The Issue The issues for determination in this case are: 1) whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction over a certain body of water known as Lake Blake in Okaloosa County, Florida; 2) if DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction is established, whether Respondents qualify for an exemption from DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction; and 3) if not otherwise exempt from DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction, whether Respondents are guilty of the violations alleged in the Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action issued by the Director of District Management for the Office of the DEP Northwest District on May 13, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Parties The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is the agency of the State of Florida vested with the power and duty to enforce the provisions of Chapters 373 and 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated in Chapter 62, Florida Administrative Code. DEP is the only agency involved in these proceedings. Respondent, Santa Rosa Three, Inc. (the Corporation), is the fee simple title holder of certain property in unincorporated Okaloosa County, Florida, located between Lewis Street and Clifford Street in Sections 2 and 3, Township 2 South, Range West. The property includes the subject water body, Lake Blake. Santa Rosa II, Inc., is a corporate predecessor in interest to the Corporation. Respondent, Lee Maddan (Maddan), is a long-time resident of Okaloosa County. Maddan is the Petitioner in DOAH Case No. 03-1499. Maddan has personally observed activities occurring at the Lake Blake property for more than 38 years, including the excavation of the lake. Maddan holds equitable title to the Lake Blake property and is in the process of purchasing the fee simple title to the property from the Corporation. Maddan is and was at all material times hereto authorized by the Corporation to enter upon the Lake Blake property, to proceed to develop the land, to obtain permits in his name, and to do other acts to prepare the property for Maddan's purchase. History of Lake Blake Lake Blake is an artificially-created water body in unincorporated Okaloosa County, having a water surface area slightly less than six acres. There is a small island in the center of the lake. The property surrounding Lake Blake presently consists of both uplands and wetlands. No other water body is visible from Lake Blake. For DEP jurisdictional determination purposes, Lake Blake is located in the Northwest District of Florida. The oldest records of the Lake Blake property dating to 1826, indicate that the property was flat land with natural vegetation dominated by palmetto and galberry. The property historically had no flowing streams. In the 1950's, the then owner of the property began excavating a borrow pit on the property. The excavations continued until approximately 1979. As the borrow pit excavations continued, a lake formed due to the intrusion of underground water as well as collected rainfall. During the excavation period, and until approximately 1976, the land around the borrow pit was primarily pasture land with no trees or other vegetation. Up to 1976, there was no wetland vegetation growing on the property. Prior to 1960, the natural stormwater flow from the property was to the southwest toward Cinco Bayou, a defined water of the State of Florida which on a direct line is located approximately one-quarter mile from the property. Cinco Bayou is the nearest surface waters of the State of Florida. During the 1960's, a road known as Lewis Street (also known as Mayflower Avenue) was constructed along the southern boundary of the property. At the time of the construction of Lewis Street, the borrow pit was separated into two parts, an eastern and western section. A concrete culvert divided the sections of the borrow pit. At the time of the Lewis Street construction, a stormwater discharge pipe was installed by Okaloosa County and excess water flowed out of the borrow pit only at certain times in direct response to rainfall. The installation of the stormwater discharge pipe on Lewis Street was intended to drain excess rainfall from the borrow pit. Okaloosa County never acquired ownership of the borrow pit for use as a stormwater retention pond. The water body that formed in the borrow pit would come to be called Lewis Street Pond, or Blake Lake, and eventually Lake Blake. The natural flow of the stormwater from the property was further altered in the 1970's when a public elementary school was constructed by Okaloosa County on Lewis Street. The public school is located between the property and Cinco Bayou. Borrow pit operations formally ceased in September of 1980 when DEP's predecessor agency, the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), entered an order requiring the cessation of mining operations. The physical operations had actually ceased a few years before the DER order. Lake Blake resulted from collected rainfall, as well as underground water intrusion in the original borrow pit. At the present time, additional diverted stormwater runoff collects in the lake as a result of Okaloosa County's stormwater drainage system. Lake Blake today is an artificial body of water owned entirely by one person. Residential housing is located on property surrounding Lake Blake. The lake is occasionally utilized for recreational purposes, including fishing. The property surrounding the lake is not open to the general public, and the entrances to the property are fenced. For purposes of this proceeding, there are no threatened or endangered plants on the property. Okaloosa County Stormwater Drainage System Okaloosa County has constructed a stormwater drainage system that runs through the Lake Blake drainage area. As part of this stormwater drainage system, Lake Blake collects diverted stormwater discharge from surrounding areas which have been previously developed. Residential neighborhoods are close to the area, specifically the Berkshire Woods Subdivision. Indeed, as a condition for the development of the Berkshire Woods Subdivision in 1976, the Okaloosa County Planning Commission required that former owner, Ron Blake, excavate the lake and make it ready for stormwater drainage from the proposed development of the Berkshire Woods Subdivision. In addition to the residential areas and the public school to the south, there is a private school to the north across the road on Clifford Street which also diverts water to the lake from its campus and parking lots. Okaloosa County has installed at least seven pipes which carry stormwater from the surrounding developed areas into Lake Blake. The only drainage out of Lake Blake is via the stormwater discharge pipe located at the southern boundary of the property on Lewis Street which was installed by Okaloosa County in the 1960's. Okaloosa County's stormwater discharge system serving Lake Blake is integrated into a series of interconnecting underground stormwater pipes which route the flow of the water for approximately one-half mile before ultimately discharging water into Cinco Bayou. Okaloosa County's stormwater discharge system which ultimately connects Lake Blake with Cinco Bayou is composed of buried pipes. DEP considers buried pipes or culverts which convey stormwater as excavated water bodies. The installation of Okaloosa County's stormwater discharge system required the excavation of land. Under DEP's interpretation of its rules, specifically Rule 62-312.030(2), Florida Administrative Code, the underground installation of stormwater pipes is sufficient to establish a series of excavated water bodies which connect Lake Blake to Cinco Bayou. Prior to the installation of Okaloosa County's stormwater discharge pipe on Lewis Street in the 1960's, there was no dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction which applied to the property containing Lake Blake. The stormwater discharge pipe has continuously existed on the southern boundary of the property since its installation in the 1960's to the present. Lake Blake was not originally designed, constructed nor permitted as a stormwater treatment or retention pond. Lake Blake incidentally resulted from the borrow pit excavations. Okaloosa County, however, has at least since 1976, utilized Lake Blake as part of its stormwater drainage system. Okaloosa County never acquired title to Lake Blake for use as part of its existing stormwater drainage system. In 1981, the Okaloosa County Board of Commissioners (who were not the owners of the property) applied for, and were issued by DER, a Construction Permit (No. RC-46-80-2031, dated May 27, 1981, which expired November 27, 1981) for "Blake Lake Modifications" which permit stated it was "to modify an existing stormwater drainage system." This permit allowed for, among other items, construction of "two earthen berms in Blake Lake" and "the diversion of lake flow from the western lake to the eastern lake." Although attempts were made to construct the two earthen berms, due to the white clay composition of the soil the berms were not successfully established. In 1984, DER issued another Construction Permit (No. 460853421 dated August 20, 1984, which expired August 15, 1987) to the Okaloosa County Board of Commissioners (who again were not the owners of the property) for the purpose constructing "two drainage channels . . . from a berm separating East and West Blake Lake." The drainage channels were thereafter completed and the east and west portions of the lake were eventually connected. On August 14, 1984, Okaloosa County also filed a Notice of New Stormwater Discharge with DER which proposed a re-routing of an existing stormwater drainage system which then diverted stormwater from the Candlewood Subdivision and Navy Street into Lake Blake. The stated purpose of the re-routing of the stormwater drainage system away from Lake Blake was to address flooding problems in the Candlewood Subdivision. By letter dated August 21, 1984, DER informed Okaloosa County that "the stormwater discharge is exempt from stormwater permitting requirements of the Department pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-25.03(2)(c)." DER came to this conclusion in 1984 because the proposed project was "the modification of an existing County stormwater management system not serving a new development or increasing pollution loading." Although Lake Blake was utilized by Okaloosa County as part of the existing Okaloosa County stormwater drainage system, which in 1984 qualified for a DER stormwater permitting exemption, nothing pertaining to this stormwater permitting exemption supports a finding that Lake Blake was originally constructed, permitted or designed solely for the purpose of stormwater treatment so as to qualify for an exemption from DEP's dredge and fill jurisdiction under Rule 62-312.050(4), Florida Administrative Code. Dredge and Fill Permitting Jurisdiction Prior to the installation of Okaloosa County's stormwater discharge pipes on the property in the 1960's, there was no dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction which applied to the property and Lake Blake. Under current law, the Northwest District of Florida is governed by separate jurisdictional determination provisions. In order to initially establish DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction over wetlands and surface waters in the Northwest District, DEP must demonstrate that the wetlands and surface waters are connected to the surface waters of the State. Since 1995, isolated wetlands in all of the rest of the State of Florida are regulated by DEP without regard to any connection to the surface waters of the State. In the Northwest District under Rule 62-312.030(2), Florida Administrative Code, "surface waters of the state are those waters listed below and excavated water bodies, except for those exempted by Section 62-312.050(4), F.A.C., which connect directly or via an excavated water body or series of excavated water bodies . . ." to waters of the State. Under Rule 62- 312.045, Florida Administrative Code, however, "[i]solated wetlands that infrequently flow or otherwise exchange water with a described water body are not intended to be included within the dredge and fill jurisdiction of the Department." By letter dated April 24, 2001, DEP advised Santa Rosa II, Inc., that the Lake Blake property was not subject to DEP's dredge and fill jurisdiction. The letter was sent in response to an application seeking to fill 2.5 acres of the southeastern portion of the lake for the construction of an apartment complex. The letter was issued by DEP's Northwest District, and signed by Martin Gawronski