakage rate at any period of time prior to 1991 nor could any other witness. Based upon standard construction practices and the materials used in the tank at the time of its construction in 1969, Mr. Ferst opined that the tank leaked more after 1980 than in earlier years. Using that assumption and the fact that the sediments in the bottom of the tank were cleaned out several times between 1974 and 1991, he calculated the maximum amount of PCE which could have escaped from the tank after 1980. Mr. Ferst's calculations, however, are based upon a number of unsupported assumptions. Although he establishes that the tank leaked more in later years than in earlier years, his calculations and assumptions do little to establish how much PCE may have been released during any particular period of time; and little weight can be given to his conclusions regarding the specific amounts of PCE allegedly released at particular periods of time. DER did not present any evidence concerning the amount of PCE which could have escaped from the tank, even assuming that the tank leaked since 1974, when it was shown that some PCE had been placed in the tank. DER failed to prove that any amount of PCE which may have leaked out of the tank was sufficient to cause a violation of the MCL for PCE, and it did not inferentially demonstrate that any PCE which may have leaked out of the tank caused a violation of the MCL, because it simply failed to show that the violation levels found in the various wells where samples were drawn, solely resulted from contamination emanating from the Crown tank. DER failed to adduce evidence sufficient to carry its burden of proving a violation of the ground water standard for PCE caused by a release of PCE from the Crown property. Source of Contamination DER must prove that a release of PCE from the tank caused or contributed to the PCE contamination found in the public water supply wells and the monitoring wells. Dr. Mercer testified that if it is assumed that the tank is a source of contamination and the PCE concentration data collected by DER is used, the travel time of PCE from the surge tank to one of the monitoring wells, MW-3, where the highest concentrations were found, would indicate a release occurring many years prior to 1969, the year in which the Crown building and surge tank were constructed. Dr. Mercer therefore concluded that the surge tank at the Crown facility was likely not the sole or even the primary source of PCE contamination found by DER. In attempting to determine the source of the PCE discovered in the subject water supply wells, DER conducted soil sampling in suspected areas of contamination. This soil sampling revealed only two significant areas of PCE contamination in soils, neither of which was near the Crown property. DER then also selected monitoring well locations based upon ease of accessibility in order to determine the source of the contamination quickly. The monitoring wells were placed in the deep, intermediate, and shallow zones of the aquifer system underlying downtown Pensacola. Near the Crown facility, however, the intermediate zone was not present; instead, there was a shallow zone separated from the deep zone by a confining unit of relatively-impervious material. DER demonstrated that the shallow, intermediate and deep aquifer systems within the downtown Pensacola area are contaminated with PCE and PCE-derived breakdown compounds at widely-varying concentrations. DER did not prove, however, that one or more discreet plumes of PCE contamination exist. Mr. Clark, testifying for DER, attempted to calculate the travel time of contaminants found in MW-3 based upon their being released to the ground water from the Crown facility. Although Mr. Clark indicated this to be, in his belief, between 1970 and 1980, he admitted that he only estimated the travel time of ground water, as opposed to PCE, from the Crown property. Moreover, he averaged high hydraulic conductivity values for monitoring wells quite distant from the Crown property, near PW-9, and ignored data from closer, more relevant wells. Dr. Mercer, however, testified that the method used by DER to calculate travel time, which relies on conductivity values too far away from the suspected source and wells of concern, and averages only those high-conductivity values, while ignoring more pertinent values, provides a less accurate result. Hydraulic conductivity values are used to calculate ground water velocities, which can then be used to calculate travel times over a certain distance. Dr. Mercer testified that using the hydraulic conductivity values obtained from monitoring wells in close proximity to an assumed source and which reveal the presence of PCE in significant concentrations, which DER did not do, produces a much slower ground water velocity than that calculated by DER because the hydraulic conductivity values used are much lower. Averaging the hydraulic conductivity values obtained from monitoring wells which indicated significant concentrations of PCE in close proximity to the Crown facility to calculate travel time for PCE produced an estimate of 37 years for PCE released from the surge tank to reach MW-3. Thus, the PCE would have had to have been released prior to 1969 when the surge tank and the laundry facility were built (or from a different location). Because of this, it was not definitively shown that the PCE found in MW-3 came from the surge tank at the Crown facility. Dr. Mercer's testimony, because of his higher level of training, expertise and experience in hydrogeology and the fate and transport of chemicals in ground water, is accepted over that of Mr. Clark. Mr. Ross Mitchell testified regarding DER's search, which he conducted for facilities within the downtown Pensacola area which used or could have been the sources of a release of PCE. That investigation apparently concentrated on dry-cleaning establishments because DER opined that PCE was commonly used in such operations. Mr. Mitchell described his source investigation as "quick and dirty". He indicated that he did not follow up with every lead that he developed and that he established a "ball park" area within which to conduct his investigation. In fact, his investigation concentrated on a specific geographic area, in which other DER personnel had told him high concentrations of PCE had been found in ground water. As part of his investigation, he relied upon verbal representations by owners and operators regarding whether their facilities had ever used PCE. He made no effort to confirm those representations, other than cross-checking, in some instances, whether a given facility had been identified by a PCE supplier as a facility to which it had supplied PCE. However, he did not obtain customer lists from suppliers of PCE and was only able to get fragmentary information from the suppliers. Mr. Mitchell made no effort to verify whether PCE had ever been used at many of the facilities he had identified. He simply looked for readily- available evidence. That investigation was completed before DER became aware that PCE had been used at the Crown facility. Once that knowledge was obtained, Mr. Mitchell assumed that it would be the source of the PCE contamination found. He did not follow up regarding any of the other facilities which were on his list of suspect locations. He acknowledged at hearing that several of the suspect facilities, other than Crown, had not actually been eliminated as potential sources and acknowledged that he had not considered possible sources, other than dry-cleaning establishments, such as refuse dumpsters at facilities which had been identified as using or having used PCE. He did no environmental sampling around dumpsters at such facilities to detect spillage and did not investigate any records of any of the facilities he had investigated to determine whether they had purchased or used PCE. Mr. Mitchell located four dry cleaners, all upgradient of the PCE contaminated drinking water wells operated by ECUA. Among the dry cleaners suspected as potential sources of the contamination, only the Crown facility was located hydraulically downgradient of PW-9. In order for the contamination to travel from the Crown surge tank to PW-9, the pumping regimen employed by ECUA's supply wells would have to reverse the direction of ground water flow or hydraulic gradient. Dr. Mercer's calculations demonstrated that the pumping regimen employed by ECUA could not have reversed the gradient so as to pull contaminants from the Crown facility upgradient to be captured by PW-9. Dr. Mercer and Mr. Clark both agreed that the "east well" pumps continuously throughout the year. PW- 9 does not pump continuously. When the "east well" is pumping, it will capture anything that would be in the subsurface in the vicinity of the Crown facility; and its capture zone would extend upgradient as far as PW-9. Mr. Clark admitted that he had no calculations to support his conclusion that ECUA's pumping of PW-9 could have reversed the gradient in the subsurface to draw contaminants from the Crown facility to PW-9. Accordingly, it is concluded that DER did not adduce sufficient evidence to prove that the Crown facility could be the source of contamination in PW-9. The source investigation conducted by DER was inadequate to definitively determine whether the Crown facility was the source of PCE contamination or not. DER did not collect adequate soil and ground water samples throughout the area of known contaminations so as to pinpoint a specific source or sources for the contamination. No soil samples were collected from the immediate area around potential sources identified in close proximity to PW-9, for instance, such as the other four dry-cleaning establishments. Instead, once DER found PCE in MW-3 in high concentrations, it apparently focused all of its efforts on the Crown facility, assuming it to be the source of contamination. There are other upgradient PCE users (TCE), identified in Exhibit 6 which have not been ruled out as sources by competent evidence and that exhibit also shows that there may be three older dry cleaning sites in the downtown area with underground solvent tanks, which the record does not prove to have been investigated and ruled out as sources. Since Crown was shown not to be the source of PCE contamination at PW-9, there could be sources of PCE contamination other than Crown which better account for conditions observed in the ground water in downtown Pensacola. DER simply failed in its investigation to adequately rule out other potential sources of contamination within the cone of influence of the public water supply wells, PW-6, PW-8, the "east well", and PW-9. It is as likely as not, for example, that PCE emanating from whatever source or sources contaminated PW-9 (potentially four different dry-cleaning establishments) was also drawn hydraulically downgradient and into the "east well" and other wells. The record reflects that the "east well", for instance, when it is pumping, has a capture zone which extends as far as and including PW-9. DER failed to adequately investigate that potential explanation, as well as other potential sources of the contamination, including the stormwater pond, and thereby failed to prove that contamination emanating from the Crown facility, more likely than not, caused the contamination observed in the ECUA wells, or at least all of it, to the extent of its violating the MCL for PCE in the sites sampled. DER also seeks to impose liability on the Respondents pursuant to Section 403.727(4), Florida Statutes, which imposes strict liability on the current or former owner or operator at the time of disposal of any hazardous substance, as to a facility at which a release of hazardous substances has occurred. PCE is a hazardous substance, as that term is used in Section 403.727, Florida Statutes. However, Section 403.727, Florida Statutes, did not become effective until 1980; and PCE was not listed as a hazardous substance until 1984. DER has failed to prove in what quantity or during what period of time PCE may have been released from the surge tank at the Crown facility. It has established that PCE was only placed in the surge tank during 1974 and 1975 and not since, well before the effective date of this statutory provision and the listing of PCE as a hazardous substance. It has produced evidence from which it is inferred that a certain amount of dissolved PCE in laundry waste water leaked from the tank. It has not been established when the leakage started nor in what quantities PCE dissolved into the wash or waste water may have leaked into the surrounding soil, nor what rate (continuously increasing, decreasing, or static) the leakage occurred. Thus, the most that may be inferred is that leakage of dissolved PCE in an unknown concentration occurred sometime after 1974, but it has not been proven that PCE, as a hazardous substance, has been released into the environment during a specific