The Issue Whether or not the Petitioner should be entitled to an extension of the shelf life on its milk and milk products from a ten day period to a twelve day period.
Findings Of Fact Testimony offered by Jay Boosinger, Director of Dairy Industry, for the Department of Agriculture and Gene Smith, Supervisor of Dairy Products Inspection Enforcement, indicated that the Respondent had investigated the request for extension of shelf life from ten days to twelve days on the milk and milk products of the Petitioner and based on the laboratory analysis of the test samples, they felt that the request should be accepted. Jay Boosinger has as his duty the direction of the program which is designed to regulate the quality of dairy products within the State of Florida. Gene Smith is, as his title indicates, charged with the function of inspection and enforcement of the laws and regulations associated with the dairy industry in the State of Florida. Testimony was offered in this hearing which indicated that certain samples of the Petitioner's milk and milk products had been collected at the Petitioner's Tampa, Florida plant and the Petitioner's trucks. These samples were collected by a dairy plant specialist of the Respondent, and then in turn were taken to a laboratory of the Respondent for analysis. The laboratory analysis was designed to ultimately determine the number of days that the samples would be acceptable beyond the code expiration date found on the container, which expiration date would have been at the ten day point. There is an exhibit, which is Respondent's Exhibit #1 that identifies the product, collection point, the established expiration date, the laboratory evaluation date and the days that the product was found to be acceptable beyond the ten day established expiration date. In addition this exhibit contains the laboratory analysis of the products together with attendant correspondence on the issue of the extension of the shelf life. The test samples in Respondent's Exhibit #1 show in the date acceptable pass column, how many days past the ten days the product would have held up without losing flavor and becoming unacceptable in terms of shelf life. The laboratory analyses and summary of those analyses showed available shelf life above the ten day life expressed in the regulation found in Chapter 5D-104 (7)(d), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent grant a shelf life of twelve days on the milk and milk products identified in the course of the hearing held on the question of the petition. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: R. D. Saunders, Zone Manager Sealtest Foods 109 Governors Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Jack Shoemaker, Esquire Resident Counsel 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact On February 20, 1985, Demaris Hughes, a registered dietician for the office of licensure and certification of the Petitioner, conducted the annual license survey of the Respondent, A. D. Virice and Associates, Inc., d/b/a Hilcrest Retirement Residence. During this inspection, Ms. Hughes observed that milk used for serving for drinking purposes was not from original individual containers in which it was packaged at the milk plant or from an approved bulk milk dispenser of sanitary design, construction, and operation. This was admitted by Maurice Duff and Virginia Duff, who manage and operate the Hilcrest Retirement Residence. On February 20, 1985, Ms. Hughes told Ms. Duff that the containers then being used were in violation of state regulations, and that a period of 30 days was allowed for the Respondent to correct this violation by either serving milk in one-half pint cartons or in an approved bulk dispenser. The Respondent's Retirement Residence has a license for 13 or more residents. The survey conducted on February 20, 1985, noted other deficiencies, all of which were corrected by the time of the resurvey on April 3, 1985. On April 3, 1985, Ms. Hughes again visited Hilcrest Retirement Residence and milk used for serving was still not served from original individual containers in which it was packaged at the milk plant or from an approved bulk milk dispenser. The Respondent had some difficulty arranging for the purchase of milk in one-half pint individual serving containers, and asserted at the hearing that sometime in early April 1985 it finally had an arrangement with a dairy to obtain milk in individual containers. Agents of the Respondent, nonetheless, knew that they had thirty days from February 20, 1985, to correct this violation, and there is no evidence that they sought any extension of time from Ms. Hughes or from the Petitioner. Additionally, although there was testimony as to the fact that the violation was corrected by early April 1985, there was no independent corroborative evidence, such as a written contract with a milk supplier, cancelled checks, or written invoices for purchase of milk in one-half pint containers.