on behalf of Larry O'Donnell, the Environmental Manager for Permitting Section of the Northwest District. The letter was issued after a visit to the property by one or more DEP employees, and based on an informal determination that Lake Blake was not connected to the waters of the State. In May of 2001, the United States Army Corps of Engineers determined that the Lake Blake property was not within its jurisdiction. Subsequent to the issuance of the April 24, 2001, non- jurisdictional letter, certain employees of Okaloosa County (not specifically named in these proceedings) contacted DEP seeking reconsideration of DEP's decision. These Okaloosa County employees thereafter met with DEP employees at the property and communicated by telephone with DEP employees while DEP considered a re-determination of its non-jurisdictional decision. The property owners were then notified that DEP was in the process of re-evaluating its non-jurisdictional decision. By letter dated October 24, 2001, DEP advised Santa Rosa II, Inc., that DEP had made a "correction" to the letter of April 24, 2001, and had determined that the property was in fact subject to DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction, because the "pond" was "connected to jurisdictional waters" of the State. The October 24, 2001, letter, like the previous letter, was issued from DEP's Northwest District and signed by Martin Gawronski on behalf of Larry O'Donnell. Between April 24, 2001, and October 24, 2001, there were no man-made alterations made to the Lake Blake property. Between March and April 2002, Maddan filled in a portion of the property and the lacustrine wetland. Maddan also built two pedestrian footbridges over the lake to the small island in the middle of the lake. DEP asserted its dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction based upon the existence of a series of underground pipes installed by Okaloosa County as part of its stormwater drainage system that conveys excess stormwater from Lake Blake to Cinco Bayou. Installation of the underground pipes required excavation. Neither the April 24, 2001, letter, nor the subsequent October 24, 2001 letter issued by the Northwest District, is binding determination of DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction over the wetlands and surface waters of Lake Blake. The authority to make a binding DEP dredge and fill permitting jurisdictional determination is vested in Dr. John Tobe, Environmental Administrator of the Wetland Evaluation and Delineation Section and his staff. DEP's Site Inspections/Jurisdictional Determination In April of 2002, Stacy Owens, DEP Environmental Specialist, received a telephone call from Chuck Bonta with the Okaloosa County Code Enforcement Department, and an unnamed homeowner, complaining that Lee Maddan had built two unpermitted pedestrian footbridges at Lake Blake and was also filling in part of Lake Blake. Ms. Owens initially investigated whether DEP had issued any permits for the placement of fill in Lake Blake or the surrounding wetlands, and determined that no permits had been issued. Ms. Owens further discovered that a prior Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action had been issued by DER in 1980 against the Okaloosa County Board of Commissioners and Lloyd D. Junger (a lessor conducting mining operations). The 1980 case pertained to the discharge of turbidities from the Lewis Street Pond into Cinco Bayou. A final order in that case was entered on January 5, 1981, requiring Okaloosa County to make payment to DER and take corrective action. On April 23, 2002, Ms. Owens followed up on these complaints by performing a site visit to Lake Blake. At this time Ms. Owens observed two unpermitted pedestrian footbridges, unpermitted fill in a finger of Lake Blake, and unpermitted fill within a 20-foot by 25-foot lacustrine wetland area. On April 25, 2002, Maddan came to Ms. Owens' office to discuss whether permits were necessary for the placement of fill at Lake Blake. At that time, Maddan showed Ms. Owens the previous letters of April 24, 2001, and October 24, 2001, which had been sent from the Northwest District of DEP. Maddan stated that in his opinion no dredge and fill permit was needed because Lake Blake was not within the jurisdiction of DEP. Ms. Owens was then informed by employees of Okaloosa County that there were underground pipes connecting Lake Blake to Cinco Bayou. She obtained from Gary Bogan of Okaloosa County, an aerial map of the drainage area for Lake Blake which identified the location of the culvert on Lewis Street which conveys excess flow from Lake Blake to Cinco Bayou. On April 30, 2002, Ms. Owens performed another site inspection at Lake Blake. During this site inspection, she tracked the connection from Lake Blake to Cinco Bayou by personal observation. After her second site inspection, Ms. Owens e-mailed her findings to Dr. Tobe, and inquired whether the underground pipes satisfied the DEP requirements for connection to a water body of the State for the purpose of establishing DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction. Dr. Tobe replied to Ms. Owens that an underground pipe connection would satisfy DEP's dredge and fill jurisdictional requirements. On June 25, 2002, Dr. Tobe, Ms. Owens, and a DEP wetland delineation team visited the Lake Blake property for the purpose of making a jurisdictional determination. Maddan also accompanied Dr. Tobe and his team on the day of the site inspection. As a result of this inspection, Dr. Tobe completed and filed a Field Report for Lake Blake, Okaloosa County, dated June 25, 2002. As indicated in his Field Report, Dr. Tobe and his wetland delineation team determined that for jurisdictional purposes, Lake Blake was connected to the waters of the State by reason of the culvert on Lewis Street that ultimately discharges into Cinco Bayou. At the time of his inspection on June 22, 2002, Dr. Tobe did not observe water flowing from Lake Blake into the Lewis Street culvert. Dr. Tobe attributed this to an abnormal drought conditions the area was then experiencing. Maddan, who has observed this area for many years, testified that the lake was near or only slightly less than its normal water level on that date. Dr. Tobe conducted a further examination of the area to determine the ordinary high water line, and concluded that Lake Blake would at ordinary high water level flow into the Lewis Street culvert on a sufficiently regular frequency into Cinco Bayou, a water body of the State, for purposes of establishing DEP's dredge and fill jurisdiction. In determining whether water exchange frequency is sufficient to establish jurisdiction, there is a DEP Interoffice Memorandum of October 31, 1988, setting out 25-year, 24-hour criteria which is used as guidance, but the criteria set in this Memorandum have not been adopted as a rule, and are not singularly determinative of DEP's jurisdiction. At this time, Dr. Tobe and his team also performed a wetland boundary delineation. Dr. Tobe found hydric soils and wetland plants dominating the area. The wetland delineation boundary was determined by the continual interpretation of vegetation, soils, and hydrologic indicators. As a result of his inspection and wetland boundary delineation, Dr. Tobe concluded that unpermitted fill had been placed within the surface waters of the State and in lacustrine wetland. Thereafter on July 18, 2002, DEP sent Maddan a Warning Letter (DF-SO-46-022) requesting that Maddan cease dredging, filling or construction activities at Lake Blake without obtaining a permit. Subsequent to DEP's sending Maddan the Warning Letter of July 18, 2002, Stacy Owens visited the Lake Blake site on numerous occasions beginning in October of 2002, and continuing through July of 2003. On most of these site visits, Ms. Owens observed water flowing from Lake Blake through the Lewis Street culvert. Ms. Owens documented water flowing from Lake Blake through the Lewis Street culvert on October 29, 2002, November 5, 2002, May 20, 2003, June 20, 2003, June 23, 2003, June 27, 2003, and July 8, 2003. The area was not experiencing abnormally excessive rainfall events at the times that Ms. Owens documented the water flowing from Lake Blake into the Lewis Street culvert. Maddan testified that in his personal observation over many years, Lake Blake generally discharges excess stormwater into the Lewis Street culvert only as a result from a significant rainfall event. Lake Blake discharges water into the Lewis Street culvert at regular intervals. Such discharged water from Lake Blake ultimately is conveyed through the Okaloosa County stormwater drainage system and released into the surface waters of Cinco Bayou, a water body of the State of Florida. The Okaloosa County stormwater drainage system connecting Lake Blake to Cinco Bayou is a series of excavated water bodies. Lake Blake is connected to the surface waters of Cinco Bayou and regularly exchanges water with Cinco Bayou. Exemptions from DEP's Jurisdiction To assert dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction over this property, not only must Lake Blake be connected to the waters of the State, but the property must not be otherwise exempt from dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction under either statute or rule. On August 29, 2002, under the authority of the Corporation, Maddan filed a "Joint Application for Works in the Waters of Florida" with DEP requesting an exemption from DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction under Rule Chapter 17- 312, re-codified as Rule Chapter 62-312. Rule 62-312.050, Florida Administrative Code, sets out the recognized exemptions to DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction. Respondents primarily rely on Rule 62-312.050(4), Florida Administrative Code, which provides that "[n]o permit under this chapter shall be required for dredging or filling in waters which are contained in those artificially constructed stormwater treatment and conveyance systems designed solely for the purpose of stormwater treatment and that are regulated by the Department or the water management district." Lake Blake, however, is the result of excavations in a borrow pit. Because of surrounding development, Lake Blake receives stormwater runoff; however, the lake was not "designed solely for the purpose of stormwater treatment," and cannot therefore qualify for this exemption. Respondents also cite Rule 62-312.050(1)(g), Florida Administrative Code, which provides an exemption for the "construction of seawalls or riprap, including only that backfilling needed to level land behind the seawalls or riprap, in artificially created waterways where such construction will not violate existing water quality standards, impede navigation or adversely affect flood control." Even assuming that the filling of the finger of Lake Blake meets the test of construction of a seawall, there is no evidence that such filling of Lake Blake was ever subjected to appropriate water quality tests, much less meeting such water quality tests as well as the other requirements of this exemption. In addition to the exemptions established by Rule 62- 312.050, Respondents cite statutory exemptions. The definition of "waters" which are regulated under Chapter 403, as set forth in Section 403.031(13), provides in pertinent part that "[w]aters owned entirely by one person other than the state are included only in regard to possible discharge on other property or water." Although Lake Blake is owned entirely by one person, this provision does not exempt Lake Blake because of not only its "possible discharge" but because of its actual discharge on the surface waters of Cinco Bayou. Respondents also cite Section 403.812, which provides that "[t]he department shall not require dredge and fill permits for stormwater management systems where such systems are located landward of the point of connection to waters of the state and are designed, constructed operated and maintained for stormwater treatment, flood attenuation, or irrigation." Although Lake Blake at least since 1976 has been utilized as part of Okaloosa County's stormwater drainage system, which is located landward of Cinco Bayou, it was not designed or constructed for stormwater treatment, flood attenuation or irrigation, and it is not being operated or maintained for stormwater treatment, flood attenuation or irrigation. Lake Blake does not qualify for an exemption from DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Health (Department or DOH) should fine the Petitioner, Jeffery Benefield, $500 and require him to move the drainfield of his onsite sewage disposal system so that no part of it is within ten feet of the potable water line of his neighbors, the Intervenors, Robert and Wanda Schweigel.