period of time when each of the Respondents owned and/or operated the Crown facility. Thus, DER has failed to adduce evidence sufficient to carry its burden of proving a release of a hazardous substance, subjecting any of the Respondents to liability under Section 403.727, Florida Statutes. In any event, the Respondents were not on notice of the need to defend against a charge under that statutory section since the NOV and the Amended NOV did not inform them that such would be the basis of any purported liability alleged by DER. DER contended, for the first time at hearing, that the Respondents are liable for violation of the hazardous waste disposal rules. DER alleged at hearing that PCE, as a waste, is a listed hazardous waste, either as a spent solvent or a discarded commercial chemical. No such allegations were included in the NOV or the Amended NOV. However, Dr. Mercer established that any PCE which may have been released into the environment from the surge tank was in dissolved form and not as separate phase PCE. Dissolved PCE has not been shown to be a hazardous waste. Therefore, there is no evidence of record to support a finding that improper disposal of hazardous waste occurred at any point or points in time relevant to his proceeding. Moreover, Mr. Clark testified that he conducted a hazardous waste inspection of the Crown facility in 1982. Mr. Clark determined at that time that there was no hazardous waste being generated in the building or being stored in the building. DER has failed to demonstrate that any hazardous waste was generated or stored on the Crown property or disposed of into the surge tank at anytime by any of the Respondents. Finally, no evidence has been presented in this case that any of the Respondents had actual or constructive knowledge of the presence of PCE in the surge tank or of whether or not any release to the surge tank had occurred between 1971 and 1979 or any knowledge of any use or discharge of PCE to the surge tank prior to the commencement of DER's investigation in this action. Only RCD may be presumed to have had knowledge of the spillage of PCE which was discharged to the surge tank in 1974 and 1975, which entity was Jura's predecessor, ultimately merged into the corporation now known as Jura Services, Inc. Additionally, DER seeks in this proceeding only to be reimbursed for the costs of the investigation and tracing of the source of contamination and not for any natural resources damages nor any adjudication of the extent of liability for such damages, except insofar as the Order for Corrective Action which DER seeks to have imposed in this case reserves DER the opportunity to seek a determination after completion of corrective action of the extent to which the Respondents may be liable for natural resources damage, if any.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that DER enter a Final Order dismissing the Amended NOV against all Respondents. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of November, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings Hearings P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 5th day of November, 1992. 5985 APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 88-3077 & 88- Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-16. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the preponderant evidence of record and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted but not dispositive. Rejected as contrary to the preponderant weight of the Hearing testimony and evidence and subordinate to the Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected for the same reason. Accepted but not in itself dispositive of the material findings issues and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 23-27. Accepted but not in themselves materially dispositive. 28-30. Accepted but not in themselves materially dispositive. 31-34. Accepted. 35-40. Accepted but not in themselves materially dispositive. 41-50. Accepted but not in themselves materially dispositive. 51. Accepted but not in itself dispositive and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 52-53. Accepted. Accepted as to the DER intent in placement of the wells. Accepted but not materially dispositive standing alone. Accepted. Accepted to the extent that Crown Laundry has been shown source by circumstantial evidence to be inferentially a of the contamination found in the various wells mentioned but not the sole source nor the source actually causing this made on violation of appropriate standards and otherwise proposed finding of fact is subordinate to those this subject matter by the Hearing Officer. Rejected as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted as to the levels of chemical depicted in this the proposed finding of fact but not as to the material import of the proposed finding of fact concerning tank being the cause of the excession of the MCL standards. Accepted but not itself dispositive of material issues presented. 61-62. Accepted. Accepted except that the presence of these chemicals in excession of the MCL inside the tank does not constitute a violation of any pertinent legal authority. Accepted. Accepted to the extent that the walls of the tank are a continuing source of PCE. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted in terms of the amount spent but rejected otherwise as being, in effect, a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law and not a proposed finding of fact. Rejected as constituting a recitation of a portion of the fact pleadings at issue and not as a proposed finding of which is materially dispositive of any issue. Rejected as not constituting a material proposed finding of fact but rather a recitation or discussion of the remedies sought by the Petitioner. Rejected as immaterial in this proceeding. Accepted but not dispositive. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law and not a proposed finding of fact. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Respondent, American Linen Supply Company's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-21. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted but not as probative that leakage could have raised the level of PCE in the monitoring and production well samples above the maximum contaminant level. Accepted. Accepted but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted but not itself dispositive. 27-28. Accepted. Respondents, Belleaus and Crown Laundry and Dry Cleaners, Inc.'s Proposed Findings of Fact 1-21. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and to some extent, as speculative. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted but not itself dispositive of material issues. Accepted. Respondent, Jura Services, Inc.'s Proposed Findings of Fact 1-63. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 66-68. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Jack Chisolm, Esq. Richard Windsor, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 William D. Preston, Esq. Thomas M. DeRose, Esq. HOPPING, BOYD, ET AL. 123 S. Calhoun Street P.O. Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas P. Healy, Jr., Esq. MAYER, BROWN & PLATT 190 South LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60603 John W. Wilcox, Esq. Derek B. Spilman, Esq. RUDNICK & WOLFE 101 East Kennedy Blvd. Suite 2000 Tampa, Florida 33602 Jeffrey C. Bassett, Esq. BARRON, REDDING, ET AL. Box 2467 Panama City, Florida 32401
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of discharging untreated septage at a site that Respondent was not permitted to use, in violation of Rule 10D-6.052(7)(b), Florida Administrative Code; and operating two septic pumping trucks, even though authorized to operate only one such vehicle, in violation of Rules 10D-6.052(2)(a) and 10D-6.052(1), Florida Administrative Code; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Since 1989, Respondent has been a registered septic tank contractor. Petitioner annually issues Respondent a separate permit to pump, transport, and dispose of septage. Petitioner or its predecessor has disciplined Respondent on two occasions. On November 15, 1994, Respondent paid a $500 fine after the issuance of an administrative complaint for discharging improperly treated septage, and, on August 19, 1996, Petitioner issued a final order imposing a $500 fine and 90-day suspension against Respondent for repairing a septic tank system without a permit. Respondent’s attempts to explain away these violations were unpersuasive. At the time in question, Respondent’s permits allowed him to operate only one truck in transporting septage--a 1988 Ford--and to discharge septage only at one location--Hunter Land Application Site. Respondent’s permits also required him to stabilize septage only at one location--A-1 Septic Tank Service’s Lime Stabilization Facility. On August 15, 1997, Respondent operated or caused to be operated the permitted 1988 Ford truck and another unpermitted truck for the purpose of receiving and transporting septage that Respondent had pumped from septic tanks. Respondent and one of his employees drove the loaded trucks to J. R. Brooks & Sons Ranch, where they landspread the septage that they had been transporting. They dumped at this site about 8000 gallons of raw septage containing condoms, tampons, vegetable matter, and other items of the type normally found in unscreened septage pumped from septic tanks and grease traps. Petitioner had not approved the J. R. Brooks site for discharge of septage pumped from septic tanks. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) had designated the J. R. Brooks site for use by Resource Tech, which transported wastewater residuals from the Dade County Municipal Treatment Plant and discharged them at the J. R. Brooks site. The permit allowed Resource Tech to discharge wastewater residuals with only minimal levels of pathogens. DEP calculates the carrying capacity of sites such as the J. R. Brooks site based on the amount of material that they receive from permitted, disclosed discharges. After learning that the J. R. Brooks site had received unpermitted discharges, DEP determined that it must close the site and find a new one due to public-safety concerns. Respondent also failed to stabilize the septage with lime prior to discharging it on the J. R. Brooks site. The purpose of adding lime to septage is to kill pathogens. The J. R. Brooks site drains through ditches into nearby wetlands. From there, runoff drains into the Estero Bay. The untreated septage discharged by Respondent presents a greater threat to wildlife and public safety than do the wastewater residuals remaining after wastewater treatment that Residual Tech was authorized to discharge at the site. At the time of the hearing, Respondent was negotiating the sale of the business, but the buyers needed to operate under Respondent’s certificate until they could qualify to obtain one. However, Respondent admitted that he had someone else available to qualify the buyers’ operation for a certificate.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order revoking Respondent’s certificate as a septic tank contractor. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Mastin Scott Chief Legal Counsel Department of Health Post Office Box 9309 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-9309 John Charles Coleman Coleman & Coleman Post Office Box 2089 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
Findings Of Fact In 1982 Petitioner erected a stilt home on the beachfront lot located at 926 Eldorado Avenue. The property is zoned RS-50. Prior thereto the property had been vacant and fenced with a four-foot chain link fence to keep trespassers off the property. The original fence was erected before the zoning regulations were passed, and upon passage of these regulations the fence became nonconforming. This fence was removed to facilitate construction of the residence and, when Petitioner applied for a permit to replace the fence, he was told he needed a variance and the proceedings leading to this appeal were started. His application for a permit came within less than one year from the time the fence was removed. Property in the vicinity is characterized by the use of four-foot chain link fences. The property immediately to the north of Petitioner's property has a four-foot chain link fence across the front of the property. Most of the other fences in the area are located on the sides of the property. Although there is a public access to the beach in the near vicinity of Petitioner's property, people cross Petitioner's property to get to the beach, park in his driveway, discard litter on his property, and even use the private outdoor shower on his mother's adjacent property. The regulations would allow Petitioner to erect a 30-inch fence on the front of his property. This would not contain the large dog Petitioner has. If the front fence were set back to the front of Petitioner's house and from each corner thereof run to the fence at each side of his property, this would not keep trespassers off his property, because people could walk up his driveway and under the stilt house.