Findings Of Fact This application is to provide irrigation necessary to develop 11,520 acres zoned agricultural into improved grazing land. The land to be so developed is Sections 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23, 24, & 25, Township 47 South, Range 34 East, a portion of Sections 4, 9, 16, 21, 22, 26, 27, 35 & 36, Township 47 South, Range 34 East, a portion of Section 1, Township 48 South, Range 34 East, and a portion of Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 35, East. It is bounded on the west and southwest by the L-3 canal, and on the east by the Rotenberger tract which has been purchased by the State of Florida as a Wildlife Management Area. Details of the proposed water management system are contained in Exhibit 4, C&SFCD Staff Report. The tract here involved is basically flat with the elevation going from +14 feet in the northwest portion to +13 feet in the southeast portion. Although the Addendum to the Staff Report (Exhibit 5) states that the application calls for the conversion of several thousand acres of original sawgrass Everglades into improved pasture, expert witnesses testified without contradiction that the tract involved is more on the edge of the Everglades and only a small portion in the southeastern part thereof is truly swamp and marsh land typical of the Everglades. The western portion of the area is comprised of sandy soil rather than the muck characteristic of Everglades land. Although the Intervenors contended that the development of the tract would be environmentally counterproductive, no evidence was submitted to support this position. Conversion of the land to pasture may prove more useful to wildlife than leaving it in its present state which primarily supports deer. As improved pasture the land would still support a substantial deer population. Wading birds in particular will benefit if the wild land is converted to pasture. The annual water allocation recommended by the C&SFCD staff and concurred in by applicant, should be 15,360 acre-feet (16.0 inches/acre/year) which is the basin yield for the area. Therefore the irrigation use should have no adverse impact on the water resource or affect other users.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioners' activities on their property in Sumter County, which impacted 38 acres of wetlands, are exempt under Section 373.406(2)-(3), Florida Statutes,1 from environmental resource permit (ERP) regulation.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners hold title to approximately 180 acres of agricultural land north of State Road 44 in Sumter County.3 Danny J. Suggs and his wife purchased the property in 1997 and 1998 to start to fulfill his "dream" to build multiple residences for himself and his wife and for members of his family on the property and to raise cattle and plant a pecan grove and retire from his construction and roofing contracting businesses. His concept was for the real estate to be held in a family trust. When Mr. Suggs began to implement his plans, he learned that Sumter County required that the building permit for each residence be on a separate parcel of at least five acres in size. For that reason, he gave his family members five-acre deeds for each residence he wanted to build. However, while they had deeds for their lots, none of the family paid more than nominal consideration, paid for costs of development or construction, or had any actual control of Mr. Suggs' plans for the property. Soon after buying the property, Mr. Suggs bought a few head of cattle that were allowed to roam and graze on the property. He then began to develop the property. He dug canals, ditches, and ponds, and constructed fill roads. As part of his surface water management system, Mr. Suggs constructed an earthen berm along part of the western perimeter of the property to keep water from flowing off his property and into Rutland Swamp and Creek, which are waters of the State. Some of Mr. Suggs' land alterations were in the 100-year floodplain, including an encroachment into land owned by a neighbor. Mr. Suggs testified that he has the neighbor's permission, but he has no written permission for the encroachment. Mr. Suggs' activities on the property impacted approximately 38 acres of wetlands. In December 2002, the District cited Petitioners for dredging and filling wetlands on the property without a permit. Extensive litigation ensued, during which Petitioners took the position that they were exempt under Section 373.406(2)-(3), Florida Statutes--the "agricultural" and the "agricultural closed system" exemptions, which are set out in Conclusion 18. Petitioners continued development and construction activities until enjoined by the circuit court in March 2004. By the time of the court's injunction, Mr. Suggs had completed about 80 percent of his planned surface water management system for the property. Mr. Suggs intended his design to retain all surface on the property in a 50-year, 24- hour storm event. However, it was not proven that Mr. Suggs' design would have accomplished his intended purpose. By the time of the court's injunction, Mr. Suggs also had built six large residences for family members and dug ditches around each residence for drainage. He says he has plans to build another eight identical residences for other family members. In May 2004, Petitioners retained Gary Bethune, an agricultural engineer, to attempt to design an agricultural closed system that would be exempt under Section 373.406(3), Florida Statutes, for presentation in a hearing before the state circuit court. Mr. Bethune completed his design in June 2004. Mr. Bethune's design includes an earthen berm to retain all surface on the property in a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. It also incorporates a spillway to