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner's home at 10920 Lake Minneola Shores Road (Lake County Road 561-A) was built in 1977. It included an onsite septic tank and drainfield sewage disposal system. On March 31, 2003, the Petitioner personally applied for a permit to repair his existing sewage disposal system by replacing the drainfield. His application did not identify any potable water lines. Department personnel evaluated the site and calculated system specifications, and the Department issued a construction permit on April 3, 2003, based on the estimated size of the existing system. To replace the existing drainfield and meet specifications, 375 square feet of drainfield was required. However, the Petitioner wanted to add 125 square feet to what was required by the specifications, which is acceptable so long as required setbacks are maintained. The Petitioner's drainfield was replaced by a licensed contractor on April 29, 2003. Some work may have been done the following day to complete the job, but it appears that the contractor called for the final inspection on April 29, 2003. On inspection, it was clear that the new drain line closest and (like the other three) parallel to the property line was less than ten feet from a water line, riser, and spigot on the neighboring property, which was owned by Robert and Wanda Schweigel. Specifically, the closest of the new drain lines was estimated to be just five feet from the Schweigels' water line, riser, and spigot. (The next closest was just under ten feet from the Schweigels' water line, riser, and spigot.) As a result, the Department disapproved the installation. The Petitioner disputed the disapproval, initially contending that the Schweigels' water line, riser, and spigot did not convey potable water. It was decided that the new drainfield should be covered while pending a decision as to whether the water line was potable. By the end of July 2003, the Department decided that the Schweigels' water line was indeed potable. In that approximate time frame, the Petitioner's contractor offered to pay to have the Schweigels' water line "sleeved" to a distance at least ten feet from the nearest portion of the Petitioner's drainfield.2 He believed that solution would be much simpler and less costly than moving the Petitioner's drainfield to a distance at least ten feet from any part of the Schweigels' potable water line. This alternative was presented to the Schweigels in that approximate timeframe, but they refused (and continue to refuse.) In August 2003, the Petitioner took the position that, regardless whether the Schweigels' water line was potable, the Petitioner's new drainfield was in the same location as the existing drainfield, and the part of the water line closest to the new drainfield (i.e., the part including the riser and spigot) was not there until after the middle of April 2003 and was recently installed either just before or while the Petitioner's new drainfield was being installed. The evidence was not clear as to the configuration and precise location of the drain lines in the Petitioner's original drainfield. However, it appears to have had three drain lines emanating from the septic tank, starting in the direction of the Schweigels' property and then curving away in the direction of Lake Minneola, which is behind the Petitioner's and the Schweigels' properties, before terminating. The replacement drainfield had pipe emanating from the septic tank and running towards the Schweigels' property line before making a 90-degree turn towards the lake before connecting to the middle of a header pipe. Connecting to the header pipe are four equally-spaced drain lines, one on either end of the header pipe and two in between, that are perpendicular to the header pipe and parallel to each other and to the Schweigels' property line (and potable water line) and run towards the lake. As indicated, it was not clear from the evidence precisely where all of the old drain lines were located, or how close they got to the Schweigels' property (and potable water line.) However, it does not appear that they got as close as two of the four new drain lines in the replacement system. See Petitioner's Exhibits 13 and 21. There was conflicting evidence as to when the Schweigels' potable water line was installed. It is clear from the evidence that there are now three "T's" off the water line from the potable water source near the street. One "T- off" leads to near the front corner of the house, one leads to the middle of the side of the house, and one leads to near the rear corner of the house. The line then extends past the last "T" to the location of the water riser and spigot. The Petitioner's evidence proved that the water line riser and spigot now within ten feet of the Petitioner's drainfield were not there either in May 1999 or on April 14, 2003. But the Schweigels maintained, and the evidence as a whole was persuasive, that the potable water lines currently in place were installed in 1996 or 1997, but were cut and moved to enable the Schweigels to install footers for construction of a concrete privacy wall in approximately 1999. After installation of the footers, the water line had to be moved several inches closer to the Schweigels' house when replaced, and the "T's" were reconnected to the line. In approximately April 2003, the water line riser and spigot were damaged (the evidence was not clear how) and had to be replaced. The evidence was that the Schweigels got a permit to build their privacy wall but did not get a permit for the plumbing work that was necessary in conjunction with the installation of the footers for the wall. Although it appears from the evidence that a plumbing permit was required, the Schweigels did not think a separate plumbing permit was necessary. It is not found that the Petitioner participated in this proceeding for an "improper purpose"--i.e., "primarily to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or for frivolous purpose or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation, licensing, or securing the approval of an activity."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order that the Petitioner pay a $500 fine and either: (1) pay the reasonable cost of having the Schweigels' potable water line "sealed with a water proof sealant within a sleeve of similar material pipe to a distance of at least 10 feet from the nearest portion of the system," so long as no portion of the Schweigels' potable water line "within 5 feet of the drainfield shall be located at an elevation lower than the drainfield absorption surface"; or (2) move or relocate his drainfield to meet the setback requirements of the current Rule 64E-6.005(2)(b). DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 15th day of February, 2005.
Findings Of Fact On July 5, 1978, Gulfside applied to DER for the issuance of a permit to operate a wastewater treatment plant on property owned by it on Perdido Key in Escambia County, Florida. The proposed plant is designed to serve a condominium complex consisting of 64 units, with the expectation that 350 gallons of water per day per unit will be discharged into the system, thus requiring a minimum plant capacity of 22,400 gallons per day. The plant described in the application has a capacity to handle 24,000 gallons per day. The proposed plant will use an extended aeration process whereby effluent is routed from the individual units through a filter within the proposed plant and then discharged into two percolation ponds associated with the facility. The plant is designed to remove 90 percent of B.O.D. and suspended solids. In addition, the plant is designed with duplex blowers and pumps to insure continued operation in the event of failure of one of the units. An emergency generator is included to provide back-up power for the entire plant, including blowers, pumps and chlorinators. Perdido Key, where the proposed plant is to be located, is a barrier island located off the coast of Escambia County, Florida, near the Florida- Alabama border. There is substantial residential development presently on Perdido Key, but no central sewer system exists to service the area. Currently, only septic tanks and package sewer plants are available for waste treatment purposes on the island. Adjacent to Perdido Key is Old River, which has been classified a Class III water. Soils on Perdido Key are primarily sandy, and as a result, have a high percolation rate. The problem of high percolation rate through the soils of Perdido Key was adequately addressed by Gulfside in the design of percolation ponds associated with the proposed plant. The two percolation ponds are designed to be located at a minimum of four feet elevation above maximum high ground water level. In fact, during DER's review of this application, Gulfside agreed to raise the bottom elevation of these percolation ponds in response to a concern regarding their initial location in close proximity to the water table. The problem of the expected fast percolation rate was addressed in designing the size of these percolation ponds, and also taken into consideration in designing the method of distributing effluent across the bottom surface of the ponds. With regard to the latter consideration, initial design of the project contemplated a single point for discharge of effluent into each percolation pond. However, Gulfside has agreed to redesign these percolation ponds in such a fashion to discharge effluent more evenly throughout the bottom area of the ponds too combat the problem of the excess percolation rate. The proposed percolation ponds are designed with surface areas in excess of 15,000 square feet. The ponds were initially designed utilizing a six-to-one slope, which would have given twice the bottom surface area of the three-to-one slope eventually required by DER in the process of reviewing the application. The three-to-one slope shown in the plans and specifications results in a bottom surface area of 2,974 square feet. However, the engineering report submitted with the application indicates that percolation ponds will have a bottom surface area of 4,480 square feet. From the evidence, it would appear appropriate for the ponds to have a minimum bottom surface area of 4,480 square feet. From the evidence, this problem can easily be rectified by raising the bottom elevation of the percolation ponds by approximately one foot. This requirement should be imposed as a condition to the granting of the requested permit. The proposed plant, although designed to remove 90 percent of B.O.D. and suspended solids, is not designed to remove nutrients from the effluent. However, the evidence establishes that these nutrients. Will be removed by a combination of filtration through soil substrata and biological action in the percolation ponds. Gulfside has also agreed to install a spartina marsh waterward of the percolation ponds to act as a final nutrient scrubber. The system design is reasonably calculated to assure removal of harmful quantities of nutrients, and no competent evidence was adduced to indicate that the system design was not sufficient for this purpose. Thus, although the treatment plant is proposed to be located only 50 feet from Old River, there is no indication that it will, in fact, result in any adverse impacts to that water body. In addition, DER has no rules or guidelines regulating distances from which package sewer plants, such as that proposed in this application, should be located from bodies of water such as Old River. It should be noted here that the application which is the subject of this proceeding is solely for the purpose of construction of the proposed facility. DER has imposed a permit condition requiring an initial four months operation for appropriate testing to determine compliance with the rules and regulations promulgated by DER before issuance of an operation permit. If testing demonstrates noncompliance with DER's rules and regulations, the operating permit for the facility can be denied. Testimony adduced at the hearing established that members of Petitioner, Southest Escambia Improvement Association, Inc., own property in the vicinity of the proposed facility, and that they utilize waters surrounding Perdido Key for sailing, swimming, crabbing and other recreational uses. Both Petitioner and Gulfside have submitted Proposed Findings of Fact. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 have been substantially adopted in this Recommended Order. Gulfside's Proposed Findings of Fact numbered 1 through 5 have also been substantially adopted in this Recommended Order. To the extent that Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by either Petitioner or Gulfside are not adopted in this Recommended Order, they have been specifically rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 64E-6.022(1)(b)2, 64E-6.022(1)(d), and 64E-6.022(1)(p) by making repairs to an on-site sewage disposal system without a permit, and by missing required inspections of the system, as outlined in the citation issued by the Respondent Agency dated August 29, 2005.