The Issue The issues in this case are: Whether Mr. Decker had an improperly maintained septic system on his property. Whether Mr. Decker illegally repaired his on-site sewage treatment and disposal system. Whether the Department of Health properly issued a citation to Mr. Decker for violation of Sections 381.0065(4) and 386.041(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On April 25, 1997, an employee of the Department of Health, Volusia County Health Department, David Stark, inspected Mr. Decker's property known as Bulow Creek Farm. Mr. Decker provides low-cost rental housing on this property which utilizes an onsite well to provide drinking water. Mr. Stark observed a wet area in the ground with the smell of sewage near the building identified as Apartment Building C, which houses seven (7) apartments. Mr. Stark identified this area as a sewage leak. On May 28, 1997, Mr. Stark returned to Mr. Decker's property with another Volusia County Health Department employee, Ed Williams. They both observed a wet area in the ground with the smell of sewage in the vicinity of the septic tank serving Apartment Building C. Mr. Stark identified this area as a sewage leak. Mr. Stark issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) to Mr. Decker which stated the raw sewage leak was a sanitary nuisance and provided that Mr. Decker should have his drainfield repaired in accordance with the repair permit Mr. Decker had previously obtained from the Department. The NOV stated the repair should be completed no later than June 11, 1997. A repair permit is valid for a period of eighteen (18) months. Mr. Decker's permit expired on April 20, 1997. Repairs must be inspected by the Department as they are made. On June 13, 1997, Mr. Stark mailed Mr. Decker a letter reiterating the need for repair of his septic system and enclosed a Notice of Intended Action giving Mr. Decker a deadline of June 20, 1997 to make the needed repairs. Mr. Stark received a letter dated June 29, 1997, from Mr. Decker, informing him that Mr. Decker, himself, had repaired the drainfield for Apartment Building C. The letter described the new tank and drainfield which Mr. Decker had installed, and Mr. Decker stated his repair was a "cheaper version of what you wanted me to do in the first place." Mr. Decker had not sought the required inspections for the repairs which he had made to the septic system, and the repairs were not inspected and approved by the Department. The Department cited Mr. Decker for having an improperly built or maintained septic system, and for failing to repair the system in accordance with the terms of the permit. The citation levied a $500 civil fine for Mr. Decker's violation.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department issue a final order affirming the civil penalty against Mr. Decker and requiring Mr. Decker to repair his septic system according to permit. If Mr. Decker fails to effect the repairs, the Department should initiate action to abate this public health hazard. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 6th day of March, 1998.
The Issue The issues are (1) whether Respondent violated Chapters 381, 386, and 489, Florida Statutes; and if so, (2) whether Respondent is subject to an administrative fine; and if so, (3) what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner was registered with Respondent as a septic tank contractor, under the authorized name of LA Ford Septic Tank. As of March 1, 1995, single compartment septic tanks must be used in series or in conjunction with a outlet filter which has been approved by Respondent. An outlet filter is designed to prevent solid wastes from reaching the drainfield of a septic system. Removal of an outlet filter will cause the premature failure of a drainfield system and create a potential sanitary nuisance. In September of 1996, Rita Haynes contracted with Petitioner for the installation of a septic system for her mobile home. The system received construction approval from the Suwannee County Health Department on September 5, 1996. At that time, the outlet filter was attached to the system. On September 12, 1996, the Suwannee County Health Department re- inspected the system. The inspector discovered that the filter was missing. Ms. Haynes did not remove the filter or authorize anyone else to do so. Removal of the outlet filter constituted theft of Ms. Haynes' property. Allegations concerning the removal of the outlet filter on Ms. Haynes' property are included in the Administrative Complaint at issue here. In September of 1996, Tracy Fernandez contracted with Petitioner to install a septic system for her mobile home. The system received construction approval from the Suwannee County Health Department on September 4, 1996. At that time, the outlet filter was present. The filter was missing when the Suwannee County Health Department re-inspected the system on September 10, 1996. Ms. Fernandez did not remove the filter or authorize anyone else to do so. Removal of the outlet filter constituted theft of Ms. Fernandez's property. Allegations concerning the removal of the outlet filter on the property of Ms. Fernandez are included in the Administrative Complaint at issue here. In July of 1996, Laura Landen contracted with Ford to install a septic system for her mobile home. Petitioner told Ms. Landen that he would save her some money by removing the outlet filter after the initial inspection. The system received construction approval from the Suwannee County Health Department on July 24, 1996. At that time, the outlet filter was attached to the septic tank. The filter was missing when the Suwannee County Health Department re-inspected the system on September 11, 1996. Ms. Landen did not remove the filter or authorize anyone else to do so. Removal of the outlet filter constituted theft of Ms. Landen's property. Allegations concerning the removal of the outlet filter on Ms. Landen's property are included in the Administrative Complaint at issue here. In October of 1996, John and Mary Phillips contracted with Petitioner to install a septic system for their home. The system received construction approval from the Columbia County Health Department on October 23, 1996. At that time, the outlet tee filter was present. Subsequently, the Phillips' daughter saw Petitioner take something out of the septic tank. The filter was missing when the Columbia County Health Department re-inspected the system on October 25, 1996. Mr. and Mrs. Phillips did not remove the filter or authorize anyone else to do so. Removal of the outlet filter constituted theft of the Phillips' property. Allegations concerning the removal of the outlet filter on the Phillips' property are included in the Administrative Complaint at issue here. In April of 1996, Marshall and Karen Merriman contracted with Petitioner to install a septic tank system on their property. The outlet filter was attached to the septic tank at the time of an initial inspection by the Suwannee County Health Department on April 22, 1996. Subsequently, Mr. Merriman saw Petitioner drive up and remove the outlet filter from the septic tank. Petitioner's removal of the outlet filter constituted theft of the Merrimans' property. A re-inspection by the Suwannee County Health Department on April 23, 1996, revealed that the outlet filter was missing. The inspector also discovered that Petitioner had not placed enough rock in the Merrimans' drainfield. Accordingly, the system did not pass final inspection. Mr. Merriman stopped payment on his check made payable to Petitioner in the amount of $909.50. Another septic tank contractor was hired to properly install the septic system on the Merrimans' property. Mr. Merriman's complaint to the Suwannee County Health Department resulted in a citation for a $1,500 fine against Petitioner for violating the following rules: (1) Rule 10D-6.0751(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code, practicing fraud or deceit; (2) Rule 10D-6.0751(1)(l)2, Florida Administrative Code, misconduct causing harm to customer; and (3) Rule 10D-6.055(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, removal of outlet filter. Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the citation on September 24, 1996. That same day he requested an informal administrative hearing to contest the citation. The Suwannee County Health Department referred Petitioner's request for an informal hearing concerning the above-referenced citation to Respondent on September 27, 1996. Respondent then requested its District 3 Administrator to conduct the necessary proceedings and submit a Recommended Order to Respondent. The record does not reveal the disposition of Petitioner's request for an informal hearing regarding the citation. The Administrative Complaint at issue here does not contain any allegations relative to Mr. Merriman's complaint. However, since Petitioner did not dispute the material allegations contained in the citation, they may be considered as true in aggravation of any penalty imposed in the instant proceeding. In addition to the missing filters referenced above, the Columbia County Health Department found filters missing from Petitioner's installations on property owned by Richard Johnson and David Timmerman in September of 1996. The filters had been present during prior inspections of Petitioner's installations on the Johnson and Timmerman properties. The removal of the outlet filters from the Johnson and Timmerman properties constituted theft of their property. The Administrative Complaint at issue here contains allegations concerning Petitioner's removal of these outlet filters. The Suwannee County Health Department and the Columbia County Health Department had many citizen complaints about Petitioner's work. They performed a random check of all recent septic tank installations in their respective counties. They re- inspected the septic tank installations of other registered septic tank contractors as well as Petitioner's installations. They found missing outlet filters only in Petitioner's installations. The two health departments began spray painting a spot on filters during initial inspections to stop anyone from using the filters at multiple installations and inspections. Petitioner habitually, and as a routine business practice, removed the outlet filter from the septic tanks he installed after the initial inspection but before he covered the tank with dirt. He was responsible for stealing the required outlet filters on the property of Rita Haynes, Tracy Fernandez, Laura Landen, John and Mary Phillips, David Timmerman, and Richard Johnson. In each of these instances, Petitioner acted fraudulently and deceitfully. His gross misconduct created a potential sanitary nuisance and caused his customers monetary harm. An outlet tee filter costs approximately $50. Petitioner was able to underbid his competitors by removing the filter from an inspected system and using the same filter on another installation. From time to time, septic tanks need to be pumped out to prevent the flow of sludge and solids from the tank into the drainfield. Sludge and solids will clog the drainfield causing the system to fail. A failed system is expensive to repair or replace. A failed system also creates a public health hazard. When a septic tank is pumped out, all of the sludge should be removed. After the tank is empty, it should be washed down with a hose and inspected for cracks. If the tank is in good condition, a septic tank contractor is supposed to sign an inspection slip. In September of 1996, Allen Donaway contracted with Petitioner to pump out his septic tank and install a new drainfield. Petitioner's employees arrived at Mr. Donaway's residence on or about September 18, 1996, to pump out the tank. They claimed they had completed the job even though they left 12 or more inches of sludge at the bottom of the tank. Despite Mr. Dunaway's demands, Petitioner's employees refused to pump any more septage from the tank. When Mr. Donaway contacted Petitioner to complain that his employees had only partially pumped the tank, Petitioner demanded immediate payment. Mr. Donaway gave Petitioner a check for $135 which Petitioner cashed immediately. Mr. Donaway had to pay another registered septic tank contractor to pump the rest of the sludge from the tank and to install the new drainfield. Allegations concerning Petitioner's failure to completely pump out the sludge from Mr. Donaway's septic tank are contained in the Administrative Complaint at issue here. In a Letter of Warning dated July 15, 1996, the Columbia County Health Department informed Petitioner that Debbie Gregory had filed a complaint against him for an unsatisfactory septic pump-out. This letter requested a response to an