discharge excess water into the Rutland Swamp and a covered conveyance structure to allow water from the eastern side of the property to pass through without commingling with surface water on the property and to discharge into Rutland Swamp on the western side of the property. Mr. Bethune's design will not retain surface water on the property in the event of a storm exceeding the 100-year, 24- hour design storm; it also will not necessarily retain all surface water on the property in the event of multiple storm events not exceeding the 100-year, 24-hour storm event. Mr. Bethune's design does not address groundwater. Groundwater will flow under the property towards Rutland Swamp and Creek. Surface water on the property, together with contaminants from cattle grazing on the property and fertilizer and pesticides used growing pecan trees, will percolate into the ground, mix with the groundwater, and flow into Rutland Swamp and Creek. Mr. Bethune's design is not appropriate or reasonable for either a cattle ranch or a pecan grove. It will cause the property to flood during the design 100-year, 24-hour storm and in various combinations of lesser storms. A bona fide cattle ranch is not designed to flood during the wet season. Similarly, a bona fide pecan grove is not designed to flood during the wet season. During and after Mr. Suggs' development and construction activities, his cattle have continued to roam freely around the property. However, besides the inappropriateness and unreasonableness of Mr. Bethune's design for a cattle ranch, Mr. Suggs' other activities also are inappropriate and unreasonable for a bona fide cattle ranch. The ponds, canals, and ditches he dug are much deeper and have banks much steeper than a bona fide cattle ranch would have. They are so deep and steep that cattle will have great difficulty using them for drinking water. In addition, fill from the extraordinarily deep ponds, canals, and ditches as well as fill Mr. Suggs had delivered from offsite has been spread on the property to a thickness that has reduced the amount of cattle forage on the property, instead of increasing and improving it, as would occur on a bona fide cattle ranch. Besides the inappropriateness and unreasonableness of Mr. Bethune's design for a pecan grove, there are no pecan growers anywhere near Petitioners' property. Even if feasible to grow pecans for profit on the property, there was no evidence that any alteration of the property would be appropriate or reasonable to plant a pecan grove. Although there is an area of upland where Mr. Suggs says he wants to plant pecan trees, not a single pecan tree has been planted yet (as of the time of the final hearing). In addition, there was no evidence that the land designated for a pecan grove would not be needed for the eight additional residences Mr. Suggs says he plans to build on the property. The primary purpose of Mr. Suggs' surface water management system is not for agricultural purposes, or incidental to agricultural purposes. Rather, the primary purpose is to impound and obstruct the flow of surface water to facilitate the construction of the residences on his property--the six already built and another eight he plans to build. Mr. Suggs refers to the residences he has built and plans to build as family residences to be owned by a family trust, the six residences already built are now for sale at an asking price of a million dollars each.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the District enter a final order that Petitioners' activities on their property are not exempt from ERP regulation. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 2009.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the allegations set forth in the Department's Proposed Settlement Agreement and Administrative Complaint dated June 14, 1999, are correct and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is the state agency charged with the responsibility for enforcement of the Florida Food Safety Act. At all times material to this case, Respondent Hoi Phun was the owner and operator of Town and Country Chevron, 8616 West Hillsborough Avenue, Tampa, Florida. The Respondent had no certified food manager and had no food permit for the facility. On April 8, 1999, a Department representative inspected the Respondent's premises. At the time of the inspection, the soda machine was visibly dirty and mildewed at the dispenser. The ice machine, located in a back room, was also dirty. The "warewash" sink was dirty and had no hot water. Chemicals were stored at the wash area. Wastewater was disposed of by dumping on the ground outside and at the rear of the building. A plumbing fixture lacked a "backflow" device that prevents siphonage of potentially unsanitary water into the building's water lines. The April 8, 1999, overall evaluation rating was "poor." A "stop use" order was issued for the ice machine and for the soda machine. The "stop use" order included placing a red "STOP USE" tag and red tape on each machine. Each violation was discussed with the store manager and a copy of the evaluation was provided during the discussion. On April 22, 1999, a Department representative re- inspected the Respondent's premises. The inspection revealed that the April 8 violations were continuing. The "STOP USE" tape and tags placed on the soda and ice machines during the previous inspection had been removed. The inspector saw the soda machine being used. The soda machine drain was clogged. The April 22, 1999, overall evaluation rating was "poor." The "stop use" order was reissued for the ice machine and for the soda machine. Each violation was discussed with the store manager and a copy of the evaluation was provided during the discussion. On May 3, 1999, a Department representative re-inspected the Respondent's premises. The inspection revealed again that the April 8 violations were continuing. The "STOP USE" tape and tags placed on the soda and ice machines had again been removed. The May 3, 1999, overall evaluation rating was "poor." The "stop use" order was reissued for the ice machine and for the soda machine. Each violation was discussed with the store manager and a copy of the evaluation was provided during the discussion. On May 5, 1999, the Respondent met with the Department representative who conducted the inspections. At that time, the representative released the soda and ice machines from the "stop use" orders. On June 14, 1999, the Department issued a Proposed Settlement Agreement and Administrative Complaint setting forth the allegations addressed herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order imposing a fine of $5,000 against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 26th day of October, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela Dempsey, Senior Attorney Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 515 Mayo Building 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Hoi Phun Town and Country Chevron 8616 West Hillsborough Avenue Tampa, Florida 33615 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
Findings Of Fact Testimony offered by Jay Boosinger, Director of Dairy Industry, for the Department of Agriculture and Gene Smith, Supervisor of Dairy Products Inspection Enforcement, indicated that the Respondent had investigated the request for extension of shelf life from ten days to twelve days on the milk and milk products of the Petitioner. Based on the laboratory analysis of the test samples, they felt that the request should be accepted. Jay Boosinger has as his duty the direction of the program which is designed to regulate the quality of dairy products within the State of Florida. Gene Smith is, as his title indicates, charged with the function of inspection and enforcement of the laws and regulations associated with the dairy industry in the State of Florida. Testimony was offered in this hearing which indicated that certain samples of the Petitioner's milk and milk products had been collected at the Petitioner's Green Cove Springs, Florida plant and selected stores which were serviced by the Petitioner. These samples were collected by a dairy plant specialist of the Respondent, and in turn were taken to a laboratory of the Respondent for analysis. The laboratory analysis was designed to ultimately determine the number of days that the samples would be acceptable beyond the code expiration date found on the container, which expiration date would have been at the ten day point. There is an exhibit, which is Respondent's Exhibit #1 that identifies the product, collection point, the established expiration date, the laboratory evaluation date and the days that the product was found to be acceptable beyond the ten day, established expiration date. In addition this exhibit contains the laboratory analysis of the products together with attendant correspondence on the issue of the extension of the shelf life. The test samples in Respondent's Exhibit #1 show in the date acceptable pass column, how many days past the ten days the product would have held up without losing flavor and becoming unacceptable in terms of shelf life. The Petitioner, through its quality control supervisor, offered as Petitioner's Exhibit #1, a summary of a test conducted in its plant, which showed entries on the various milk and milk products at 43 degrees Fahrenheit. In each instance the report shows, as supported by the testimony of the witness, that the milk and milk products exceed the ten day shelf life. Professor Ronald Richter, Ph.D., Extension Dairy Technologist for the University of Florida, testified about a test conducted on the shelf life of the low fat milk and whole milk of the Petitioner. At 40 degrees the shelf life was 46 days, at 46 degrees the shelf life was 26 days in the low fat category. In the whole milk sample, at 40 degrees the shelf life was 29 days and at 46 degrees the shelf life was 22 days. The type tests employed included the Mosely Count and flavor test. The flavor test, according to the witnesses is the ultimate test of the shelf life of the milk or milk product. The purpose of the tests which the witness was making was in connection with a research project on the techniques to be utilized by a laboratory in evaluating the shelf life of milk and milk products. The laboratory analyses and summary of those analyses showed available shelf life above the ten day life expressed in the regulation found in Chapter 5D-104 (7)(d), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent grant a shelf life of twelve days on the milk and milk products identified in the course of the hearing held on the question of the petition. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of June, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Fred H. Kent, Jr., Esquire 870 Florida Bank Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Jack Shoemaker, Esquire Resident Counsel 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Thriftway of Indiantown, is a retail food store located at 15488 Southwest Warfield Boulevard, Indiantown, Florida. It has a mailing address of Post Office Box 188, Indiantown, Florida 34956. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is charged with the administration and enforcement of Chapter 500, Florida Statutes, along with rules promulgated thereunder relating to food safety and the selling of food to the consuming public. Department food safety inspectors conducted food safety inspections at Thriftway of Indiantown's place of business on the following dates during 1995: April 4 and 19, May 4 and 18, and June 1 and 15. On each of the five inspections from April 4 through June 1, the Thriftway of Indiantown received an overall rating of "poor." These ratings resulted from the fact that on each of these five occasions the inspector observed unsanitary conditions that constituted violations of applicable statutory and rule provisions. On each of the five inspections from April 4 through June 1, most of the violations were not critical violations. Only two critical violations were noted during the subject five inspections. One critical violation was the presence of rodent droppings. The other critical violation was the presence of live roaches. Rodent droppings were observed on all five of the subject inspections. Live roaches were observed on four of the five subject inspections. The last inspection of the Thriftway of Indiantown was on June 15, 1995. On that date there were no rodent droppings, no roaches, and no other critical violations. On June 15, 1995, there were only two minor problems, which were promptly corrected, and the store received an overall rating of "fair." During the period from the "poor" rating on April 4, 1995, until the "fair" rating on June 15, 1995, the manager and owners of Thriftway of Indiantown made diligent and industrious efforts to correct all of the violations noted on all of the inspection reports from April 4, 1995, through June 15, 1995. They made continuous progress towards correcting all of the non- critical violations, but in spite of their best efforts over several weeks they were unable to resolve the rodent and roach problems until early June. During April and May of 1995 the manager and owners of Thriftway of Indiantown did everything they could think of to resolve the rodent and roach problem. They called their pest control service and had extra pest control treatments applied. They searched in vain for rodent nests. They moved stock and cleaned everywhere they thought there might be rodents. They set out mouse traps and glue strips. When the existing pest control service appeared to be unable to solve the rodent and roach problems, the manager and owners of Thriftway of Indiantown began looking for another pest control service. After contacting and negotiating with several pest control companies, on May 31, 1995, the owners of Thriftway of Indiantown signed a contract with a new pest control company. The new pest control company was apparently successful, because when the store was inspected on June 15, 1995, the inspector did not see any rodent droppings or any roaches. On the dates of the five inspections from April 4, 1995, through June 1, 1995, Thriftway of Indiantown held food items in an unsanitary environment and offered such food for sale to the consuming public.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order imposing an administrative fine in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00). DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April 1996.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner operates a cattle feeding lot near Bartow, Florida consisting of 6 sheds, 1600 feet long by approximately 25 feet wide. These sheds are two story structures with the cattle fed on the upper story. The upper floor is slotted to permit cattle droppings to fall to the lower level. From there the manure and urine is processed in the waste treatment facilities consisting of a concrete sump and anerobic ponds. These treatment facilities qualify as pollution control equipment for purposes of tax assessment. Petitioner installed metal roofs over these feeding sheds which Petitioner claims also constitute pollution control equipment. Shade for cattle is required and could be provided by a fibre screen which would cost some $37,000 as compared to the metal roof costs of approximately $171,000. The difference between the costs of the metal roof and a fabric sun screen is $133,882.06 which Petitioner desires to have reduced from its assessment for tax purposes. The Property Appraiser Polk County recommended to the DER that this amount be approved as a deduction for pollution control equipment. Petitioner contends that the primary purpose of the metal roof is to divert the rainwater from mixing with the cattle droppings. As constructed rainwater is presently collected from the roofs of the feeding lots and transported via viaduct to a runoff pond required by federal EPA regulations which acts as a settling pond. From this pond, which EPA regulations requires have a ten-year storm rainfall capacity, the water is pumped for irrigation purposes. If the rainwater is allowed to fall onto the upper platform on which the cattle are kept, it will go through the slots and mix with the fecal matter on the ground floor. If this were allowed to occur it would be necessary for Petitioner to greatly increase the size of its sump and anerobic ponds to treat this waste thus increasing the cost of this portion of its plant which is clearly pollution control equipment as defined by Section 193.621 F.S. As presently operated the solids are removed from the droppings in the sump before the remaining liquid is processed in the waste treatment facilities consisting of the anerobic ponds. The efficiency of the anerobic process is increased as the concentration of the waste material is increased. Adding rainwater to this waste material would therefore decrease the efficiency of the operation as well as require a larger capacity sump and anerobic ponds. In addition to keeping rainwater out of the cattle droppings, the roof provides needed shade to the cattle, provides better shelter for cattle in rainy or cold weather, and eliminates need for adding covers over the feeding troughs. Cattle fed in open lots are as healthy, or healthier, than those fed in covered feeding lots.
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