Findings Of Fact The State of Florida, Department of Health and Duval County Health Department (Department) is an Agency of the State of Florida, charged with enforcing the statutory and regulatory provisions regarding septic tank and drain field installations and repairs, in Florida, in accordance with Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 64E-6. The Petitioner is the qualifying registered septic tank contractor for All Florida Septic Tank Service, Inc. (All Florida). He holds registration number SR00011389. He has 15 years of experience in the field of septic tank system construction and repair. All repairs of on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems (septic systems), are required to be performed under the supervision and control of a registered septic tank contractor. Mr. David Adeeb is president of United Properties of North Florida, Inc. He owned property (a residence) at 375 North Cahoon Road, in Duval County Florida. He was informed by his tenants at that residence that the septic tank and drain field were malfunctioning and needed to be repaired or replaced, sometime in April 2004. He therefore contacted All Florida, asking them to inspect the septic system at that residence and advise what repairs might be needed. He was advised by some representative of All Florida that the drain field needed to be replaced and was quoted a price of $2,000.00. All Florida requested that payment be made before the work was performed. Since Mr. Adeeb was out-of-town at the time he asked his tenant to temporarily pay All Florida for the cost of the repairs and/or installation, which they agreed to do. All Florida then issued a contract/proposal to United Properties on April 12, 2004. It was signed by a representative of All Florida, Michael Carver. Mr. Carver was an employee of All Florida. The contract/proposal indicated that a 360 square foot drain field would be installed at 375 Cahoon Road, for a price of $2,000.00, to be paid in cash. The contract/proposal was on All Florida letterhead and included a warranty. Mr. Adeeb was told by his tenant that the Petitioner, who is personally known to that tenant, was on the property while the work was being performed. No one applied for a permit to make any repairs to the septic system and the work was completed without a permit being obtained. Some five months later the system began leaking sewage from the new drain field. It had malfunctioned. Mr. Adeeb therefore again called All Florida to demand that they repair any malfunctions pursuant to the warranty. All Florida informed Mr. Adeeb that a new drain field with a mounded system and pump was needed. When Mr. Adeeb told a representative of All Florida that they had just replaced the drain field in April of that year, he was told that another $2,000.00 would be required to correct the drain field problem. Mr. Adeeb had just recently entered into a contract to sell the property at 375 Cahoon Road so, time being of the essence in closing the sale of the property, he felt he had no choice but to ask All Florida to go ahead with the repair work on the system which All Florida had been asked by him to repair five months previously in April of 2004. After the new system was installed Mr. Adeeb found that a permit had never been obtained for the first drain field work which he had requested from All Florida and that All Florida had done the work incorrectly. Mr. Adeeb objected to paying another $2,000.00 for the second repair job, performed in approximately September of 2004 and after much discussion with All Florida's representatives agreed to pay $1,000.00 dollars for the second stint of repair work. He made the payment and he received a warranty from All Florida for one year, good through September 22, 2005. The warranty was signed by Mr. Wayne Joyner, operations manager for All Florida. Mr. Joyner is also the qualifying registered septic tank contractor for AA Septic Tank Service, Inc., apparently a second corporation domiciled at the same facility and address as All Florida Septic Service, Inc. In May of 2005 Mr. Adeeb was again contacted by the now former tenant who had purchased the property from Mr. Adeeb. He was thus informed that the system had failed again and sewage was leaking onto the surface of the property from the drain field. Mr. Adeeb again contacted All Florida on May 23, 2005. A representative of All Florida informed him that he should fax a copy of the paid receipt and the warranty to them and that they would take care of the problem. On June 20, 2005, the home owner again contacted Mr. Adeeb and told him that no one from All Florida had repaired the drain field as yet. A faxed copy of the paid receipt and warranty was requested once again by All Florida. After numerous phone calls with representatives of All Florida, Mr. Adeeb was told that the problem was not due to All Florida's repair work and that Mr. Adeeb would need to get someone else to repair the system. The Petitioner, James L. Smith, the registered qualifying septic tank contractor for All Florida, testified that Michael Carver had performed the initial repair job in April of 2004 for Mr. Adeeb without the knowledge of the Petitioner or All Florida. He claims that Michael Carver never worked for All Florida. He introduced into evidence a letter purported to be from Michael Carver which was dated September 30, 2005, but signed on October 5, 2005. That letter states that Mr. Carver performed the first drain field repair job without the knowledge of All Florida and that he had created the receipt form which was apparently given to either the tenants at the residence in question, or to Mr. Adeeb, on All Florida letterhead without the knowledge of any officer, employee, or representative of All Florida. That letter, however, was not authenticated because Mr. Carver was not present at the hearing and could not be examined concerning it, or the details of Mr. Carver's involvement with the initial repair project. Moreover, the Petitioner was unable to explain how Mr. Carver would have known about the job at all if he had never worked for All Florida. This is because Mr. Adeeb established that in obtaining all of the repair work during 2004-2005 he had only contacted representatives of All Florida. He had never had contact with Mr. Carver. The Petitioner denied ever telling counsel for the Department in a telephone conversation that Michael Carver had worked for him during the week (i.e. All Florida) but that he let Mr. Carver do "side jobs" on his own on weekends. He claimed that Mr. Carver did the job in question in April of 2004 because the tenants knew him personally and arranged for him to do the work. The testimony of Mr. Adeeb and the Department's evidence in the form of its composite exhibit, is accepted as more credible than the self-serving testimony of the Petitioner, and it is found that All Florida and the Petitioner were responsible for the repair jobs at issue in this case because Mr. Adeeb contracted with All Florida for the work in question. Even if the initial job was performed by Mr. Carver, it is determined that he did so as employee or agent of All Florida and the Petitioner. Under the authority cited herein the Petitioner was responsible, as the qualifying, registered septic system contractor for All Florida, with performance and supervision of the work in question.
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 entered by the Respondent Department finding that the violations charged have been established and that a fine of $2,500.00 dollars be imposed for the violations. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: James L. Smith 8300 West Beaver Street Jacksonville, Florida 32220 Catherine R. Berry, Esquire Department of Health 515 West Sixth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32206-4311 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Timothy M. Cerio, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Whether, under the facts and circumstances of this case, Respondent's license to practice engineering in the State of Florida, should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, L. Thomas Hubbard d/b/a The Hubbard Association, was licensed to practice professional engineering in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 006634 on August 17, 1962. Certificate of authorization number EB0003297 was issued to the firm, The Hubbard Association, Inc., on September 25, 1981. In March 1986, Respondent prepared a set of plans for the proposed City of Macclenny Wastewater Treatment Works Improvement Program, Sewage Treatment Facility ("Macclenny project"), and one volume of "Contract Documents and Specifications" ("specifications"), which were submitted to the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Bureau of Wastewater Management and Grants (Bureau) on or about April 24, 1986. All wastewater treatment plans designs must go to the DER for approval prior to construction, and if a public entity wants grant funding for its wastewater treatment facility, the project must be reviewed and approved by the Bureau (now called Bureau of Local Government and Waste Water Financial Assistance) which administers State grant programs for wastewater treatment facilities. The Bureau reviews grant project plans and specifications to ensure that they: (a) comply with administrative requirements of the grants programs; (b) comply with minimum Federal and/or State technical standards for wastewater facilities; (c) are suitable for bidding; and (d) present a constructible project. The plans for the Macclenny project depict an existing treatment facility, a new clarifier to improve the removal of solids (an expansion of about 130,000 gallons per day in treatment capacity), and a new effluent pumping station to pump to an overland flow field (field) through a force main pipeline to spray risers. The risers would spray the water laterally across the field. Water would collect in a central collection ditch, and run through a final chlorine contact chamber prior to discharge in Turkey Creek. A new agricultural building for equipment storage, and a new holding pond, which is an off-line pond for storage of inadequately treated water, are also depicted. The field in the Macclenny project is roughly 24 acres and is located in a large area between the chlorine contact chamber and the holding pond. The field in this system has 5 cells. A cell is an area of land that can be independently controlled to allow loading/resting cycles in the treatment process. Each cell in a given field should be as near equal in size as possible to provide for equal treatment of the wastewater during the loading/resting cycles. Loading/resting cycles allows a cell within the field to "rest" (no effluent being pumped on to that cell) so maintenance mowing or harvesting can be accomplished and to "load" the other cells to revitalize the bacteria that renews the treatment process. "Load" means to apply the effluent or treated wastewater from the existing facility to the field. Generally, forty percent of the field would be loaded with wastewater at any one time. On December 9, 1985, the Bureau had a predesign conference with Respondent in Macclenny to discuss design items. No plans or specifications for the Macclenny project had been submitted at that time, nor were they submitted at this conference. On February 18, 1986, an in-progress design review was held at Macclenny, with the Bureau staff available to answer Respondent's questions. On March 5, 1986, another in-progress design review meeting was held in Macclenny, with the Bureau staff present, at which time the plans were "fifty percent" (50%) complete. The unsigned and unsealed plans were given to the Bureau for a preliminary review. On March 25, 1986, the Bureau issued a few preliminary comments on the 50% completed plans and specifications. The purpose of the 50% complete review is to help the design engineer complete his plans and specifications. On March 31, 1986, Respondent transmitted to the Bureau a set of plans for the proposed Macclenny project. Respondent's transmittal letter, which the Bureau received with the plans on April 11, 1986, stated that "completed plans" were being transmitted. On April 21, 1986, Respondent transmitted