allegation that Petitioner, without good cause, had abandoned a project which he was under a contractual obligation to perform in violation of Rule 10D-6.0751(1)(g), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner was advised that he could avoid the imposition of a $500 fine or a disciplinary action against his contractor's license by correcting the problem within five working days. As of August 6, 1996, Petitioner had not responded to the health department's inquiry. He made no attempt to correct the problem by completely removing the solids and greases from Ms. Gregory's septic tank. Petitioner was advised by letter that Respondent intended to initiate enforcement procedures. Allegations concerning the unsatisfactory septic pump-out on Debbie Gregory's property were included in the Administrative Complaint at issue here. Petitioner's failure to completely pump out all of the sludge from the septic tanks of Allan Donaway and Debbie Gregory created a potential health hazard. Additionally, his gross misconduct caused these customers monetary harm. They had to pay another septic tank contractor to complete Petitioner's work so that they could avoid the expense of prematurely replacing their drainfields. In August of 1996, Petitioner installed an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system on the property of Johnny Howard, Jr. The Suwannee County Health Department subsequently determined that Petitioner had installed the septic system on the wrong side of the Howard residence with the drainfield extending across the property line of the adjoining property. The inspector also discovered that the septic tank was installed next to a dryer vent opening in the Howard residence. When Petitioner refused to correct the problems at the Howard residence, the county health unit paid another septic tank contractor to correct the septic system. Respondent then filed an Administrative Complaint seeking revocation of Petitioner's septic tank contractor's registration and imposition of an administrative fine. On July 22, 1997, Respondent entered a Final Order in Department of Health Case Number 97-154 which revoked Petitioner's septic system contractor's registration and imposed a fine in the amount of $1000 due to the improper installation of the septic system at the Howard residence. This Final Order approved and adopted a Recommended Order in DOAH Case Number 96-5543, finding that Respondent was guilty of violating Rule 10D-6.0751(1)(b)2, Florida Administrative Code, for completing contracted work at the Howard residence without a permit and Rule 10D-6.0751(1)(l)2, Florida Administrative Code, gross misconduct causing monetary harm. Allegations concerning Petitioner's improper installation of the septic system on Mr. Howard's property were not contained in the instant Administrative Complaint. However, they may be considered in aggravation of any administrative fine imposed in the instant case. In the course of investigating citizen complaints against Petitioner, Respondent learned that Petitioner was advertising his business using the name of Ford Septic Tank and/or Ford Septic Tank Service(s) on his trucks and in the Yellow Pages. Petitioner's authorized business name is LA Ford Septic Tank. Respondent sent Petitioner a Letter of Warning dated August 27, 1996, advising him that advertising his services in a form other than his authorized business name violated part III of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D-6.0751(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The letter informed Petitioner that continued violations could result in an administrative fine of $500 per day. The letter stated that the violations might be cited in a future complaint based on repeat violations. Petitioner did not exercise his option to request an administrative hearing to contest the allegations contained in the Letter of Warning. On November 20, 1996, employees of the Suwannee County Health Department took photographs of Petitioner's business sign using an unauthorized name on a county road in Suwannee County. On November 22, the same employees took photographs of Petitioner's trucks bearing an unauthorized name. Petitioner's persistence in using an unauthorized business name was especially egregious because other septic tank contractors with the last name of Ford, who were not affiliated with Petitioner, worked in the same commercial and residential areas. For example, Mr. Merriman contracted with Wilbur Ford to correct the septic system that Petitioner improperly installed. North Florida Septic Tank was owned by Robert and Donna Ford. Their Yellow Page advertisement specifically disclaimed any affiliation with Petitioner. The instant Administrative Complaint contains allegations concerning Petitioner's use of an unauthorized name to advertise his business. Petitioner filed an application to become a registered septic tank contractor on August 6, 1991. Petitioner was convicted of grand theft and stopping payment on a check with intent to defraud on October 28, 1991, in the circuit court of Hernando County, Florida. Petitioner was convicted of these two felonies before he took the septic tank contractor's examination in November of 1991. Petitioner did not inform Respondent about the two convictions. Petitioner obtained his septic tank registration through fraud or misrepresentation by failing to disclose his felony convictions. The instant Administrative Complaint contains allegations concerning Petitioner's failure to disclose the two felony convictions. Respondent's efforts to persuade Petitioner to correct his improper installations and/or unsatisfactory pump-outs were not successful. He made no attempt to replace the filters he removed. He did not heed Respondent's warnings regarding his use of an unauthorized business name. He has failed to make any effort to rehabilitate himself or to mitigate the effects of his behavior despite the following: (1) the severity of his offenses; (2) the danger to the public that he created; (3) the number of times that he repeated the offenses; (4) the number of complaints filed against him; and (5) the monetary harm he caused his customers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $7,000 against Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 1997, 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 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas D. Koch, Esquire Department of Health Building 6, Room 133 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Larry A. Ford 25295 CR 137 O'Brien, Florida 32071 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Building 6 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Pete Peterson, Esquire Department of Health Building 6, Room 102-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 James Howell, Secretary Department of Health Building 6, Room 306 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Are Petitioner’s outside water supply connections in violation of Rule 10D-26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and, if so, should Petitioner be assessed an administrative fine for such violation?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Petitioner is permitted by the Department in accordance with Chapter 513, Florida Statutes, to operate the Peace River Campground, (Campground) which is a Recreational Vehicle (RV) Park (182 spaces) and a Mobile Home (MH) Park (15 spaces), annual permit number 14-010-97. The Campground’s water is supplied by a community public water utility company. Each RV and MH space has an outside water tap as required by Chapter 10D-26, Florida Administrative Code. Many of the outside water taps do not have a backflow or back-siphonage prevention device installed on them. On February 6, 1997, the Department conducted a routine inspection of the campground and determined that the campground was in violation of Rule 10D-26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, for failing to have the required backflow or back-siphonage prevention. The citation required Petitioner to install backflow or back-siphonage prevention by February 28, 1997, the next scheduled inspection date. On February 28, 1997, the Department conducted a follow-up inspection of the Campground’s water system and determined that the alleged violation had not been corrected. Petitioner disagreed with the Department’s determination that the Campground’s water system was not in compliance with Rule 10D-26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, for failing to have the Campground’s water system designed or constructed to prevent backflow or back-siphonage. On February 28, 1997, the Department issued a citation of violation (citation) to Petitioner alleging a violation of Rule 10D-26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, for failing to have the Campground’s water supply connection designed or constructed to prevent backflow or back-siphonage. The Campground’s water connections at each RV and MH site have water taps which are above ground and have standard water shut-off valves. The Campground’s water system has good water pressure of approximate 70-100 pounds pressure per square inch (psi). The Campground’s outside water taps are neither constructed nor designed to prevent backflow or back-siphonage in the event the water pressure drops to a point which would allow backflow or back-siphonage, such as if the water main feeding the Campground’s water system broke. If the water pressure in the Campground’s water system should drop allowing backflow or back-siphonage, hazardous material could possible be injected in the water system. Although there has never been a recorded incident of backflow or back-siphonage into the Campground’s water system, without the some type of backflow or back-siphonage preventer being installed there remains a potential for this to happen. The Campground’s outside water connections would not prevent backflow or back-siphonage under certain conditions and are not in compliance with Rule 10D-26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code. There are six basic types of devices that are recognized by the Environmental Protection Agency and the engineering profession which prevent backflow and back-siphonage. These devices are: (a) air gaps; (b) barometric loops; (c) vacuum breakers--both atmospheric and pressure type; (d) double check with intermediate atmospheric vent; (e) double check valve assembler; and (f) reduced pressure principle devices. The Department does not mandate which device the Petitioner must install, only that a proper device be installed which will prevent backflow or back-siphonage. A hose bib vacuum breaker such as Department’s Exhibit 3 provide the minimum protection against backflow or back-siphonage and is considered acceptable for compliance with Rule 10D- 26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order assessing an administrative fine in the amount of $150.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Martin Scott, Esquire Department of Health Post Office Box 60085 Fort Myers, Florida 33906 George Lempenau, pro se Peace River Campground 2998 Northwest Highway 70 Arcadia, Florida 34266 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact This case involves the Department's attempt to purchase and utilize eight water quality data transmitter/display/logger units to measure parameters of pH, conductivity, DO (dissolved oxygen), temperature, depth, salinity, an option for oxygen reduction potential, and an option for ammonia measurement simultaneously in either fresh water or salt water for a period of up to 48 hours. The Department mailed ITB No. 93-03, entitled Water Quality Data Transmitter/Display/Data Logger Unit, on October 7, 1992. The term "parameter" refers to specific measurements such a pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, depth, and temperature, those measurements that were called for in the ITB. The term calibration refers to adjusting the measurements by a comparison to a standard. Calibration is performed to compensate for drift or shift in measurements, usually over a period of time. ITB No. 93-03 contained the following specifications for the desired equipment under "special Conditions and Specifications": Water Quality Data Transmitter/Sonde - for use in both fresh and saltwater with automatic temperature compensation. Include temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, depth, and low ionic pH system. Must be able to calculate or determine salinity and DO percent saturation. Must have option of adding additional probes, e.g. ORP and Ammonia. - 8 units. Water Resistant Digital Display/Data Logger Must be programmable for unattended data measurements for all parameters in item no. 1 above at various intervals (e.g. every 15, 30, 60 minute) and have the capability of logging all such data. - 8 units. Calibration/Maintenance Kits - Calibration for all parameters in item 1 must be simple, requiring 