to the bureau an additional set of the same plans for the Macclenny project, which Respondent again referred to as "completed plans" on his transmittal letter form which were received by Bureau on April 24, 1986. This transmittal also included specifications, a design data check list, design calculations, cost estimate, and plan of operation. The plans in this submittal are referred to as "the plans." It was Respondent's understanding that signing and sealing a set of engineering drawings signified a legal obligation that if someone takes the plans and builds a project it will work. Respondent's signature and seal are on the first sheet of the set of plans which was in the April 1986 submittal but not on the specifications. The plans were prepared, signed, sealed and submitted to the Bureau for review by Respondent. Respondent did not place any conditional language or qualification on the plans or write a letter advising the Bureau that the plans were not complete. It was Respondent's understanding that the Bureau would not review a set of plans unless they were signed and sealed, notwithstanding the completeness of the plans. Respondent did not consider the plans as completed, notwithstanding that he had signed, sealed and submitted them to Petitioner as "completed". It was Respondent's understanding that the plans were being submitted for review only, not complete for construction. An engineer may get answers from the Bureau without submitting plans that are signed and sealed as completed, such as the predesign conference or 50% review that occurred in this case. The Bureau considers plans that are signed, sealed and submitted as "completed" for review to be 100% complete and ready to bid. The Bureau considered the plans and specifications which Respondent submitted on April 24, 1986 as being final, complete plans and specifications for final review by the Bureau. The Bureau reviewed the plans assuming them to be complete and followed normal procedures for reviewing a complete set of plans and specifications. On June 19, 1989, the Bureau issued 52 written comments based on its review of the plans and specifications it had received in the April 24, 1986 submittal from Respondent. The plans and specifications were submitted to the Department of General Services (DGS) by the Bureau for a review and opinion because the Bureau was concerned about the structural design. DGS responded to this request through Jim Berkstresser, P.E. on June 25, 1986. By cover letter dated July 18, 1989, Respondent filed written responses to the Bureau's 52 comments. The Bureau did not approve Respondent's plans and specifications for the Macclenny project submitted on April 24, 1986. On September 5, 1986, Respondent resubmitted plans in response to the Bureau's 52 comments. These plans had the same configuration as the April submittal regarding the overland flow treatment. On September 29, 1986, Respondent met with David Wolfe to discuss the field configuration for the proposed overland flow system and other outstanding issues related to the revised contract documents. The principal concerns were non- uniform flow and significant erosion potential. Respondent's plans did not follow accepted design criteria. At this meeting field configurations were discussed, as well as guidelines to be followed in design of the overland flow field, and a general field layout were developed. Respondent submitted another set of plans which the Bureau received on October 30, 1986, and that set was approved and stamped accepted by DER-BWMG on December 22, 1986. All sheets in the approved set are dated August 20, 1986, with the exception of the cover sheet on which Respondent failed to date his seal and signature, and sheets G-6 and G-7 which are dated October 24, 1986. Respondent signed and sealed the cover sheet and sheet G-7 of the approved set of plans, but did not seal any other sheets in the approved set of plans. A signature and seal on a set of plans indicates that the plans were prepared by, or under the direct supervision of the person signing and sealing them, and that the plans are complete and depict a project that will perform its intended function. A signature and seal on a set of plans means the engineer assures that the design is his design and that the plans and specifications are ready to be bid for construction. The design should contain criteria and information significant to ensure the project will work. Sheet flow is the primary treatment mode in an overland flow system. Sheet flow is where a thin layer of water is induced to flow in a very controlled atmosphere across a length of land that is functioning very similarly to a trickling filter. The acceptable range of slope of an overland flow system is 2% to 8% with the best results obtained in the lower range because of a longer "residence time". "Residence time" is the amount time the wastewater is on the field for treatment. The slopes must be even and uniform to maintain a constant velocity so as to minimize the potential for erosion and to maintain a constant depth of water throughout the filed so as to maximize the treatment. Cross slopes should be minimized and topographic lines should be as close to parallel as possible on the field. The plans for the Macclenny project shows: (a) slopes ranging from less than 2% up to 6%; (b) multiple compound slopes across the field and; (c) topographic lines that are not parallel. The specifications for the field do not set out the acceptable tolerances on the slopes or the acceptable level of compaction of the field for the contractor who is to construct the field and; therefore, lacks control over the final product. Contours in an overland flow field are important, and while it is desirable for them to be on 1-foot intervals, contours at intervals of 2 feet are acceptable provided the plans and specifications address what happens between the contours. Respondent's plans and specifications show contours at intervals of 2 feet but do not address what happens between the contours. The plans of the facilities that were approved prior to the submittal of any plans by Respondent called for a 2- 3 week loading/resting cycle. The standard practice is to have all cells within an overland flow field to be of equal size so that the area to be loaded at any given period of time is the same size. The cells in the overland flow field in the Macclenny project as depicted by the plans are not of equal size, and if operated on a 2-3 week loading/resting cycle would not provide a consistent amount of treatment and thereby result in varying levels of treatment of the effluent. It is standard practice to provide performance specifications for seeding the field with the primary grass cover and for overseeding when necessary to prevent wind and water erosion. There were no performance specifications in the plans and specifications on the Macclenny project submitted by the Respondent. Agricultural equipment is an integral part of the overland flow field system and has a direct bearing on whether the system will function over the long run. Specifications for agricultural equipment are necessary to determine if the system will work properly. There were no specifications for agricultural equipment submitted by the Respondent in the plans. It is standard practice to furnish spray nozzle specifications, such as nozzle size, degree of fanning, characteristics under varying pressures and how much water will be discharged by the nozzle, in a set of plans and specifications for an overland flow field. Respondent's specifications for the Macclenny project did not contain the necessary specifications for the spray nozzles. Compacting is a standard practice, and it is standard practice to show compaction requirements on plans or specifications. The usual practice is to investigate the soil and specify compaction, usually based on a foundation report by a geo-technical engineer, showing the safe beading capacity of the soil in what condition, with recommendations for compaction. The Respondent's specifications do not call for compaction of the soil under the clarifier slab. However, the Respondent's specifications do call for compaction in the holding pond and situations where an area is over-excavated and backfilled. Should the area under the clarifier slab be over- excavated and backfilled, then compaction is covered in the specifications but compaction would not be covered unless this occurs. Therefore, since the weight of the slab is carried by the soil beneath it, specifications for compaction should have been included in Respondent's specifications for any situation. Changes in temperature causes concrete to expand or contract which may result in cracking. Placement of a concrete slab may result in the slab bending which may result in cracking. Therefore, reinforcing a concrete slab is required to maintain the slab's integrity. The thickness of a concrete slab will determine the distribution of the reinforcing so that cracking is minimized. The clarifier slab in the Macclenny project is depicted as being 12 inches thick and shows number 6 bar reinforcing on 6 inch centers in the top of the slab but no reinforcing in the bottom of the slab. Failure to require reinforcing in the bottom of the slab could result in the slab cracking due to significant changes in temperature and soft spots in the soil beneath the slab. Failure to place reinforcing in the bottom as well as in the top of the slab is not in accordance with standards of the code of the American Concrete Institute (ACI), revised in 1983, and is a structural weakness. The chlorine contact chamber as detailed on sheets 5-6 and 5-7 is like a rectangular concrete box beneath the earth where the earth is within a few inches of the top of the walls. The walls are vertically reinforced with number 4 bars on 12 inch centers placed in the center of the 8 inch thick wall. When the tank is empty the reinforcing bars will be approximately 160 per cent overstressed from the active pressure of the earth. Additional reinforcing is needed in the walls to meet ACI standards. There are deficiencies in the vertical wall reinforcing of the chlorine contact chamber as detailed on sheets 5-6 and 5-7 of the Plans. On sheets 5-3, 5-4 and 5-7 of the plans, reinforcement through the construction joints is incorrectly detailed to assure that cracking of the concrete will not occur. Construction joints occur between different pours of concrete, such as where the walls meet the top of the bottom slab. The concrete bottom of the holding pond as detailed in sheet 5-8 of the Plans is large enough to require expansion joints to prevent cracking as the slab expands and contracts due to changes in the weather, yet no expansion joints are shown for the slab as detailed on sheet 5-8 of the plans. Neither the collection ditches nor the spray riser bases as detailed on the plans show any reinforcing to maintain the integrity of the concrete. While this is not a major structural weakness, it indicates a failure to comply with standard structural engineering practices. Although the plans call for relocation of an existing drainage ditch, the Respondent failed to consult DER regarding the permitting of such drainage ditch. A detention time of 30 minutes is required to properly disinfect wastewater and is-basic knowledge for all civil engineers, yet the plans called for only a fifteen minute detention time. It is standard engineering practice to provide flood level elevations on the site plans. Respondent failed to provide flood level elevations for the Macclenny facility site plans. The plans failed to: (a) provide elevations for high water alarm and pump off settings; (b) provide specifications for flume liner on sheet M-4; (c) show how to close an existing outlet on the chlorine contact chamber; (d) show where an effluent pump station was to be located; (e) show pressure relief valve locations and; (f) indicate quantities for purpose of contract bidding. The specifications list equipment and work items, such as pumping equipment, grit storage tank, case-out assembly, telescoping valve, air diffusers, portable pump, hose and couplings, that are inapplicable to the Macclenny project. There are inconsistencies in the plans and specifications, such as: (a) the plans showing one clarifier while the specifications call for two clarifiers, (b) the plans showing a 150 pound chlorine cylinder as opposed to a 1-ton chlorine cylinder in the specifications and; (c) the plans showing the clarifier with a 38-foot diameter while the specifications calls for a clarifier with a 40-foot diameter. Respondent was negligent in submitting incomplete plans to the Bureau as "completed plans" and in failing to utilize due care and failing to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles, with regard to the content of those plans which he submitted as "completed plans".