5 minutes or less for each parameter. - 8 units. Stirrer Units (if needed) - 8 units. PC compatible Software and Cable for data down loading - 8 units. Sonde to Logger/Display Unit Cable - at least 50 feet. - 8 units. Unattended Monitoring - Must be able to log and maintain water quality data file for a sampling frequency of 15 minute intervals over at least a 48 hour period while in an unattended mode of operation - 8 units. Field Carrying Case for Sonde and Display/Logger Unit - 8 units. User Manuals - 8 Units. Probe weights (if needed) - 8 units. ITB No. 93-03 specified the following warranty and delivery requirement: Must carry 2-year warranty on Sonde, Display/Logger Units, Stirrers, and Cables. Warranty service must be provided within two weeks of notification or, if extended repair period is required, then loaner units must be made available at no cost to DER during the warranty period. Delivery must be within 45 days of bid award. Petitioner Solomat's bid of $50,086.32 was the lowest when bids were opened on October 23, 1992. The company's written equipment specifications provided by the Petitioner to the Department were similar or superior to the written specifications provided with the competing bid responses. They were submitted in compliance with "General Condition" No. 7, page 1 of the ITB, which required submission of full specifications. Dr. Wayne Magley, on behalf of the Department, requested that Petitioner demonstrate the equipment it was offering in its bid response because the Department was not familiar with the Petitioner nor its equipment. After the bid opening, and before award in November 1992, Petitioner demonstrated its existing MPM4803 production unit for the Department in Florida, along with the 803PS sonde. A sonde is a multiparameter probe. The 803PS sonde was capable of being plugged into the existing MPM4803, and the WP4007 and WP803 data logger units then under development by Solomat. Petitioner agreed to modify its software for the MPM4803 to add the ability to read out in milligrams per liter (MG/L), a capability not mentioned in the ITB specifications or in Solomat's company specifications. This software modification contributed to the Department's subsequent calibration troubles because, according to Mr. Stonier, the modification of the unit software rendered Solomat's "how to" manual less accurate, detailed, and specific than it would have been for the unmodified software. The Petitioner amended its bid offering by letter dated November 5, 1992, to include, in addition to its October 20, 1992 bid response, the following: Stainless Steel Relief Cables with each unit Display D.O. readings in MG/L. A day of On-Site training from a Solomat factory representative A day of training at each local site from Geometrics. The ITB had only called for a water resistent product, but during this same pre-contract award period, Department personnel expressed a need to hose off the equipment. Hosing off the equipment would require a waterproof unit, so Petitioner offered the option to upgrade to new instruments slated for development and sale in April or May of 1993. In so offering, Solomat's representative described to Department personnel a WP4007 unit then under development. Solomat also had its WP803 unit under development. The WP803 also was intended to be developed to be waterproof. The WP803 was not part of Petitioner's additional offers to the Department in November 1992. Although Mr. Stonier asserted at formal hearing that Solomat's November 1992 upgrade offer was not integral to the finalized November 1992 bid award, he conceded that the Solomat offer was, "something Solomat was obliged to provide." In fact, this offer was reduced to writing. In response to the Department's concerns about hosing off the units, the Petitioner also promised a latex boot to protect the probe on the MPM4803 unit. This offer also was reduced to writing. The Petitioner further amended its bid response by letter dated November 10, 1992, to include, in addition to its October 20, 1992 bid offering and its November 5, 1992 enlargement of that offer, the following: Both versions of the weighting bracket will be provided with each unit. Two year warranty will cover any damage due to immersion or intrusion by salt air. Bottom latex boot will be supplied in addition to latex cover which you saw displayed today. A wrist strap will accompany each unit. Any further software (CS4) or Eprom updates will be available at no charge. SOLOMAT will extend the option to upgrade any or all of the instruments, with our new, fully waterproof version WP4007, within the next year at no charge. We will ship demo MPM 4803, fully preprogrammed, to be received by D.E.R. prior to November 18, 1992. Petitioner knew via the original ITB specifications and by the further discussions that took place in November 1992 after the bid opening and prior to the final award and purchase order that the Department was concerned about the ruggedness, watertightness, and use of the eight instruments in the field for extended periods in various conditions and types of water. No. 1 and No. 7 of the ITB "Special Conditions" specifications clearly stated that the Department wanted to leave the units on site for 48 hours in varying types of water. At formal hearing, Mr. Stonier admitted he knew in November 1992 that was what the Department wanted to do even if the ITB were confusing. The Petitioner knew that the Department would be utilizing the water quality monitoring equipment under diverse conditions in the field because Mr. Stonier's November 12, 1992 letter to the Department provided as follows: The D.E.R.'s application includes the tough everyday use in varied environments that demands the ruggedness and reliability that the Solomat instruments have been designed and are each tested for. Mr. Stonier testified at formal hearing that it was understood in November 1992 . . that the units were going to be carried out on site into various types of measurement situations, . . . and that the probes would be -- the 803PS sonde would be submerged, and samples would be recorded. And these instruments are certainly designed to do that. in fact, they're designed where they can be left out on-site for longer periods of time. The Department accepted the Petitioner's October 20, 1992 bid as amended by its November 5 and 10, 1992 letters, and in reliance on those letters. Although the ITB contained no definition of "accuracy", the Department's acceptance of Petitioner's bid also included reliance on Solomat's equipment specifications regarding equipment accuracy submitted by Petitioner in its response to "General Condition" No. 7, page 1 of the ITB. The bid acceptance and subsequent purchase order occurred on or about November 20, 1992. The purchase order is not in evidence. In January 1993, Petitioner delivered eight MPM4803 units and eight 803PS sonde units to the Department in response to the bid award/purchase order. This model was equipped with a latex boot, but the Department complained about the waterproof ability of the boots, and Petitioner promised to provide wider latex boots. Petitioner's training representative provided one day of training in Tallahassee and one day of training in Orlando in early February, 1993. Petitioner's training representative encountered difficulty in demonstrating how to calibrate the equipment at the February 1993 Tallahassee training session which he was unable to resolve prior to calling Petitioner's U.S. headquarters for technical assistance. Beginning in early February 1993, Department personnel repeatedly encountered problems in calibrating the Petitioner's equipment. Calibration problems were encountered in trying to follow the manuals provided by the Petitioner despite some additional written instructions beyond the original faulty manual (see Finding of Fact 11) and despite oral instructions by telephone. There also were continuing problems with the pH sensor, with conductivity, and with DO (dissolved oxygen). Beginning in February 1993, Department personnel repeatedly encountered problems with Petitioner's equipment's inability to stay calibrated and to take accurate measurements resulting from excessive drift. Solomat employees perceived the Department users as unsophisticated and slow to understand how to use the Solomat equipment, and as preferring the earlier models of similar units with which they were more familiar and which had been developed by competitive vendors. Indeed, some documented user errors included Department personnel failing to remove probe guards on sensors. Some OC3 dissolved oxygen sensors in the 803PS sonde had to be replaced by Solomat due to user error in installing them without the 0-ring so that water could seep in and damage the equipment or with two 0-rings so that there was no contact between the electrode and the probe sonde. However, these types of human error did not significantly affect valid tests showing calibration drift and accuracy reading problems. It is noted that P-5 (Loxahatchee notes), an August 24, 1993 28 day "short informal report" relied upon by Petitioner to show that some persistant, open-minded Department users could learn to correctly calibrate the MPM4803 data loggers/803PS sondes and that good data could be gathered over more than 48 hours, contains on its first page the comment, "Stabilities were very good except DO; it is unclear whether this was due to probe response drift or improper calibration by Solomat representatives." Department personnel tracked their problems with the Petitioner's MPM4803 equipment's failure to take accurate measurements by sampling at field sites which have been consistently tested by Department personnel with other equipment over a period of years so that they had a background of data for comparison for any given parameter. When they were unable to account for significant drifts of calibration and even negative readings in some parameters on Petitioner's products, Department personnel then used other vendors' water quality monitoring equipment to confirm that the Petitioner's equipment was not giving consistently accurate measurements. Although Petitioner's witnesses testified concerning their perception that such methods of comparison lacked accuracy and fairness, they offered no better field tests as an alternative. Petitioner's concerns mostly centered around other vendor's meters also sometimes registering outside ITB or company specifications. However, in fact, the Department was making some of its assessments based upon calibration and post-calibration readings on the same Solomat meter each time. In light of the testimony of John Kent Edwards that in his District, he personally calibrated the Petitioner's units every morning in the laboratory before they went out in the field and that careful post calibration procedures on the same meters still demonstrated significant drift; the testimony of Mr. Edwards and Louis They that standard calibration solution or calibration solutions prepared fresh by a chemist were used in calibrating Petitioner's units to eliminate variables of that sort; the admission by Don Roos to Department personnel in July 1993 that it could take five minutes to stabilize DO on the low end and on the high end (see Finding of Fact 36); the acknowledgement by Peter Ebersold that it is possible that DO and pH drift would violate ITB specifications and Petitioner's own equipment specifications over more than 24 hours in dirty water; Dr. Saffel's uncontradicted testimony that the calibration on all Petitioner's units provided to the Department were written only for generic water, not water as bioactive as some of Florida's water, and that Petitioner's units' long term stability of calibration depends very strongly on the purity of the water being measured; and Wayne Magley's testimony that a subsequent Winkler Titration test in the laboratory verified the other vendors' scores but not Petitioner's scores while showing that Petitioner's units were working correctly, and that statistical correlations of all the meters were done, it is found that the Department's testing procedure is probative and persuasive that the MPM4803 units were not meeting certain specifications encompassed in the bid award/purchase order. The Petitioner's assertion that low ionization cables threw off all calculations is in the nature of a nonsequitur, since this type of cable was agreed upon in the amended bid responses, became part of the parties' contract, and Petitioner was required to provide workable units under that agreement. Petitioner's assertion that the conversion of readings to MG/L was the problem falls in the same category. During 1993, both parties made repeated good-faith attempts to resolve the calibration and instrument accuracy problems, with the Department informally telephoning Petitioner for assistance and sharing information among the Department's Tallahassee office and district