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the circumstances surrounding this case, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent, L. Thomas Hubbard guilty of violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and for such violation impose an administrative fine of $1,000.00 and suspend from the practice of engineering for a period of thirty (30) days, stay the suspension and place the Respondent on probation for a period of one year under terms and conditions the Board deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearing this 20th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0096 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Petitioner in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Findings of Fact 1. Rejected as not being necessary to the conclusions reached in this Recommended Order. 3.-12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, respectively, but modified. 13. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 14.-19. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17, respectively, but modified. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or subordinate or unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17 and 18 but modified. 22.-33. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 27, respectively, but modified. 34. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17 and 18, but modified. 35-37. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 38. Adopted in Findings of Fact 28 and 29, but modified. 39.-40. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate, but see Findings of Fact 37 and 38. 41.-5O. Adopted in Findings of Fact 28, 32, 29 (28-31), 29, 29, 32, 30, 32 and 32, respectively, but modified. 51. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 52.-53. Adopted in Findings of Fact (28-33) and 32, respectively, but modified. 54.-55. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. Adapted in Finding of Fact 55. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 58.-62. Adopted generally in Findings of Fact 28-33. 63.-66. Adopted generally in Findings of Fact 34-36. 67.-72. Adopted generally in Finding of Fact 37. 73.-74. Adopted generally in Finding of Fact 38. 75.-76. Adopted generally in Finding of Fact 39. 77.-79. Adopted generally or covered in Findings of Fact 13-15 and 28-39. 80.-82 Adopted generally or covered in Findings of Fact 40- 41. 83.-90. Adopted generally or covered in Findings of Fact 42 and 43. 91.-96. Adopted generally or covered in Findings of Fact 44 and 45. 97.-104. Adopted generally or covered in Finding of Fact 46. 105.-107. Adopted generally or covered in Finding of Fact 47. 108.-109. Adopted in Finding of Fact 48. 110.-115. Adopted generally or covered in Finding of Fact 55. 116.-117. Adopted in Finding of Fact 49 and 50. 18. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 119. Adopted in Finding of Fact 51. 120.-124. Adopted in Finding of Fact 52. 125. Rejected as immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 126.-127. Adopted in Finding of Fact 52. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Adopted in Finding of Fact 54. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Adopted in Finding of Fact 55. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Findings of Fact 13-15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19 except last sentence that is rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant. Rejected as being a restatement of Administrative Complaint and not a Finding of Fact but see Findings of Fact 15 and 19. Rejected as being a restatement of John Sowerby's testimony and not a Finding of Fact, but see Findings of Fact 15, 17 and 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. 6. Restatement of David Wolfe's testimony COPIES FURNISHED: Rex Smith Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Wings S. Benton, Esquire 1020 D. Lafayette Street, Suite 205 Post Office Box 5676 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-5676 L. Thomas Hubbard, pro se THA Building 3110 Spring Glen Road Jacksonville, Florida 32207
Findings Of Fact Respondent HDR has applied to DER for a permit to construct a 60,000 gallon per day extended aeration sewage treatment plant with percolation ponds. The facility would be used to provide secondary treatment of domestic waste from the HDR Mobile Home Park. The project is in Volusia County south of the City of Oak Hill and north of the Town of Edgewater. It is bounded on the east side by the Indian River and the west side by U.S. Highway One. The mobile home project site consists of approximately 156 acres, with the proposed wastewater treatment plant located in the southwest corner of the tract. HDR submitted Application No. 85433 to DER on July 2, 1984, requesting a permit to construct a 0.6 MGD extended aeration sewage treatment plant and associated percolation ponds for the mobile home project. Supplemental information was filed with DER on August 29, 1984. DER issued a notice of intent to permit the project on November 8, 1984. The plant would provide secondary treatment of effluent with a minimum of 90 percent removal of BOD's and suspended solids through aeration, settling and chlorination processes. The system is designed to collect sewage through a gravity system and lift station. The lift station dumps the sewage into the aeration chambers where forced air is mixed with the sewage, resulting in removal of organic materials and solids. The dissolved solids are then separated in the settling tank. From the settling tank, clear effluent enters the chlorine contact chamber where chlorine disinfectant is added prior to discharge into the percolation pond. The method of treatment described above and the design of the plant are standard. If the plant is operated properly, the wastewater will meet all DER criteria for secondary sewage treatment. Plant odor will be minimized by the continual feed of forced air into the system. Silencers will be installed on blowers to minimize any adverse noise effects from the blowers' operation. Aerosol drift is not a factor with the design of this plant. Security lighting will be provided, and the plant site will be surrounded by a six foot security fence. The design provides for effluent sampling access points and there will be a flow meter for measuring effluent discharge on site. A Class C operator will be required to operate the plant. Disposal of the 90 percent treated effluent will be made into two percolation ponds. The ponds will be alternately loaded, with one pond being loaded for seven days and then resting seven days. The total surface area for the two ponds is approximately 130,000 square feet. The ponds are designed with berms of three feet with an emergency overflow one foot from the top of each berm. The two ponds together are designed to handle 200,000 gallons per day which would be the ultimate build out of this project. However, the maximum capacity of the initial phase of the wastewater treatment plant would be 60,000 gallons a day. Any expansion to the sewage treatment plant would require a separate permit. The overall elevation of the area where the ponds are to be located is approximately 14 feet above sea level. Each pond is designed so that the pond bottom is two feet above the underground water table level measured at the highest point for the rainy season. In a 100 year flood, it is expected that the effluent and water can be absorbed without an overflow. The mobile home park has a storm retention system in which any theoretical overflow would be caught. The soil type at the location of the percolation ponds consists of several layers of sands. This type of soil has good permeability in that it provides a good transfer of water through the soil and is therefore suitable for siting of the percolation ponds. Pond design is conservative in that the hydraulic loading rate has a safety factor of at least 300 percent. Once the effluent has percolated into the ponds, the discharge will meet or exceed the level of quality of the G-2 ground water within the 100 foot zone of discharge. The design of the wastewater treatment plant also includes sufficient monitoring wells and provides for adequate buffer zones from residences and drainage ditches. No surface waters of the state are located within 500 feet of the sewage treatment plant or its percolation ponds. The Indian River, which is adjacent to the Hacienda Del Rio project, is approximately 2,500 feet from the sewage treatment plant. There will be no direct discharge by the sewage treatment plant into this body of water or any surface waters, nor would any indirect effect on surface waters be measurable. Shellfish harvesting is a local industry. The waters of the Indian River immediately east of the Hacienda Del Rio property are designated Class II waters suitable for shellfish harvesting. The Indian River is also part of the Canaveral National Seashore Waters, which are designated as Outstanding Florida Waters. Concern was expressed that additional growth in the area might contribute to degradation of these Class II waters. There was, however, no evidence to indicate that the construction or implementation of the wastewater treatment plant by HCD would degrade ore pollute the Indian River (which is both Class II and Outstanding Florida Water) or any other State of Florida surface waters. It should be noted that waters north and south of the property in the Indian River are closed to shellfish harvesting, apparently due to pollution. The Town of Edgewater north of the Hacienda Del Rio project has a secondary wastewater treatment plant which discharges its effluent directly into the Indian River. The City of Oak Hill to the south of the project has no wastewater treatment plant whatsoever. Individual businesses and homes utilize septic tanks, which can cause pollution to the Indian River through seepage. The HDR sewage treatment plant would thus meet higher standards than neighboring community facilities.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue a Final Order granting the application of Hacienda Del Rio. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Betty J. Steffens, Esquire NABORS, GIBLIN & STEFFENS, P.A. 102 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William C. Henderson, Esquire HENDERSON & HENDERSON, P.A. Post Office Box 1840 New Smyrna Beach, Florida 32070 B. J. Owens, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alva Stewart, Vice President South Waterfront Park Homeowners Association 150 Charles Street Edgewater, Florida 32032 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On or about December 28, 1987 Hy Kom filed with the Department an application for a permit to construct a .0126 MGD Advanced Waste Water Treatment Plant on Emerson Point, Snead Island in Manatee County. The proposed waste water treatment plant would discharge effluent into the waters of Terra Ceia Bay in Manatee County. The proposed waste water treatment plant would discharge effluent into the waters of Tampa Bay in Manatee County. The proposed waste water treatment plant would discharge effluent into the waters of Manatee River in Manatee County. The waters of Terra Ceia Bay have been designated Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) by the Department. On or about April 27, 1989 the Department issued a Notice of Permit Denial concerning Hy Kom's permit application. The parties stipulate the Intervenor, Manasota-88, has standing to intervene as a party Respondent and to object to the issuance of the permit. Petitioner's evidence can best be summarized by what was not submitted. First, the expert witness called to identify the application had not prepared any part of the application or verified any of the studies presented therein. Similarly Petitioner's expert on the proposed treatment plant did not testify that Petitioner was committed to using this plant, or that the construction of the plant and the operation of the plant would comply with statutory and rule requirements. The only witness called by Petitioner to testify to the effect the discharge from the proposed advanced waste water treatment plant would have on the receiving waters was also Respondent's expert; and this witness testified that the effluent discharge from this proposed plant would have an adverse effect on the receiving waters, would seriously degrade the receiving waters as a nursery habitat for both crustacea and fishes endemic to the area, and that no reasonable assurances that this would not happen were ever presented by the Petitioner. This witness further testified that no discharge into these receiving waters would be acceptable not only because of the nitrogen level (which was the most significant reason for denying the permit) but also because even a discharge of absolutely pure water would upset the salinity of the receiving waters at the critical time the receiving waters act as a marine nursery.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the application of Hy Kom Development Company, for a permit to construct and operate an advanced waste water treatment facility at Emerson Point, Snead Island, Manatee County, Florida. DONE and ORDERED this _15th_ day of September, 1992 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: JAMES W. STARNS ESQ 501 GOODLETTE RD SUITE D-100-24 NAPLES FL 33940 W DOUGLAS BEASON ESQ ASST GENERAL COUNSEL K. N. AYERS 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 _15th_ day of September, 1992. DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 2600 BLAIRSTONE RD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 2400 THOMAS W REESE ESQ 123 EIGHTH ST N ST PETERSBURG FL 33701 DANIEL H THOMPSON ESQ GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 2600 BLAIRSTONE RD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 2400 CAROL BROWNER SECRETARY DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 2600 BLAIRSTONE RD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 2400
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner is eligible to participate in the Department's Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Webbs Cleaners, has operated as a dry cleaning facility for approximately twenty-five years under the consecutive ownership of two brothers, Joseph Smith and Michael Smith. Joseph Smith owned the property and business from approximately 1975 through 1986, when he sold the business to Michael Smith. Michael Smith sold the business back to Joseph Smith in February 1999. At all times Joseph Smith retained ownership of the real property. Both owners operated Webbs Cleaners under the corporate structure of JCS, Incorporated. The corporation is a small business, never having earned one million dollars or more of gross revenue in any year. Webbs Cleaners is a full-service laundry and dry cleaning business, operating at 1601 Broadway, Riviera Beach, Florida. The dry cleaning business requires the use of a primary cleaning solvent called "perchloroethylene," commonly known as "perc." Webbs stores its supply of perc in the storage tanks of the dry cleaning machine. At the time of the Department's inspection, Webbs' dry cleaning machine had three separate storage tanks: a working tank, a distilling tank, and a fresh tank. Each tank had a volume capacity of approximately thirty to forty gallons. At the time in question, Phenix Supply Company was Webbs' supplier. Phenix delivered perc to Webbs by truck and usually filled the dry cleaning machine by pump. When a shipment arrived, a lid would be removed on top of the dry cleaning machine and a hose run from the supply truck to the dry cleaning machine inside Webbs Cleaners. Perc was then pumped from the truck directly into the dry cleaning machine's fresh storage tank. Because of the volumes usually delivered, perc was seldom delivered in five-gallon Dowper cans. When perc was delivered in Dowper cans, the cans were wheeled into the store on a hand truck and emptied into the storage tanks of the dry cleaning machine. Due to the exorbitant cost of perc, the Smith brothers always made sure every last drop of perc was emptied from the Dowper cans and placed into the dry cleaning machine. All Dowper cans were left "bone dry," stored behind the dry cleaning machine, and returned to Phenix on the next delivery. In the past, the Smith brothers have left empty Dowper cans outside the store on the days they were to be picked up by the supplier or to temporarily make extra room in the secondary containment area. Dry cleaning facilities generate various types of hazardous waste, which require proper disposal. Such wastes include: filters, filtered lint, bottom still residue (sludge and fatty acids), separator wastewater, mop water and fluorescent light bulbs. Webbs contracted with MCF to dispose of its hazardous wastes generated from the dry cleaning process. The hazardous wastes were placed in fifteen-gallon black drums supplied by MCF. Pursuant to new regulations, Michael Smith installed a secondary containment system under and completely around his dry cleaning machine in August 1996. Secondary containment has been in place around Webbs' dry cleaning machine since that time. On November 6, 1997, at approximately 7:00 a.m., Michael Smith placed two empty Dowper cans outside behind the dry cleaning facility so they could be picked up by Phenix. He also placed a five-gallon clear plastic container partially full of soap outside with the two Dowper cans. At approximately 8:30 a.m. that day, Leslie Smith from the Department and Susan Gash from Palm Beach County appeared unannounced at Webbs to conduct an inspection. They noticed the secondary containment around the dry cleaning machine. Facility inspections conducted by Leslie Smith are routine in nature, but extensive. Due to the difficulty in remembering all the details investigated at each facility, Leslie Smith uses a simple checklist system. Called an Inspection Exit Summary, the checklist quantifies deficiencies needing correction. The entire facility inspection report is condensed to a basic evaluation process whereby Leslie Smith simply adds all items marked with an "x," and the total number indicates the number of corrective responses which should be received from the owner/operator of the dry cleaning facility by a specified date. Information is then exchanged with the owner/operator for each item marked with an "x." Leslie Smith's routine is always the same. During a typical inspection she first asks for the facility operator, then notes what type of equipment is in use, requests to have any containers opened, takes photographs, and requests copies of business records. The first photograph is always of the dry cleaning unit, confirming if there is secondary containment around the unit and the type of unit in use. When she sees a closed container outside of the secondary containment area, she asks the facility operator to open it so she can see if it is empty. She "makes a big deal" out of determining whether containers have contents in them. Susan Gash was an environmental specialist with Palm Beach County. At the time of the Webbs inspection, Gash performed inspections for the County's wellfield protection code. She attended the inspection with Leslie Smith because she was being trained on State-related compliance issues. Because Gash was present, Leslie Smith made her own inspection more rigorous than usual. During the inspection, Leslie Smith and Susan Gash questioned Michael Smith about the contents of one black fifteen-gallon drum and about the three containers behind the facility. Joseph Smith acquired the black drum, located in the rear of the building, in approximately 1976. When purchased, it contained dry cleaning soap, which is not a hazardous substance. Since it was emptied, the drum has been used on-site for storing sandbags. Webbs is located in an area prone to flooding during heavy rain, and the sandbags are used to help protect the front and rear entrances of the facility. The five-gallon soap container and two Dowper cans located outside behind the facility were on the ground in a small area between the wall of the next building and a concrete wall between three and three and one-half feet high. The soap container made of clear, white plastic visibly contained liquid. Since soap is not a hazardous solvent, that container is not at issue in this proceeding. The two Dowper cans at issue are gray, five-gallon cans. On the morning of the inspection, these two empty Dowper cans and the five-gallon soap container had been located within the secondary containment area inside the facility. Because he needed more room, Michael Smith placed the two Dowper cans and the soap container outside between the two walls. He would never have placed the Dowper cans outside if they still contained any perc because perc is hazardous and must be stored within secondary containment and because perc is very expensive and anything of value placed outside his premises in Riviera Beach would be stolen. For whatever reasons, Leslie Smith chose not to follow her normal routine during the Webbs inspection. Although she always made a "big deal" out of determining whether containers had contents and had the facility operators open them to verify their contents or determine that they were empty, she did not request that any containers at Webbs be opened for inspection. At the final hearing, she testified that she had no authority to open containers to determine contents. Leslie Smith initially testified that she tried to pick up the Dowper cans but could not lift them because full Dowper cans weigh forty to fifty pounds. She later testified that she could not recall whether she tried to pick them up, shake them, or kick them because she has no recollection after three years. Her notes reflect that the cans were full but do not indicate how she knew that or why she assumed that. On the other hand, Susan Gash testified that even after three years she has a specific memory of taking her left foot, placing it at the top edge of a Dowper can, and pushing it to determine if the can were empty by rocking it back and forth and listening for splashing. She recalls hearing splashing and that Leslie Smith walked around her, bent over, and picked up the can to determine if it were empty. Leslie Smith's testimony conflicts with portions of her own testimony and that of Susan Gash. It is unlikely that Susan Gash rocked one of the Dowper cans back and forth since the Department's own photograph reflects the three cans snuggled tightly into a small area between the wall of the next building and a concrete wall which the uncontroverted testimony describes as three to three and one-half feet high. Further, even if credibility is afforded to their testimony, only one can was discussed, and two Dowper cans are at issue in this proceeding. When asked by Leslie Smith and Gash about the cans, Michael Smith told them the Dowper cans were "bone dry." He did not see Leslie Smith or Susan Gash lift, push, or kick the cans. Gash told him to put the cans inside the facility, and he did so while the inspectors were still at the facility. He had no difficulty lifting or carrying the empty Dowper cans. Leslie Smith believes that containers of perc not within secondary containment have the largest potential for harm to the environment that she could encounter at a dry cleaning facility. Yet, she did not react to the situation with any immediate concern. She did not direct Michael Smith to place the outside cans inside the secondary containment area. She did not contact Michael Smith or re-visit the site at any later time. She did not direct the Department's hazardous waste employees to the site until three months later. It can only be concluded that Leslie Smith did not believe the Dowper cans contained any perc. Accordingly, the two Dowper cans were empty on the day in question and did not need to be stored within secondary containment. Another alleged violation during the November 1997 visit involves a waste drum, which Leslie Smith noted was only partially within the secondary containment area. However, she has no recollection, and her notes do not reflect, whether the drum contained any waste. Webbs is not guilty of gross negligence regarding the waste drum. The last alleged violation during the inspection refers to whether a container of picrin, which is used for spotting, was outside the secondary containment area and contained solvents equal to more than one quart in volume. Leslie Smith has no recollection, and her notes do not reflect, the volume of the contents in the container. Webbs is not guilty of gross negligence regarding the container of picrin. The Department's inspection exit summary potentially contains information a facility operator needs in order to know what corrective action, if any, is required. Leslie Smith concedes that without a copy of the inspection exit summary, there would be a great deal of confusion as to what a dry cleaning facility would be required to do to respond appropriately to her investigation. The Department mailed Webbs' copy of the summary to the wrong address. Michael Smith did not provide any documentation to the Department after Leslie Smith's inspection because it was his understanding that the Department would return after thirty days to re-inspect his premises to verify that any corrective action had been taken. Leslie Smith later reported to the Department's Tallahassee office that Michael Smith had failed to provide a "characterization" or hazardous waste determination report that she had instructed him to obtain from a professional testing source as to the contents of the empty Dowper cans. After learning from Michael in early 1998 that the Department had performed an inspection at Webbs, Joseph Smith went to the Department's local office and obtained a copy of the inspection report. He then took photographs showing that all corrective actions had been taken and delivered them to the Department. Thereafter, he received no contact from the Department and assumed that nothing further was needed. In early 1998, Webbs replaced its dry cleaning machine with a new machine and a new secondary containment system. The machine and secondary containment system were purchased and installed simultaneously as a single unit and are still in use. In February 1998, Susan Gash performed a re-inspection of Webbs for Palm Beach County. She found the facility to be in compliance with all requirements. She found no containers behind the building. In approximately December 1998, Joseph Smith hired a civil engineer to determine if Webbs needed to participate in the Department's Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program. Soil borings were taken, and testing revealed that the site had some dry cleaning solvent contamination. An application for eligibility in the program was completed and jointly filed by both Joseph Smith, the property owner, and Michael Smith, the owner of the dry cleaning business at that time. The application was filed under the name of Webbs Cleaners. Webbs Cleaners has never been fined or had any administrative action taken against it. Webbs Cleaners has never willfully discharged solvents or willfully concealed any discharge. Webbs Cleaners has never been found to have violated any local, State, or federal law regulating the operation of a dry cleaning facility. From August 1996 through the time of the final hearing in this cause, Webbs has continuously used secondary containment systems under and around the dry cleaning machine and where solvents and waste materials containing solvents have been used or stored.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered determining that Webbs Cleaners is eligible to participate in the Department's Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 25th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Inguana Varslavane-Callahan, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kevin S. Hennessy, Esquire Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. 1700 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite 1000 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-2006 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Office of General Counsel 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether Petitioner is entitled to a variance so as to allow the installation of an on-site sewage disposal system (OSDS) on the Petitioner's property located in Dixie County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the owner of Lot 24 of Hatchbend Upon Suwannee subdivision, a platted subdivision in Dixie County, Florida. The Petitioner purchased the lot for residential purposes and seeks to install an on-site sewage disposal system (septic tank) (OSDS) on that lot for purposes of serving a single family residence. The Petitioner originally filed a permit application seeking a permit authorizing installation and operation of an OSDS for that property. That permit application was filed on December 12, 1989. It was denied and the Petitioner sought a formal hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings to contest that denial, which became Case No. 90-6134. That case was ultimately settled between the Petitioner and the Department and no permit application was granted. Instead, the Petitioner filed the subject application for a variance from the requirements of then Section 10D-6.047(6), Florida Administrative Code. The variance application was filed on June 21, 1991, with regard to Lot 24 only. By letter of October 9, 1991, the Department denied the application for variance and the Petitioner timely requested a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to contest that denial. Lot 24 of Hatchbend Upon Suwannee subdivision, owned by the Petitioner is located on the Suwannee River. The Petitioner submitted a report of the Suwannee River Water Management District, in evidence, which indicates that the subject property lies within the regulatory floodway of the Suwannee River. The two year flood elevation at that location is 19 feet above mean-sea level (MSL). The ten year floor elevation at the installation site is 29 feet above MSL. The elevation of the proposed septic tank system installation site is 17.5 feet above MSL. Department personnel performed an inspection and an evaluation of the site. It was thus found and established by testimony and evidence, presented through witness Fross, that the water table level during the wet season is at or above the surface of the property at the installation site and the dry season water table level is approximately 6 inches below the surface grade of the property at the installation site. This is the reason, together with the fact that the property lies within the regulatory floodway and beneath the ten year flood evaluation of the Suwannee River for the river mile at the site, that the inspector recommended denial of a permit for an OSDS for the property. The Petitioner maintained that the information originally submitted and obtained from the Suwannee River Water Management District had incorrectly indicated the river mile at the site. The ten year and two year flood elevations are calculated according to the river mile at a given site, river miles being measurements of the linear distance of the Suwannee River and the Suwannee River floor plain. However, if the lower ten year flood elevation prevailing at the river mile the Petitioner maintained equated with the project site was applicable, by the Petitioner's own admission, the site in question (and indeed any location on any of the nearby lots he owns) would be below that resulting ten year floor elevation level. Ms. Emily Wilson testified on behalf of the Respondent. It was established that the education, experience and certification of Ms. Wilson as a registered sanitarian, together with her graduate and post-graduate degrees in the area of environmental science, accord her expertise in the areas of environmental protection, sewage disposal and sanitation and she was accepted as an expert in those fields. It was thus established that installation and operation of a septic system on the Petitioner's property would pose a threat to the ground and surface water in the vicinity of the site due to the high water table levels and the fact that the property, including the proposed installation site, is subject to frequent flooding. The exposure of the septic tank drainfield to ground or flood waters would allow the release of pathogens into those waters, which could be carried along into the ground or surface waters when the flood receded. These pathogens would endanger the health of the Petitioner, surrounding land owners and other persons through contamination of the drinking water supply. The pathogens could also endanger persons using the river for recreational purposes. The Department produced photographs which were introduced into evidence establishing that the road leading to the property was underwater due to flooding in the spring of 1991. That road runs along the back of the Petitioner's property and is further removed from the river than the actual installation site where the Petitioner proposes to install a septic system. After the flood receded, the water marks on the trees in the area of the proposed installation site on the Petitioner's property indicate that the area had been submerged under approximately three feet of water. The property was established to be subject to frequent flooding. Ms. Wilson is aware that other systems can potentially be used to adequately contain and treat sewage generated by a residence such as that the Petitioner envisions, including a closed system characterized by no sewage discharge. The applicant however has not submitted a proposal for such a system for consideration by the Department. She is unaware of any other system of sewage disposal that has previously been approved for use in low areas similar to that prevailing at the Petitioner's property and installation site. The Petitioner purchased the property under a contract for deed. The contract for deed specifically states that the property was subject to frequent flooding at the time the Petitioner purchased the property and the Petitioner was aware of that. The Petitioner purchased the property in spite of that representation in the contract for deed. The construction and use of a mounded septic tank and drainfield system designed to elevate the septic tank and drainfield a sufficient required distance above the groundwater table and the ten year flood elevation level could potentially be installed, but the system would require a very large, high mound. It was not shown that the dimensions of the lot would permit the installation of the required mound base pad, and mound itself, of a sufficient size to properly elevate the proposed system so that a permit could be approved. The mounded system required under proper design parameters provided for in the Department's rules would cause the mounded system to approach or even exceed the entire width of Lot 24. A mounded system located in the regulatory floodway, as Petitioner's property is located, would require issuance of a separate permit from the Suwannee River Water Management District. There was no showing that the Petitioner sought such a permit nor any showing of the likelihood that such a permit could be granted at the time of the hearing. Additionally, the Department's rules require that a qualified engineer issue a certification with respect to the use of a mounded disposal system within the regulatory floodway which certifies that the insertion of fill material for constructing such a system in the floodway will not cause a rise in the level of the "base flood", also known as a "zero rise certificate." No such certification has been obtained. In order to establish compliance with the requirement for granting of a variance set forth in the legal authority cited below, the applicant must establish, among other things, that there is no reasonable alternative to the installation of the system proposed. The applicant has presented no evidence to show that there are no reasonable alternatives to the system proposed. Rather, the testimony and evidence indicates that indeed there may be alternative disposal systems and methods available, although the proof was not developed in this proceeding to establish what those might be. The consideration of another location for the system on a different lot or installation site presently owned by the Petitioner or of an alternative type of treatment and disposal system might be feasible but would require a new site evaluation and submission of appropriate information which could establish that a specific alternative system and/or location is feasible, in terms of the requirements in the statute and rules that no deleterious impacts to the ground or surface waters in the vicinity of the site would occur. Such an effort would have to be the subject of a separate permit application and is not at issue in this variance proceeding.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore RECOMMENDED: that a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for a variance from the statutory and rule requirements related to permitting, for the reasons found and concluded above, which denial should be without prejudice to a later permit application which might offer full consideration of potential, reasonable alternative sewage treatment and disposal systems and methods in the manner envisioned in Rule 10D-6.0471, Florida Administrative Code and other pertinent rules. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August, 1992. APPENDIX Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: All proposed finding of fact are accepted. The Petitioner presented no Proposed Findings of Fact but rather a posthearing pleading constituting, in effect, a closing legal argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert G. Prior 3106 Waverly Avenue Tampa, Florida 33269 Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