personnel. By a June 9, 1993 letter, the Department provided Petitioner its data showing its employees were not able to get consistent, reasonable readings with the Solomat units. In June 1993, Wayne Magley, on behalf of the Department, asked the Petitioner to provide additional on-site assistance because Department personnel were still unable to resolve problems with calibrating and using Petitioner's equipment despite Petitioner rendering helpful technical advice when called by Department personnel. Dr. Magley specifically asked for Don Roos because of Mr. Roos' history of being extremely knowledgeable about the equipment and rendering helpful technical advice when called. In July 1993, Don Roos and Peter Ebersold came to Florida to provide assistance at the Department headquarters in Tallahassee and Orlando District office. During the Tallahassee visit, Mr. Roos admitted that it could take up to five minutes for DO to stabilize before it could be calibrated for low end and five minutes for DO to stabilize for high end, for a total time in excess of 10 minutes for one parameter. This calibration time violates the Department's bid specification that each parameter must be calculated in five minutes or less. Misters Roos and Ebersold observed Department staff calibrating the MPM4803 with the 803PS sonde during their July 1993 visit to Tallahassee and did not have any criticism of the Department staff's calibration process. Petitioner diagnosed a problem with its MPM4803 units as being that some Department users were inadvertently recalibrating temperature and misinterpreting "error" message prompts, thus throwing all the readings off. Therefore, Solomat made a change to eliminate "temperature" from the recalibration cycle and changed the Eproms on the Department's units to simplify the procedure. Despite trying to get the wider latex boots for the MPM4803 units until July 1993, Petitioner was unable to obtain wider latex boots and at that point gave up trying to get the required improved boots for the MPM4803 units, in anticipation of being able to upgrade the Department to newer units. The Petitioner reiterated in correspondence as late as August 3, 1993 that the Department would be receiving an upgrade from the MPM4803 to the WP4007 units, stating, "[t]he exchange of your MPM4803s with the new WP4007 waterproof dataloggers will occur near the end of the year." Dr. Saffell testified that the Department was promised an upgrade on his authority. By a November 15, 1993 letter, the Department reported to Petitioner that most of its employees still could not calibrate for each parameter within the five minutes or less as required by the ITB specifications and still had difficulty getting consistent readings. The Department wanted to return the units for refund. By a December 7, 1995 letter, the Department notified Petitioner that it intended to find Petitioner in default of the bid contract including failing to provide the promised upgraded units in any timely fashion despite Petitioner's promise to do so within a year of its November 10, 1992 bid amendment and because the Petitioner's equipment could not be consistently calibrated in five minutes or less for each parameter as required by the bid specifications. The Petitioner also had never supplied the latex boot as agreed. It is clear that as of the December 7, 1993 letter, Petitioner was in default on the foregoing three elements of its contract with the Department. By letter dated December 13, 1993, Petitioner notified the Department that it still wished to provide the instrument upgrade. In this letter, Petitioner unilaterally changed the model it was going to provide from the WP4007 to the WP803, on its own assessment that the WP4007 had too many options and a more user friendly unit would be less confusing to Department users. The WP4007 features which are not on the WP803s were not part of the original ITB specifications. The WP803, like the WP4007, was intended to be waterproof. Solomat's specifications for the WP803 were intended to exceed those of other vendors for comparable machinery. Despite Solomat's best intentions to have both the WP4007 and the WP803 models fully developed and ready for the market in April or May of 1993, neither the WP4007 nor the WP803 was released in the United States until February or March 1994. By letter dated December 21, 1993, the Department gave Petitioner until February 1, 1994, to correct its failed performance under the contract by supplying eight replacement units that met the specifications agreed upon back in November 1992. No mention was made of what model unit would be necessary, however the Petitioner was notified that the replacement units had to be provided to the Department for testing and that the units had to be acceptable to the Department after testing by February 1, 1994 in order for Petitioner to avoid being found in default of the bid contract. The Department did not, in this letter, or at any other time, specifically agree to accept the WP803 upgrade instead of the promised WP4007 upgrade, but specified that a failure to supply eight upgraded units and have them timely accepted by the agency would result in default. Petitioner responded that it would provide two prototypes or preproduction units to test in January and try to meet the Department's February 1, 1994 deadline for delivery of eight upgraded units. The Department allowed Solomat until February 15, 1994 to exchange eight satisfactory upgraded units for the eight MPM4803s originally supplied. Petitioner delivered two WP803 preproduction units and provided some training in January 1994. WP4007 preproduction units could have been provided but were not. Because development had lagged behind marketing, Petitioner had inventory of neither WP803 nor WP4007 production units. The Department conducted testing, some of which could be considered limited field use, on January 18-20, 1994 on the prototype or preproduction WP803 units with Petitioner's representatives present. Petitioner's representatives did not criticize Department personnel's calibration procedures. On January 28, 1994, the Department provided the Petitioner a written summary of its findings as a result of the testing which included a four-point conclusion that the new units did not meet bid specifications. Petitioner's witness conceded the following: The circuit boards on the preproduction WP803 units tested in January 1994 had been assembled by hand. The internal programming on the Eprom was not fully debugged. There were problems with the conductivity linearizations. Petitioner attempted to interface those instruments with the 803PS sondes the Department already possessed and the modifications did not work. Petitioner did not intend these prototype WP803s to be used in the field because, among the foregoing problems, they were not fully waterproof. Petitioner's review of the Department's test data in February 1994 on the prototypes convinced the company that there were problems that went beyond mere user problems. Some parameters were acceptable but results were not reliable for all parameters. The testimony of John Kent Edwards, Louis They, and Wayne Magley together with Petitioner's assessment is sufficient to establish that despite a fair test, calibration drift for Petitioner's preproduction WP803 units tested on January 18-20, 1994 failed quality assurance levels and did not meet certain specifications of the contract. The Department eventually extended the February 1, 1994 deadline until February 21, 1994. The Department conducted additional testing on the WP803 production units supplied by the Petitioner prior to February 21, 1994. Wayne Magley set up and calibrated three of the production units received. One machine had an immediate hardware failure. Over a week, he did a series of calibrations and post-calibrations in the laboratory and one field trip. Despite employing calibration methodology to give Petitioner the benefit of the doubt and even accounting for low ionic strengths, the "five minutes for calibration of each parameter" specification could not be met. Problems with accurate readings remained even when Petitioner's instruments were tested against each other. Department testing on the WP803 production units demonstrated that they also failed to meet either the ITB specifications or the company specifications provided by the Petitioner as part of its bid. By a March 3, 1994 letter, the Department notified Petitioner it was declaring a default, pursuant to Rule 60A-1.006 (3) F.A.C. By mid-February, Petitioner had not supplied more than four production level WP803s. The Department instructed Solomat not to ship any more units because Department tests on the first four made the Department not want to progress further. Petitioner did not send the additional WP803 production units. The Department ended up with four MPM4803 production units, four WP803 production units and four 803PS sondes. Solomat has four 803PS sondes at its Connecticut office marked, "DEP property." In August 1994, Petitioner provided its production level WP803 data logger and 803PS sonde to U.S. Testing Labs which performed an independent evaluation to determine if the problems that the Department had experienced were with the units or with the users. Daniel Cooke, Ph.D., was in charge of the test. He, like the Department, had some initial start up difficulty, including learning how to calibrate with oral instructions over the telephone beyond the printed December 1993 instruction manual; a loose connection that Petitioner had to repair; and conductivity adjustments that Solomat had to make. As a result, he aborted the first test on his own and aborted the second try at a test at the request of Solomat. He found he was able to calibrate with the June 1994 instruction manual Petitioner created after the Department had claimed a default. His test results also showed that: 1) high DO was outside of specification throughout the test; 2) conductivity was outside of specification throughout the test; 3) salinity was outside of specification throughout the test; and 4) all parameters were outside of Petitioner's specifications at times during the testing. Petitioner's witness conceded that there could be some drift over the period of a week in the field, some small drift over two hours even in the lab calibrations and DO and pH drift could violate the ITB's "48 hours" specification, dependent upon the pollution of the water in the field. A few months before formal hearing, Petitioner revised its own company specifications to define more realistic tolerances under actual field conditions as 24 hours and two weeks after calibration. The Department represented that it has not yet gone to the next bidder or established a timetable and assumed any costs of reletting the ITB, as contemplated by Rule 60A-1.006(3) F.A.C., because it has no money to do so. Accordingly, there is no evidence of cost of reprocurement which the Department seeks to assess against Solomat (TR-12-13)
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order that (1) determines Petitioner to be in default of its contract; (2) orders Petitioner to reimburse the Department $50,086.32 as refunded contract monies, without any additional cover costs; (3) orders Petitioner to pay to the Department, on or before the date payment of the contract monies is made by Petitioner, an amount equal to the actual cost of contracting with the next lowest bidder or the cost of reprocurement or the costs attendant upon replacement purchase on the open market in an amount either stipulated between the parties or as estimated upon past agency experience in letting the original bid/contract; (4) provides for the return of all equipment to Petitioner upon satisfaction of the requirements of paragraphs 2-3; and (5) provides for the removal of the agency decertification upon the satisfaction of the requirements of paragraphs 2-3. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of August, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 2nd day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 94-1682 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to 5120.59(2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF) Petitioner's PFOF: 1, 9, 12-14, 16-18, 21-25, 29-31, 48, 50, 53, 64, 68, 71-72, 80-81, 83-87, 89-90, 93, 94, 96, 101-102, 123, 127-128, 130, 133, 136, 146, 148, 149, and 153 Substantially accepted except for unnecessary, subordinate, and/or cumulative material which has been interspersed therein and except for legal argument and proposed conclusions of law for which a ruling under s. 120.59(2) F.S. is not required. 2 Covered in the preliminary statement. 3-8, 10, 27, 61, 82, 91-92 99-100, 112, 115, 117, 121-122, 125, 139-140, 142-143 Rejected as immaterial or non-dispositive of any material issue of fact. 11, 19-20, 28, 51-52, 54-55, 63, 73-78, 107-108, 124, 134-135, 137 Rejected as subordinate to the facts as found. 62, 65-67, 88, 98, 103-106, 113-114, 116, 118, 126, 129, 131-132, 138, 141, 144-145, 147 Rejected as out of context, misleading, and/or as they are stated, these proposals are not supported by the greater weight of the credible competent evidence of record. 15, 26, 49, 56-60, 69-70, 79, 95, 97, 119-120, 150-152 Rejected as stated because not proven as stated. Same material substantially covered in the recommended order 32-47 Rejected in part as misleading and/or not supported by the greater weight of the credible competent record evidence; otherwise rejected because it is non-dispositive in that it is selectively culled opinion testimony. There were two aborted tries to do the test before the final data was run; all raw data (including the aborted tries) had been turned over to Solomat, so that additional inquiry of Daniel Cooke, the witness, was limited. Rejected further because it does not reach the dispositive material facts that Solomat did not supply the items called for in their negotiated/modified contract. This was ultimately a laboratory test with a new manual, not a field test with the old manual and the specifications were ultimately modified. Same material substantially covered in the recommended order. 109-111, 154 Substantially rejected as mere legal argument or as a conclusion of law not requiring a ruling pursuant to s. 120.59(2) F.S. Otherwise covered in the Conclusions of Law. Respondent' s PFOF: 1-6, 9-17, 19-29, 31-39, 41-43 Substantially accepted except for unnecessary, subordinate, and/or cumulative material which has been interspersed therein and except for legal argument and proposed conclusions of law for which a ruling under s. 120.59(2) F.S. is not required. 18, Rejected as subordinate to the facts as found 7-8, 30, Rejected as immaterial or non-dispositive of any material issue of fact. 40, 45 Substantially rejected as mere legal argument or as a conclusion of law not requiring a ruling pursuant to s. 120. 59(2) F.S. Otherwise covered in the Conclusions of Law. 44 Covered in the preliminary statement. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert S. Cohen, Esquire Pennington and Haben, P.A. Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Candi E. Culbreath, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Kenneth Plante Department of Environmental Protection General Counsel 3900 Commonwealth Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issues to be resolved in the proceeding concern whether the Respondent, a licensed septic tank contractor, installed twelve septic tank systems at eleven locations in Bay and Walton Counties in which the required filters were removed, allegedly violating the various provisions of Chapter 381, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 64E-6, Florida Administrative Code, cited and discussed herein below and, if that is the case whether an administrative fine should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an Agency of the State of Florida charged, in pertinent part, with regulating the licensure and compliance of septic tank contractors with the statutory and regulatory authorities cited herein. That authority includes the inspection and approval of the installation of septic tank and drainfield waste disposal systems in Bay and Walton Counties, Florida. It includes the authority to prosecute alleged violations of the statutes and rules regarding appropriate and legal installation of septic tanks and drainfield systems as are involved in this case. The Respondent, John E. McDaniel, is a licensed septic tank contractor subject to the Department's jurisdiction and regulation. His firm installed twelve septic tank systems at eleven locations in Bay County, Walton County and one in Fountain, Florida. Final inspections were conducted on those systems from May 7, 1998 through January 11, 1999. Thereafter, acting on information and belief, the Department inspected those systems again and found that after final inspections that eleven legally required filters from eleven septic tank systems had been removed after the previous "final inspection." The removal of those filters was without authorization and contrary to the portions of the Florida Administrative Code cited below. The petitioner agency took the position that the Respondent and his company were responsible for the illegal removal of the septic tank filters and took initial Agency action assessing a fine in the proposed amount of $3,300.00, $300.00 per violation. The Respondent contested that initial agency action bringing about the subject formal proceeding and evidentiary hearing. Mike Guyne is the Environmental Health Director of the Bay County Health Department. He is familiar with three incidents of prior discipline where the Respondent was subjected to fines for two citations issued by the Department in 1996. Septic tank filters are required on all septic tanks. Although homeowners or persons other than the septic tank contractor could remove the filters, it would be difficult because the lids covering the filter weigh fifty to seventy-five pounds and are sealed with cement mortar and then covered with a layer of dirt. Thus if any person were to remove the subject septic tank filters it would be most easily accomplished before the system is sealed with mortar and before it is covered with dirt (i.e., after the final inspection of the system was made but before it was covered up). On February 16, 1999, Joseph W. Miner, an Environmental Health Specialist for Washington County, went to a site in Washington County to inspect a septic tank system installed by Superior Septic Tank Company (Respondent). The filter in that system had been painted orange on the top but the installers had already moved to another job and so Mr. Miner was unable to question them regarding the origin of that filter. Mr. Miner went to the next site to inspect a septic tank system also installed by Superior Septic Tank Company, and the filter in that septic tank system had also been painted orange on its top. Some counties mark filters by spray painting them when they are put into service to keep them from being removed and used in another system. Mr. Miner engaged in a conversation with an employee of the Superior Septic Tank Company whose name is unknown (gray- haired gentleman with a ponytail) at the second location. This employee was in the company of co-employee Mike Parker who testified in this case. He was questioned by Mr. Miner. This employee told Mr. Miner that Walton County had marked those filters and once the inspections were complete and the inspector left those Walton County job sites that, if the homeowner did not want a filter on the system, employees of Superior Septic Tank Company removed the filters before sealing the tank and system. This same employee also told Mr. Miner that they could not re-use the orange painted filter in Walton County because they would be detected as having already been painted (for identification reasons by Department personnel) and therefore, if they were installed in a different system later the inspector would know that they had been removed from a previous system. Consequently, this employee told Mr. Miner that the painted filters from Walton County were thereafter used in Washington County system installations. When Mr. Miner questioned this employee about the authority for removing the filters he was told that Mr. McDaniel, the Respondent and the owner of Superior Septic Tank Company, had indicated that he had authorization "from Tallahassee" authorizing the filter removal. Mr. McDaniel himself stated in a phone conversation with Mr. Miner that he had a verbal agreement to remove filters from septic tanks with the Director of Environmental Health for Bay County. In any event, in Washington County no septic tank systems are approved for final inspection unless filters are installed according to Mr. Miner. Amanda Brown had septic tank systems installed by the Respondent at two sites. These systems later began failing and at that point an employee of the Respondent, who happened to be Brown's brother, Charles Eldridge, told Ms. Brown that the filters in her systems had been removed after final inspection. Environmental Health staff personnel later opened those three systems installed by the Respondent company in Ms. Brown's presence. Two of the three systems had no filters installed. Ms. Brown had not authorized removal of those filters. Ken Manley is a contractor who builds residential homes including those at the addresses depicted in Exhibits three and four. Mr. Manley did not authorize the removal of the filters from the septic tank systems referenced in Exhibits three and four, although someone removed them. George Stanley Pitts is a land developer who contracted with Superior Septic Tank Company and Mr. McDaniel to install septic tank systems. The systems were installed at the locations referenced in Exhibits five, six, seven and eight in evidence. Mr. Pitts had a conversation with personnel of the Superior Septic Tank Company who told him that the Health Department had authorized leaving filters out of the systems if the owner did not object. Mr. Pitts maintains that he did not remove nor authorize removal of the filters referenced in those exhibits and yet they were removed. James Buchanan owns property that is referenced in Exhibit nine in evidence. He had a septic tank system installed by the Respondent on Angie Road as referenced in Exhibit nine. He did not authorize removal of the filter from the septic tank system at that location although they were removed after the final inspection. Thomas Owen as well had a septic tank system installed at 12034 Oak Avenue, in Fountain, Florida, as depicted in Exhibit ten. It was installed by Superior Septic Tank Company. After the final inspection was done on the system, the filter was removed although Owen states that he did not authorize removal of the filter from his septic tank system. Charles Eldridge was employed by Superior Septic Tank Company and John McDaniel. He was employed at four different times during a five-year period including 1998. When he was employed in 1998, the installation of filters in septic tank systems was a relatively new requirement. Mr. Eldridge performed work on his sister's septic tank systems which are described in Exhibits one and two in evidence. He removed the filters from those systems. Mr. Eldridge maintains that Mr. McDaniel told employees and frequently reminded them to remove filters from septic tank systems after final inspections were performed by Health Department officials. Mr. McDaniel, according to Eldridge, told his employees that the filters cost from $28.00 to $38.00 and could be used again in a later system (implicitly for reasons of saving money). Kevin Cobb is a Environmental Health Specialist for the Walton County Health Department. He is an inspector of septic tank systems. He did a final construction inspection and a final inspection of the septic tank system installed by Mr. McDaniel's Superior Septic Tank Company which is described in Exhibit eleven. When he performed the final inspection he spray-painted the top of the filter with orange paint, which is the practice and policy in Walton County as a means to show that that filter had been used; therefore if it appears in a later-constructed and installed system it will show the inspector at that later time that the filter had previously been used and illegally removed from another system. Mr. Cobb was accompanied by another Health Department employee and re-inspected the septic tank system described in Exhibit eleven. After removing the lid over the filter location he found that there was no filter in the outlet "T" fitting, although orange paint remained on top of the "T" fitting as shown in the photographs, in evidence as Exhibits sixteen and seventeen. Mr. Cobb discovered the filters were missing in two of the three systems installed by Superior Septic Tank Company which he inspected. Ralph McDonald is an Environmental Health Inspector for the Bay County Health Department. He inspected the septic tank systems depicted in Exhibits one, two, six, nine and ten, which were installed by the Superior Septic Tank Company. When he made the construction inspection of those systems he found filters to be in place in those systems. He did not authorize removal of the filters. Brian Hughes is also an Environmental Health Inspector for the Bay County Health Department. He made the construction inspection on septic tank systems referenced in Exhibits three, four, and eight in evidence, which were also installed by the Superior Septic Tank Company. When he made that inspection he found the filters to be properly in place. He also would not authorize removal of filters from septic tank systems nor approve permitting systems which did not have filters. After final approval of the septic tank systems referenced in Exhibits two, five, six, seven, eight, nine and ten, the Bay County Health Department re-inspected those systems and found according to Mr. Hughes and Mr. Darsey's testimony, as well as Mr. Ellis', that the filters were then missing from those same systems. Thus they had been removed after the final construction and inspection had been performed. Carl Darsey is a Supervisor in Environmental Health for the Bay County Health Department. The septic tank systems installed by the Superior Septic Tank Company described in Exhibits five and seven also had filters at the time the construction approval inspection was performed. Mr. Darsey never authorized removal of those filters nor would he approve systems without the filters in place. Leroy Ellis is employed in the Disease Intervention section of the Bay County Health Department and accompanied the other named employees of the Bay County Health Department on the re-inspections of the above-referenced septic tank systems. His testimony corroborates that of Hughes and Darsey. After final approval of the septic tank systems referenced in Exhibits three and four, Mr. Guyne, with other environmental health staff of the Bay County Health Department, re-inspected those systems installed by the Superior Septic Tank Company and found that the filters were missing from those systems as well. Septic tank system filters are designed to clean the effluent and add longevity to the septic tank systems, to help prevent clogging of the drainfields. Filters have been installed in all septic tanks according to Department rules and policies for approximately the last two years and, according to Mr. Guyne, no complaints on system failures have been brought to the Bay County Health Department's attention related to filters. Mike Parker is an installation supervisor employed by the Superior Septic Tank Company. He had a conversation with Mr. Miner in Washington County and informed him of customer problems with maintenance of the filters. Mr. Guyne established, however, that homeowners are responsible for problems with their septic tank filters after the final inspection. It was not established, however, that any of the homeowners or customers of the Superior Septic Tank Company and Mr. McDaniel removed the filters themselves. Initially, in approximately early 1998, Mr. McDaniel took the position that he had some informal authority from Health Department Personnel to remove filters and so informed Mr. Eldridge and Mr. Miner. Later, however, when the dispute arose concerning the removal of the filters and who might have removed them, he took the position that he did not remove any filters. In a one-year period Mr. McDaniel's installation personnel typically installed about two hundred and fifty septic tank systems. In Walton County two filters were missing out of three tanks checked, and in Bay County ten filters were missing out of fourteen tanks checked. Mr. Eldridge testified that if an inspector remained on a site during the time that the system was being back-filled or covered up then the filter would be left in the system. Thus two employees of the Respondent stated that they were instructed to remove the filters after the final inspection. Moreover, a random sampling of septic tank systems installed by the Respondent established that a great majority of them had had the filters removed. The explanation that vandals may have taken the twelve filters does not make sense. It strains belief to think that twelve of seventeen septic tanks would be vandalized and then only vandalized as to the removal of filters with no other damage done to the systems. Further, the two employees testifying on behalf of the Respondent have testimony deficient in materiality or weight. Mike Parker was not employed by the Respondent when the installations of the majority of these systems occurred. He had no knowledge of doing the installation on the eleven systems involved and was not working for McDaniel during the relevant period in 1998. He was not aware that filters in Walton County are painted with orange paint to try to prevent their removal and re-use, and does not remember any orange paint on filters installed in Washington County, which was clearly established to be the case on the filters that Mr. McDaniel was installing. Additionally, Mr. Halstead's memory is deficient because upon being questioned about annual installations performed, his testimony varied about how many weekly or annual installations are performed. Mr. Halstead stated that he had never seen any filters in Walton County painted with orange paint when the testimony of Mr. Cobb, corroborated by the photographs in evidence, show that they clearly were painted with orange paint in Walton County. Thus both Mr. Halstead and Mr. Parker's testimony is entitled to little weight. Mr. McDaniel submitted a report in evidence showing that Charles Eldridge had apparently used marijuana at one point and had gotten into an altercation resulting in a trespass warning from the Sheriff's Department. This was supposedly related to a dispute over payment of wages, in conjunction with Mr. Eldridge apparently quitting his job with Mr. McDaniel in anger. This evidence was intended to show that Mr. Eldridge was a disgruntled former employee who might therefore have a motive to lie in his testimony to retaliate against Mr. McDaniel for perceived past grievances. The evidence shows clearly, however, that after this report was entered concerning Mr. Eldridge and after their verbal altercation, that, according to Mr. McDaniel's own testimony, he had hired Mr. Eldridge several more times. Thus there is an insufficient demonstration in the evidence of a motive on the part of Mr. Eldridge to actually lie in retaliation against Mr. McDaniel. Mr. Eldridge had apparently become upset when he worked for Mr. McDaniel because of a shortage of pay due him and Mr. McDaniel testified that he admittedly had caused that problem with Mr. Eldridge, but this does not warrant a finding that Mr. Eldridge's testimony was fabricated. This is because the statement made to Mr. Miner by the "gray-haired employee with the ponytail," who made the incriminating statement about instructions from Mr. McDaniel to remove filters, was not refuted, which fact corroborates Mr. Eldridge's testimony. That employee clearly stated that the fluorescent painted filters came from Walton County and were removed from Walton County septic tank systems and then re-used in Washington County. The reason given for the removal was that Mr. McDaniel had instructed his personnel to remove them. That is consistent with the testimony given by Mr. Eldridge. Mr. Miner phoned Mr. McDaniel back at the time the question first arose concerning the Walton and Washington County systems, and Mr. McDaniel told him that he had authorization from the Environmental Health Director in Bay County to remove filters. That authorization was shown never to have existed even if relevant. Later, at hearing, Mr. McDaniel denied making that statement and said that he never removed any filters at all. That assertion renders his testimony inconsistent and thus it cannot be credited.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, recommended that a final order be issued by the Department of Health finding that the Respondent committed the violations charged and assessing a $3,300.00 fine against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 23rd day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney M. Johnson, Esquire Chief Legal Counsel Department of Health Northwest Law Office 1295 West Fairfield Drive Pensacola, Florida 32501 Gary W. Tennyson, Esquire 3235 Lisenby Avenue Panama City, Florida 32405 Angela T. Hall, Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Amy M. Jones, Acting General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the Notice of Intent to Issue Order Requiring Access to Property (“Access Order”) issued by the Department of Environmental Protection (“Department”) and directed to Glenda Mahaney, as the property owner, is a valid exercise of the Department’s authority.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Glenda Mahaney is a natural person and the owner of the property identified in the Access Order. The Department is the state agency which has been granted powers and assigned duties under chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes, for the protection and restoration of air and water quality and to adopt rules and issue orders in furtherance of these powers and duties. Background The groundwater beneath a parcel of land adjacent to Petitioner’s property was contaminated with petroleum when the land was used in the past for auto salvage operations. Initial groundwater sampling near the border of Petitioner’s property showed groundwater contamination by gasoline constituents which exceeded Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels (“GCTLs”). In other words, the contamination was at levels that required cleanup. However, later sampling showed the concentration of contaminants had decreased below GCTLs, probably as a result of natural attenuation. The existing data suggests that any groundwater contamination beneath Petitioner’s property is probably now at a level that would not require cleanup. However, the Department issued the Access Order because the Department is not certain about the contamination beneath Petitioner’s property and because Petitioner has continually requested further investigation. Petitioner believes contamination from the auto salvage site has caused illness in a tenant and even contributed to other persons’ deaths. However, no expert testimony was received on this subject and no finding is made about whether contamination exists on Petitioner’s property which has caused illness or death. The Department’s Site Investigation Section wants access to Petitioner’s property in order to determine whether contamination has migrated beneath Petitioner’s property and, if it has, the extent and concentration of the contaminants. The Department wants to: (a) install up to five temporary groundwater monitoring wells, (b) collect groundwater samples from the wells, (c) collect a groundwater sample from Petitioner’s potable water well, and (d) remove the monitoring wells after the sampling. The Access Order includes terms related to advance notice, scheduling, and related matters. Liability Although Petitioner believes petroleum contamination is present and wants it cleaned up, she objects to the provision of the Access Order related to liability. Paragraph 9(e) of the Access Order provides: Ms. Mahaney shall not be liable for any injury, damage or loss on the property suffered by the Department, its agents, or employees which is not caused by the [sic] negligence or intentional acts. Petitioner insists that she should not be liable under any circumstances for injuries or damages suffered by Department’s agents or employees who come on her property for these purposes. She demands that the Department come onto her property “at their own risk.” At the final hearing, the Department stated that it did not intend to impose on Petitioner a level of liability different than the liability that would already be applicable under Florida law. The Department offered to amend Paragraph 9(e) of the Access Order to indicate that Petitioner’s “liability, if any, shall be determined in accordance with Florida law.” Scope of the Investigation Petitioner objects to the proposed groundwater sampling because she does not believe it is extensive enough. Petitioner also believes the Department should test for soil contamination. The Department’s expert, David Phillips, testified that the proposed monitoring well locations were selected based on the direction of groundwater flow in the area and the wells are along the likely path of migration of any contaminated groundwater from the former auto salvage site. Another Department witness, Tracy Jewsbury, testified that no soil contamination was found on the auto salvage site, so the Department has no reason to expect there would be soil contamination on Petitioner’s property that came from the auto salvage operation. The Department will use the data collected from the wells to determine if contamination is present and whether future contamination assessment and/or remediation activities are necessary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection withdraw the Access Order or, alternatively, that Paragraph 9(e) of the Access Order be amended to provide that Ms. Mahaney’s potential liability, if any, shall be determined in accordance with Florida law. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of November, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of November, 2017. William W. Gwaltney, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Glenda Q. Mahaney Post Office Box 123 Mount Dora, Florida 32756 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Robert A. Williams, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed
