The Issue The issues are whether Respondent has violated the standards of practice in septic tank contracting, Florida Administrative Code rule 64E-6.022, and, if so, the penalty. (All references to Respondent are to Arlender Miller. All references to Ms. Rooter are to Ms. Rooter, Inc.)
Findings Of Fact At the times of the alleged jobs, Respondent was registered as a septic tank contractor and served as the qualifying agent for Ms. Rooter. At the time of all three jobs, Respondent had apparent authority to serve as the agent of Ms. Rooter in contracting for and performing the septic tank contracting work described below. However, nothing in the record establishes any relationship between Respondent and Ms. Rooter at the time of the issuance of the Administrative Complaint, so as to justify treating the notice of this proceeding, when served upon Respondent, as notice to Ms. Rooter. Hans Seffer, who testified, is the son of the woman who owns the apartment complex located at 14950 North Miami Avenue, Miami. Mr. Seffer found Ms. Rooter on the internet and spoke with Carolyn Futch, operations manager of Ms. Rooter, about septic tank contracting services needed at the apartment complex. Respondent later met with Mr. Seffer at the property. Initially, Mr. Seffer believed that the existing septic tank needed only to be pumped out. However, upon inspection, Respondent determined that the system also required a new drainfield, pump, and dosing tank. Accordingly, on February 20, 2008, Respondent, as "technician," and either Mr. Seffer or his mother signed a one-page contract on a form identifying the contractor as Ms. Rooter, license number SA0071430. The contract describes the following work: Install 1,000 sq. ft. drainfield with 300 gallon dosing tank including immediate (2/21/08) tank pump out. Additionally if tank requires pumpout prior to securing all necessary permits, Ms. Rooter will perform pumpout at no additional cost. Manhole cover included. Respondent and either Mr. or Mrs. Seffer initialed this section of the contract. The contract states that the total due for this work is $10,500. Ms. Seffer paid $5,000 by check on February 21, 2008, leaving a $5,500 balance due. On March 1, 2008, Respondent, as agent for Ms. Rooter and on behalf of the property owner, submitted to Petitioner an application for a construction permit for an onsite sewage disposal system. The application describes the property improvements as a multifamily complex with ten bedrooms and 5,284 square feet of building space. The site plan attached to the application states: "Replace drainfield only." On April 2, 2008, Ms. Futch emailed Mr. Seffer to confirm an earlier discussion between them. The discussion addressed a requirement of Petitioner that Ms. Rooter install a second tank. The email states that the property owner will pay $5,600 for the installation of a "2nd tank (1,050-gal)," so the new total contract price is $11,100. This email restates the scope of the work as the installation of a 1,000-square-foot drainfield and 300-gallon dosing tank. By return email two days later, Mr. Seffer agreed to the additional work. On April 11, 2008, Petitioner issued to the property owner a construction permit that specifies a 2,575-gallon septic tank and a 1,000 square-foot drainfield. The permit states: "The licensed contractor installing the system is responsible for installing the minimum category of tank in accordance with sec. 64E-6.013(3)(f), F.A.C." This rule does not refer to tank capacities. On April 23, 2008, Petitioner issued a "construction inspection and final approval" form that shows the installation of two 1,200-gallon septic tanks and a 1,005-square-foot drainfield. The form states that items bearing an "X" are "not in compliance with statute or rule and must be corrected." The construction and final system are approved by Petitioner's inspector. During the course of the work, Respondent told Mr. Seffer that the existing tank was damaged and needed to be replaced, at an additional cost of $5,000, so the remaining balance rose to $16,100. Mr. Seffer agreed to this change. By email dated April 30, 2008, to Mr. Seffer, Ms. Futch confirmed the additional cost of $5,000 for the second septic tank and expressed "hope [that] Ms. Rooter has met your expectations." The email acknowledges, however, that "we must complete the electrical portion of the job." On May 2, 2008, Mr. Seffer sent Ms. Rooter two checks totaling $15,000, leaving a balance of $1,100. On the same date, Mr. Seffer sent Ms. Futch an email that, pursuant to their agreement, he would retain this amount for the "electric and final raking work." By email dated May 27, 2008, to Ms. Futch, Mr. Seffer noted that the manhole that Ms. Rooter had installed in the middle of the lawn was not level and was sunken, presenting a tripping hazard; the final grading was incomplete, leaving low spots and holes; a large rock remained near the palm tree and needed to be removed. Mr. Seffer sent Ms. Futch a reminder email on June 4, 2008, that resent the May 27 email. Mr. Seffer sent another email to Ms. Futch on June 21, 2008. In it, he notes that a Ms. Rooter employee worked on digging an electrical trench on June 13, but left mid-day, and no work had been performed since that day. In the meantime, recent rains had revealed a lack of compaction in the backfilling done by Ms. Rooter, as the fill had settled and undermined a sidewalk. After failing to obtain a response, on July 26, 2008, Mr. Seffer sent a final email to Ms. Futch warning her that he would file complaints with governmental agencies and advising that the unconnected pump was not pumping sewage throughout the entire system. The record does not contain the contracts for the septic tank contracting services involved in the second and third jobs alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Also, Petitioner did not present the testimony of the property owners involved in these jobs. The record for these jobs is limited to the permitting documentation. On September 26, 2008, as agent of Ms. Rooter and on behalf of the property owner, Shoreview Properties, Respondent submitted an application for a construction permit for an onsite sewage disposal system for 9999 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Miami Shores. This application describes the property as commercial with a 47,771 square-foot building. On October 1, 2008, Petitioner's inspector inspected the property. The inspector found an opened drainfield area with contaminated material and other conditions capable of hosting various disease vectors. He also found a backhoe and worker, who claimed that someone else had excavated the drainfield. The inspector immediately posted an ONASN, pursuant to the authority of chapter 386, Florida Statutes, that required the immediate abatement of the listed insanitary conditions. The inspector also determined that the existing onsite sewage disposal system exceeded Petitioner's jurisdictional threshold of 5,000 gallons per day. On September 10, 2008, as agent of Ms. Rooter and on behalf of the property owner, Lisa Mullin, Respondent submitted to Petitioner an application for a construction permit for an onsite sewage disposal system for 101 Northeast 195th Street, Miami. This application describes the property as 0.19 acres, on which is situated a single family residence comprising 1,663 square feet and three bedrooms. On September 22, 2008, an agent of the property owner called Petitioner and complained that Ms. Rooter had commenced the work without having first obtained a permit. Petitioner's inspector visited the site on the same day and found "very recent" earthwork. The owner informed the inspector that the contractor had installed three drainlines, cut an old water line, and installed a new water line over the drainfield. However, the record fails to establish the amount of time that elapsed between the work claimed to have been performed by Ms. Rooter and the report by the property owner. Respondent has paid numerous fines imposed by Petitioner for improper septic tank contracting. In 1999, Respondent paid a fine in an unspecified amount for performing an unpermitted drainfield repair and making the repair without the required filter sand. On January 27, 2000, Respondent paid a fine of $250 for performing unpermitted system repairs. On February 4, 2000, Respondent was assessed a fine of $1,000 for performing unpermitted and uninspected system repairs and failing to honor a warranty. On January 8, 2004, Respondent received a cease and desist order for qualifying more than one septic tank contracting business. In 2007, Respondent paid separate fines of $1,500 and $1,000 for illegal septic tank contracting work in Dade and Monroe counties, respectively.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the three violations identified in paragraphs 26, 27, and 29 above, dismissing the remaining charges against him, dismissing any charges against Ms. Rooter, and revoking Respondent's septic tank contracting registration. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Arlender Miller 640 Northwest 129th Street Miami, Florida 33168 Jenea Reed, Esquire Miami Dade County Health Department 8323 Northwest 12th Street, Suite 214 Miami, Florida 33126 R.S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 E. Renee Alsobrook, Acting General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Shairi Turner, Deputy Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Kim Berfield, Deputy Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for a septic tank permit application should be granted?
Findings Of Fact On July 29, 1987, Petitioner applied for a septic tank permit for a proposed individual sewage disposal system to serve a single family residence on Lot 40, Block P, Killearn Lakes Unit I (Unit 1), in Leon County, Florida. A septic tank system consists of a tank and a drainfield which is wholly or partly underground. The decision of whether to grant a septic tank system permit is greatly influenced by the elevation of the wet season water table in the area where the septic tank system will be located. Under normal circumstances, the elevation of the wet season water table can be determined by taking a boring of the ground in question using an auger. If water is found at the time the boring is conducted, that is an indication of where the water table is located. If no water is found, the elevation of the wet season water table can be determined by examining the soil removed from the ground for signs of mottling. Mottling is the discoloration of the soil caused by the interaction of water with the minerals in the soil. The process of mottling takes place over hundreds of years. Therefore, a rapid change in conditions may cause the elevation of the wet season water table to be different than what would be indicated by mottling. Because of the development of Unit I and the drainage method used in Unit I (sheetflow), the elevation of the wet season water table in Unit I is estimated to be between 12 and 20 inches higher than what is indicated by mottling. On July 7, 1987, a boring was taken on an indeterminate area on Lot 40, by Certified Testing, Inc., a private engineering firm. The evaluation of the boring resulted in mottling being present at a depth of 60 inches. On August 3, 1987, Ms. Teresa A. Hegg, an Environmental Health Specialist with HRS, took two borings on Lot 40. The first boring was taken in an area other than where the septic tank system's drainfield would be located. This boring resulted in mottling being present at a depth of 45 inches. The second boring was taken in the area where the septic tank system's drainfield would be located. This boring resulted in mottling being present at a depth of 22 inches. Based on the boring taken at the proposed site for the septic tank system, showing mottling at 22 inches, and the estimate that the wet season water table in Unit I is from 12 to 20 inches higher than mottling would indicate, the estimated wet season water table for Lot 40 is between 2 to 10 inches below the ground surface. Unit I has a history of septic tank system failures. Unit I was platted prior to January 1, 1972. There exists a very high probability that any septic tank system, even a mound system, installed in Lot P-40 will fail.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent issue a final order denying Petitioner's application for a septic tank permit. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4085 The Respondent has submitted proposed findings of fact which are addressed below. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RO ." The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection First phrase accepted. Remainder of paragraph supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. First two sentences accepted. Third sentence supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. Accepted. Accepted. 5,6,7,8,9,10 Supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. Accepted. Accepted. 13,14 Supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. 15. First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected; the wet season water table on Lot P-40 is from 2-10 inches below grade. Third sentence accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Salvatore A. Carpino, Jr., Esquire One Urban Centre, Suite 750 4830 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609 John R. Perry, Esquire Assistant District II Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2639 North Monore Street Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent installed certain septic tank and drainfield systems without having the appropriate permits from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS or Department) and without having the appropriate inspections performed before completing and being paid for the work in question. It is alleged, as well, that the Respondent engaged in advertising and performing septic tank contracting services under the name "Stone's Septic Services" without applying for and receiving an appropriate certificate of authorization from the Department to provide such services under that name.
Findings Of Fact On December 10, 1991, the Respondent installed a drainfield and septic system for Pam Matheny. He was paid $490.00 for that job, which was to include the cost of obtaining the required permit before the installation of the system. The Respondent obtained no such permit, but proceeded to install the system, which is currently operating. The Respondent performed drain line repair of a septic system for Mrs. Noel at 10 Royal Pines Drive, Pace, Florida. That job was also done without the required permit. A similar job was performed at 4844 Orleans Street, Pace, Florida, for a Mrs. Adams. No inspection of the work by the Department was obtained by the Respondent and no permit was issued to or obtained by the Respondent for the work, as established by the testimony of witness, Darla Ard, of the Santa Rosa County Health Unit of the Department. Mr. William Sirmans testified. He is Ms. Ard's supervisor in the Escambia County Health Unit of the Department. All permit applications for the installation and/or repair of septic tank and drainfield sewage disposal systems are processed and issued, if appropriate, by his office. He corroborated the testimony of Ms. Ard and witness, Pam Matheny, to the effect that no permits were ever issued for the three jobs in question which were performed by the Respondent. He discussed these matters with the Respondent during the investigation process underlying this complaint and the Respondent conceded that he had performed the three jobs in question without the required permits. The required inspections, as delineated above, were not obtained either.
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 Department of Health and Rehabilitative services revoking the Respondent's septic tank contracting registration and authorization, as provided for in the above-cited legal authority. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 18th day of December, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Slye, Esq. General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Rodney M. Johnson, Esq. Department of HRS District One P.O. Box 8420 Pensacola, Florida 32505-0420 Marcus E. Stone 11601 Chemstrand Road Pensacola, FL 32514
The Issue Whether Respondent John M. Williams deposited fill in waters of the state without a permit from the Department of Environmental Protection. If so, what is the appropriate corrective action and penalty?
Findings Of Fact Mr. Williams and the Cowford Subdivision Petitioner John M. Williams is a retired mechanic. In 1992, he became acquainted with the Cowford subdivision in Walton County, near Bruce, Florida. The subdivision fronts the Choctawhatchee River. Mr. Williams purchased lot 29 of the subdivision. Three or four years later, he bought lot 30. All told, Mr. Williams paid approximately $47,000 for the lots, an electric power line and an "above-ground" septic tank. The purchase price of the lots was $38,000. Running an electric line and installation of an electric light pole cost about $4,000. Mr. Williams paid about $5,000 for the septic tank and its installation. Mr. Williams' ultimate goal in purchasing the lots and adding the improvements was to build a house on the property for use in his retirement. Attempt to Obtain the Necessary Permits The septic tank was not purchased by Mr. Williams until after he had obtained a permit for its construction. At the county offices where he went to obtain the necessary permit, he was "sent over to the power company." (Tr. 216). At hearing, he described what happened there: I paid my money to get my power and they -- well, they informed me . . . once I got my power on I had 6 months to get my septic tank in the ground or they would turn my lights off. So here I had a $3,500 light pole put up and I couldn't very well see this thing going down. So, I went ahead to the Health Department. (Id.) Mr. Williams' testimony is supported by a Walton County Environmental Health Notice dated March 8, 1999, that states, "The Walton County Building Department will not be issuing approval for power for any residence until final approval of the septic system is obtained from the Walton County Environmental Health Office." P7, the first page after Page 3 of 3, marked in the upper right hand corner as PAGE 10. At the Health Department, on April 12, 1999, Mr. Williams applied for an "Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System" permit on a form bearing the following heading: STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ONSITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Authority; Chapter 381, FS & Chapter 10D-6, FAC P7, page 1 of 3. According to the form, he paid the $200 fee for the permit on April 29, 1999. The payment was made within a month or so after the installation of the power line. An attachment to the "Walton County Environmental Health Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System Application," made out by Mr. Williams on April 12, 1999, contains the following warning: OTHER AGENCY PERMITS: As the owner or agent applying for an OSTDS permit it is my responsibility to determine if the proposed development is in compliance with the zoning requirements of Walton County. I further assume responsibility to obtain any applicable permits from other State and Local Government Agencies. P15, page 2. (emphasis supplied) (See also P7, the second page after Page 3 of 3, marked in the upper right hand corner as PAGE 11). On May 5, 1999, about three weeks after Mr. Williams submitted the construction permit application, the site where the septic tank would be installed was evaluated by an EH Specialist, an inspector. On the same day, an Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System Construction Permit was issued for an "above-ground" 900-gallon septic tank. Installation With county personnel present and under county supervision, the septic tank was installed on a ridge on Mr. Williams property about 17 feet above mean sea level. Fill dirt was brought onto the site and placed on top of the tank to create a septic tank mound. No dredging of the property was done in connection with the installation. Chance Discovery After a complaint was registered with DEP about dredge and fill activity on one of the lots near Mr. Williams, Gary Woodiwiss, then an environmental specialist in the Department assigned to conduct inspections in Walton and Holmes Counties, visited the Cowford subdivision in July 2000. During the visit, Mr. Woodiwiss noticed the septic tank mound on Mr. Williams' property and that the mound, in part, consisted of fill dirt. Being of the opinion that the both the fill dirt and the septic tank system constituted "fill" and that the fill may have been deposited in jurisdictional wetlands, that is, "waters of the state," Mr. Woodiwiss consulted with DEP personnel about the status of the site and DEP jurisdiction. Ultimately, DEP determined that the site of the septic tank mound, within the flood plain of the Choctowhatchee River, was jurisdictional wetlands. The Department took action. DEP Action On November 16, 2000, Mr. Woodiwiss issued a memorandum to the DEP file with regard to "John Williams. Unauthorized Fill in Flood Plain." The memo states: Site is located next to Charles Riley who is the subject of Department action for filling jurisdictional wetlands. Williams was erroneously given a permit by Walton County health Dept. to install a septic system in 1999, which he subsequently installed. I visited the site with the administrator for the septic tanks program in Walton and she indicated that they would pay for the installation of a new system on a new lot for Mr. Williams. I recommend that the removal of the system and relocation of the inhabitants of the lot to an area outside of the immediate flood plain. P6. (emphasis supplied) Five days later, on November 21, 2002, a warning letter was generated by Mr. Woodiwiss under the signature of Bobby A. Cooley, Director of District Management for DEP. The letter advised Mr. Williams as follows: Recent Department survey data established at your property has determined that your entire lot is below the mean annual flood line of the Choctawhatchee River and is subject to dredge and fill jurisdiction of the Department. Any construction on the property including placement of a mobile home, septic tank and drainfield or other structures must first receive a dredge and fill permit from the Department. Preliminary assessment of your proposed development of the property indicates that you may not meet the public interest criteria of Chapters 403 and 373 Florida Statutes for qualifying for a permit. R5. By this letter the Department informed Mr. Williams both that he was in violation of the law by not having secured a permit for the filling of the site and warned that, on the basis of a preliminary assessment, it was not likely that he would be eligible for an after-the-fact permit. The assessment of whether the site was eligible for a permit was re-stated in writing again, but with added certainty in a Compliance Assessment Form (the Form) prepared by DEP personnel. In Section V. of the form, there appears, together with the signature of the "Section Permit Processor and a date of "11/09/2000", the following: Project is not permittable due to type of wetland system being impacted and project must not be "Contrary to the Public Interest". The project could affect the public health, safety and welfare and property of others. The project is of a permanent nature. P13. Although the permit processor entered her assessment on November 9, 2000, and other sections of the form were entered on November 1, 2000, by Mr. Woodiwiss, the Compliance Assessment Form bears a final date of February 1, 2001. The Form shows the "Event Chronology" that led to the issuance of the NOV. The chronology, consistent with the testimony at hearing, reveals the following: 25 Jul.00. Complaint inspection for fill in wetlands on adjacent lot. Found isolated fill areas in a slough and adjacent to an apparent upland area. Vegetation is 100% jurisdictional but soil is composed of alluvial deposits in ridge like configurations, one of which the respondent wished to live on. Solicited the jurisdictional team for a district assist in determining jurisdiction. 21 Aug.00. District assist. Hydrologic indicators and vegetation present in sufficient quantities to establish jurisdiction. John Tobe PhD. Requested that the mean annual flood be established on the site in order to augment his determination. October 11, 2000. District assist by Bureau of Survey and mapping and the establishment of a survey line of the 2.33 year (16.42 feet above MSL) mean annual flood elevation on the adjacent violation site. The whole site is clearly under the MAF, which extends approximately 200 meters up grade towards SR 20. The elevation of the MAF is consistent with hydrological indicators (porella pinnatta) that indicate such a flood elevation, as reported in previous studies. November 7, 2000. Met with Crystal Steele and Mike Curry of Walton County DOH to establish why Mr. Williams has a septic tank permit. They indicated that the permit was issued in error and that they would require the system to be moved. Ms. Steele stated that the County would pay for Mr. Williams to have a new system installed on another site because of the oversight. There are currently two moveable vehicles on the site, one of which is connected to the system, the other has a contained service for sewage. November 21, 2000. WLI [presumably Warning Letter Issued] November 27, 2000. Call to Mr. Williams. He wants to get money back or swap property for higher. I advised him to approach the owner Mr. Martin and make his situation known. January 22, 2000. Mr. Williams has refused to remove the fill and requests an NOV. P13, (emphasis supplied) MAF and Wetland Delineation There was considerable testimony introduced at hearing about establishment of the mean annual flood ("MAF") line for the purpose, among others, of its relationship to the elevation of the septic tank mound. The issue stemmed, no doubt, from Dr. Tobe's request that MAF be established in order to "augment his determination" with regard to DEP jurisdiction based on employment of the methodology in DEP's wetland delineation rule, see paragraph 13, above. Resolution of the issue is not necessary to augment the determination that all of lots 29 and 30 of the Cowford subdivision are located in wetlands that constitute "waters of the state." That the septic tank and the fill dirt were deposited on wetlands under the jurisdiction of DEP was clearly established by Dr. Tobe in his testimony at trial and the evidence in support of it. Petitioner concedes as much in his Proposed Final Order. Environmental Harm and Human Health Exposure Wetlands whose surface area is covered by the septic tank mound have been filled. The filling has caused environmental damage. An assessment of the damage was not offered at hearing but it appears from this record that the damage is minimal. During the time the septic tank has been on Mr. Williams' property, it has never been below the flood waters of the Choctawhatchee River and therefore has not yet caused direct hazard to human health. Corrective Action and Penalty It will be expensive to remove the septic tank; the expense will be more than the cost of installation. Petitioner fears, moreover, that it will render his property worthless. There is no evidence that Petitioner's violation of Department permitting requirements was willful. He has no history of violations previous to this one. Options to continued retention of a septic system through use of a portable wheeled waste remover or use of an upland drain field on another property are either not viable or so problematic as to be impractical. DEP Modification of its Position At the outset of the hearing, DEP announced that it no longer intended to seek civil penalties of $1,500 as it had intended when the NOV was issued. All that is sought by DEP by way of corrective action or penalty is removal of the septic tank and monetary reimbursement for the cost of the investigation of $250 (see Tr. 9, lls. 17-25, and Tr. 10, lls. 1-5.)
The Issue Whether Respondent, Virgil Cardin, d/b/a Virgil Cardin Septic Tank Service (Respondent or Cardin), committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint for Imposition of Administrative Fines and Revocation of Septic Tank Contractor License and Business Authorization, dated December 28, 2012, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering the Standards for Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems (SOSTDS). The installation, repair, and/or alteration of any septic tank system fall within the purview of Petitioner's authority. Public health concerns mandate that all septic tank systems be operated according to governing laws and rules. Respondent is a resident of the State of Florida and is registered by Petitioner to provide septic tank contracting services within the state. Respondent's registration number is SR0890865. Respondent owns and operates Virgil Cardin Septic Tank Service located in Lakeland, Florida, and the company is authorized to provide septic tank contracting services. The company's authorization number is SE093690. Septic tank contracting services are governed by SOSTDS. The Controversy It is undisputed that a permit must be obtained prior to performing repairs to a septic tank system. In Polk County (where all actions complained of occurred), a septic tank service company is required to apply for a permit before work is performed, obtain an inspection by appropriate authorities before beginning work, and complete all work in accordance with designated standards. A septic tank pump-out does not require a permit. Any work that would involve the exposure of the drain fields and/or the refitting of portions of the septic system would require a permit. The controversy in this case stems from Respondent's failure to obtain a permit before beginning repairs to a septic tank system located at 4931 Rolling Meadows Drive, Lakeland, Florida. It is undisputed that Respondent did not, in advance of starting work at the home, obtain a permit. The Arguments The Digans own a home located at 4931 Rolling Meadows Drive, Lakeland, Florida. For several years, the Digans have experienced problems with their septic tank system to the point that waste from the septic system has backed up into their home. Previously, Respondent addressed the Digans' septic tank system problems by pumping the waste from the tank, thereby eliminating pressure on the overwrought system. On or about August 24, 2012, Respondent went to the Digans' home and pumped out the septic tank. A permit for the work done that date was not required. Given the history of the problems with the Digans' system, it became apparent to the owners and Respondent that comprehensive repairs to the system were necessary. As there was no way to predict when another pump-out might be required, it was not surprising that approximately one week later Respondent returned to the Digans' property for additional work. On that date, September 1, 2012, Respondent could not pump out the Digans' tank, because his truck was already full. Instead, Respondent took a backhoe to the Digans' property and began to dig trenches for the drain field. Respondent's employee began to construct a septic drain line header pipe with drain field chamber end plates attached. Respondent exposed the Digans' septic system as if he were going to make repairs to the system. When confronted by two environmental supervisors who observed Respondent's actions, Respondent readily admitted he did not have a permit for the work. At first, Respondent stated that the homeowners could not afford permits. Later, Respondent maintained that the work he performed on September 1, 2012, did not require a permit. Petitioner maintains that Respondent went to the Digans' home on September 1, 2012, to make repairs to the septic tank system without prior inspection or a required permit. The Analysis Prior to September 1, 2012, Respondent knew or should have known that the Digans' septic tank system needed extensive repairs. Respondent had pumped out the tank several times and should have known that the system was not functioning as intended. Prior to September 1, 2012, Respondent knew or should have known that repairs to any septic tank system require an inspection and permit. On September 4, 2012, after being caught the prior Saturday on the Digans' property, Respondent applied for a permit for the repairs to the Digans' septic tank system. On September 5, 2012, a repair permit was issued for the Digans' property. On September 7, 2012, the repairs to the Digans' system were inspected and approved. There was no emergency on September 1, 2012, that necessitated repairs to the Digans' septic tank system on that date. Pumping out the Digans' tank on that date would have addressed any immediate concern. On-site inspections before septic tank systems are repaired are critical to public health because they assure that groundwater contamination is avoided, that the existing tank is sound and will function as intended, and that setbacks to other properties, wells, or systems are adequate. Respondent knew or should have known that performing any work before an inspection negates the safeguards to public health concerns. Respondent knew or should have known that the materials needed to adequately repair the Digans' septic tank system exceeded the chambers he took to the site on September 1, 2012. Digging up the Digans' system on September 1, 2012, created a sanitary nuisance. Respondent's History In the event a violation is found in this case, Respondent's disciplinary history would be relevant in considering what penalty, if any, should be imposed. To that end the following findings are made: Respondent has previously been found in violation of failing to call for a required inspection; and Respondent has previously been found in violation of practicing fraud or deceit, making misleading or untrue misrepresentations, or misconduct that causes no monetary harm to a customer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's authorizations to perform septic tank services be suspended for a period not less than 90 days. Additionally, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be required to pay an administrative fine in an amount not less than $2,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: John H. Armstrong, M.D., F.A.C.S. State Surgeon General Department of Health Bin A00 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Jennifer A. Tschetter, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Althea Gaines, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Tony C. Dodds, Esquire Law Office of Tony C. Dodds 904 South Missouri Avenue Lakeland, Florida 33803-1034 Roland Reis, Esquire Polk County Health Department 1290 Golfview Avenue, Fourth Floor Bartow, Florida 33830-6740
The Issue Whether Respondent’s license as a septic tank contractor should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is registered with Petitioner as a septic tank contractor and authorized to provide septic tank contracting services, holding Registration No. SR0890264 and Authorization No. SA0900453. David B. Grimes is employed by Bay County Health Department as an inspector responsible for the inspection of on- site sewage systems. On August 22, 2007, Mr. Grimes inspected an on-site sewage treatment disposal system (OSTDS) being constructed by Respondent at 5431 John Pitts Road, Panama City, Florida. The OSTDS failed to meet the minimum rule requirements due to a defective tank and improperly installed drainfield. The tank was defective because its dimensions were smaller than the dimensions required to enable the tank to have sufficient liquid capacity for the system being installed. Mr. Grimes told Respondent that he could not approve the system. Upon learning that the system would not be approved, Respondent, who is a large man and larger than the inspector, threatened to do bodily harm to Mr. Grimes and stated, “I am going to whip your ass”. He also used other profanity in a threatening and serious voice. The inspector began to put his tools into the tool container on the back of his truck. When the inspector attempted to close the container’s lid and leave, Respondent blocked the path of the inspector and would not let him close the truck-bed lid. Respondent insisted the system be inspected and approved so he could finish the job. Other than blocking his path, Respondent did not take any other physical action towards harming Mr. Grimes. Other than with his hands, the evidence did not show that Respondent had the means to cause serious harm to Mr. Grimes. However, Mr. Grimes felt some fear for his safety and was very uncomfortable. He refused to approve the system and left the premises. He called his supervisor to report the incident and request a second inspection by his supervisor. Later that day, Mr. Grimes and his supervisor inspected the OSTDS. Respondent was not present. The inspector concurred with Mr. Grimes’ findings and the system was not approved. On August 23, 2007, Mr. Grimes made a second visit to the property to continue the inspection of the OSTDS. The drainfield was corrected and a new and larger tank was installed. The dimensions of the tank were again smaller than required to meet the liquid capacity of the tank. Additionally, the tank had a gap in the seal around the intake feed line. It was, therefore, defective and could not be approved. Mr. Grimes told Respondent that he could not approve the system. Respondent again grew angry when he was told the new tank was also defective and would not be approved. Respondent stated that Mr. Grimes was the worst inspector in the area and made other derogatory remarks towards him. Respondent also threatened to make trouble with the inspector’s employment and/or “get him fired” unless the system was passed. The evidence did not show that Respondent made any physical moves toward Respondent or otherwise impeded his inspection. The inspector was again fearful for his personal safety although the evidence did not demonstrate a reasonable basis for such fear. The OSTDS was not approved and Mr. Grimes left the work site. There was no evidence that Respondent followed through with interfering with Mr. Grimes’ employment. At best, the evidence showed that Respondent’s threat to interfere with the inspector’s employment was mere hyperbole. Such comments are common. While silly and rude, the mere threat of an employment action does not rise to the level of being unlawful and does not demonstrate misconduct sufficient to impose discipline on Respondent’s license. On the other hand, the actions of Respondent towards the inspector when he threatened to do bodily harm to the inspector, and blocking his attempts to leave unless he approved the system, did constitute gross misconduct on the part of Respondent. Even though Respondent’s actions were unsuccessful, Respondent’s words coupled with his conduct go beyond mere hyperbole and constitute an unlawful threat towards a public official to influence the official’s actions. Respondent’s actions did not cause physical or monetary harm to any person. In the past, Respondent was disciplined by letter of warning in Case Number SC0478 in 2000, for covering a new installation in violation of the system construction standards and by citation in Case Number SC0591 in 2001, for creation of a sanitary nuisance, negligence, misconduct, and falsification of inspection report. The instant violation is a second violation for misconduct and a repeat violation of the rules of the Department.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license be disciplined for violations of the Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.022 and that his Septic Tank Contractor License No. SR0890264 and Authorization No. SA0900453 be fined in the amount of $500.00 and suspended for 90 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 5th day of May, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney M. Johnson, Esquire Department of Health Northwest Law Office 1295 West Fairfield Drive Pensacola, Florida 32501 G. D. Yon, Jr. Yon Septic Tank Co. 2988 Hwy 71 Marianna, Florida 32446 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Ana M. Viamonte-Ros, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Josefina M. Tamayó, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Rayco Properties, Inc. d/b/a Woody's Septic Tank Service is a company authorized by the State of Florida to perform septic tank construction and repair services. All of its contractors and other employees have practiced in the septic system business for many years. The registered contractor, who is the company qualifier, is the person responsible for all contracting services performed by the septic company and for compliance with the applicable regulatory statutes and rules. Donald P. Roberts is a registered septic tank contractor for Woody's Septic Tank Service. At all times material to these causes, he was the company's sole qualifier. At all times material, he was responsible for obtaining all necessary permits for the company. DHRS is the agency responsible for septic contractor registration, septic tank company authorization, and the enforcement of the statutes and rules pertaining to registration and authorization pursuant to Chapters 381 and 489, Part III, F.S. and Chapter 10D-6 F.A.C. This includes the authority to cite, fine, and to suspend or revoke registrations and authorizations. Donald P. Roberts has never previously been cited by the agency. Before 1991, permits were not required for repairs to septic systems. However, at all times material to these causes, repair, installation, and abandonment permits had to be obtained from DHRS, usually through its local units in the respective county public health unit offices. These offices take septic system permit applications, perform site evaluations, issue permits, and perform final inspections. At all times material, no permits were required for replacing dosing pumps, fixing cracked dosing tanks, maintenance of existing systems or service of existing systems. No permits were necessary for replacing a D (or distribution) box, which is a non-mechanical, non-electrical item that serves as a distribution point for pipes. At all times material, the act of installing a dosing tank was a repair that required a permit. At all times material, the act of abandoning a septic tank (pumping it out, punching a hole in it, filling it with dirt and covering it or hauling it away) also required a permit. The standard operating procedure for obtaining a septic system permit is as follows: 1) the contractor or landowner submits a permit application with a plot/site plan to the agency's county office; 2) the agency conducts a site evaluation, sometimes including soil borings and/or a percolation test; 3) the agency reviews and issues the permit; 4) the contractor performs the permitted work; 5) the contractor calls the agency for inspection before covering up with earth; 6) agency inspection occurs and the project is approved OR the contractor is told of a violation, perhaps cited therefor, and must fix any problems pointed out by the agency inspector. If there is a violation to be corrected, the contractor is supposed to call DHRS for re-inspections until the problem is solved and the job is approved by the agency. Some jobs are so routine that some county offices do not do a site inspection before septic system work is done or reinspect after septic system work is done. This appears to be discretionary within the local office. However, if a violation is noted, the problem must be corrected and reinspected or negotiated out. See Finding of Fact 15. An approved plot/site plan becomes part of the permit when the permit is issued, and contractors are expected to adhere to the combined items. Permits state the requirements for the project or job. If a contractor experiences problems on a particular job, such as a well that does not show up on the plot/site plan, he is expected to contact the local public health unit to try to resolve the issue. "Resolution" has traditionally been to revise the plot/site plan or modify the permit. In past years, this has been an informal procedure, sometimes accomplished by telephone calls from the field, sometimes by negotiations in the public health office. All but one of the alleged violations (the Mahalik property) in these causes arose after DHRS decided to strictly require contractors to stop work and apply for and receive a formal modification of the permit or a new permit when unforeseen problems were encountered on any particular job. This procedure was codified in new Rule 60D-6.044(5) F.A.C., effective January 3, 1995. At approximately the same time, DHRS also adopted a policy of forbidding its personnel to discuss such field problems with, or to issue permits to, anyone other than the qualifying registered contractor for each authorized septic tank company. The agency has pointed to no specific statute or rule which provides that only a qualifying registered contractor may pull a DHRS permit or which forbids DHRS personnel discussing modifying a permit with any other company employees. However, it is clear that only registered contractors may pull permits. Two exceptions are recognized: A landowner or homeowner may pull a permit for septic system work with septic system contractors as their "agents"; and in locations where DHRS has an agreement with a city or county plumbing permit office, DHRS acknowledges the local plumbing permits and does not require owners or plumbers to also pull a separate septic system permit from DHRS's local public health unit. I. Case No. 95-5973 Deltona Hills Golf & Country Club Respondents applied for a permit to do repairs to a septic system for Deltona Golf & Country Club on August 7, 1995. A dosing tank is a mechanical device which lifts wastewater to a drainfield. DHRS issued a permit to Respondent to replace the dosing tank with a 900 gallon tank. The original tank being replaced was a 50 gallon tank. Respondents properly abandoned the existing 50 gallon dosing tank and installed the high water alarm, but they installed a 750 gallon tank, contrary to the express terms of the permit. Travis Vickers, then DHRS's Environmental Specialist in the Volusia County Health Unit, ultimately cited Respondents for not complying with the permit and for not calling for re-inspection after the discrepancy in tank size was brought to their attention. Respondents' reason for installing the 750 gallon tank was that they had used a 3:1 ratio to the drainfield which is codified in the agency rules. Thereby, they determined that a 714 gallon tank would be the ideal size tank to install. Then they simply installed the next largest size tank without reference to the permit. Respondents' employees also maintained that when Mr. Vickers notified them they had installed the wrong size tank, they contacted someone else in the local county public health unit and that person orally approved the smaller size tank they had already installed. Therefore, they did not call Mr. Vickers again for re-inspection. The person who supposedly gave the oral authorization was not called to testify, and no written permit modifications or amendment were made, as required by the agency rules then in effect. In this light, Respondents' excuses for failing to install the 900 gallon tank according to permit specifications and failure to call for a re-inspection are not credible. Therefore, it is clear that Respondents installed a smaller tank contrary to the permit specifications and received no modification of permit as required by agency rules in effect at the material time. In making the foregoing findings of fact, I have not overlooked the fact that there are several ways to calculate the appropriate size of a dosing tank; that during his testimony, Mr. Vickers, himself, demonstrated at least two ways of calculating; or that Mr. Vickers' 900 gallon figure on the permit arose in part from considerations in addition to the published agency rules, which additional considerations were the result of workshops with septic system contractors and DHRS personnel which had been reduced to written form in a document nicknamed "the memo from hell," to which Respondent had no access in August 1995. However, that memorandum was designed to help DHRS personnel interpret the code and issue the permit. Its use by agency personnel in issuing a permit does not absolve the contractor of the responsibility to install the system according to the permit as issued, nor does it allow the contractor to unilaterally recalculate tank capacity at will on some other basis. At Deltona Golf & Country Club, Respondents simply did not follow the permit requirements or replace the wrong size tank and call for re-inspection. The fact that Respondents were able to demonstrate alternative methodologies of computation does not change those salient facts. Case No. 95-5973 Pine Street, Enterprise Florida a/k/a the Gleasons' Job Respondents applied for a repair permit for 450 Pine Street, Enterprise, Florida. Mr. and Mrs. Gleason, referred to by some witnesses as "the homeowners," were actually leasing the property. DHRS issued the permit to Respondents on October 3, 1995. It was valid for 90 days. The repair job occurred during a rainy period when the water table was high. Respondents had to drill wellpoints to lower the water table. Further, they were hindered by rain, mud, muck, and debris on the property. A two days' job turned into 15 days' work. Respondents finally installed the drainfield in a slightly different location than the approved location shown on the plot/site plan. Although contrary to the permit, Respondents' installation met minimum 10D-6 F.A.C. requirements, including those for setbacks. Respondents' employees testified that they chose to place the drainfield in an unpermitted location so as accommodate the Gleasons' urgent need for a septic system, because they considered the different location necessary to comply with Chapter 10D-6 F.A.C.'s setback requirements, and because the northeast corner where the drainfield had been permitted was covered with too much muck, and too many stumps, old tires, and pieces of tin and fencing to proceed there. In the experience of Respondent Donald P. Roberts, and Willie Suggs and Jerry Thompson, who also are registered septic contractors, drainfields are not always installed according to the plot/site plan, but the location may be negotiated with DHRS prior to inspection. Respondents claimed to have received oral authorization to relocate the drainage field from an official in the local public health unit, but that person did not testify. Also, Respondents admitted they never applied for a permit modification in writing or obtained an amended permit, as required after January 3, 1995. Therefore, the concept of an oral permit modification is not credible. See, Findings of Fact 15-16. Mr. Vickers inspected the work performed by Respondents on October 17, 1995. He arrived five hours late, creating bad feelings in Respondents. On October 18, 1995, Mr. Vickers notified Respondents that they had located the drainfield in a different area than the area shown on the plot/site plan and approved by the permit. After the violation notice was issued, Mr. Vickers refused to talk to anyone associated with the Respondent company except Donald P. Roberts, the qualified registered contractor, thereby creating further bad feelings in Respondents. To put it mildly, communication between the parties broke down completely. The Gleasons had sent a demand that Respondents complete the Pine Street project by October 25, 1995, but then, approximately October 18, 1995, they hired Acme Septic to complete the project. On October 19, 1995, Acme pulled a DHRS permit for the same repair project in which Respondents were mired at the Pine Street location. Acme then installed the drainfield in the same general area as shown on Respondents' permit's original plot/site plan. In doing so, Acme used Respondents' materials and built on their prior work. Acme successfully installed the drainfield as required by the permit and all agency rules. Under the circumstances, Respondents felt they had no duty to call Mr. Vickers for re-inspection of their discarded work. Despite considerable use of the word "abandonment," Respondents technically remain charged only with failure to comply with the permit and failure to call for re-inspection on the Pine Street Job. Case No. 96-0573 Avocado Street a/k/a The Hale Project The Avocado Street Project was a private residence to which Respondents were originally called to do repair work on a septic system. Many septic repairs do not require a permit. See Findings of Fact 8- Also, repair permits are not required where a problem is discovered on a larger project which has already been permitted, but if contractors discover a problem during the course of an unpermitted repair, which problem would otherwise require its own permit, contractors were expected, post-January 3, 1995, to stop work and obtain an (amended) permit. See Rule 10D-6.044(5) F.A.C. and Finding of Fact 16. Replacement of "like kind" parts of a dosing tank such as a pump, do not require a permit. Repair of a crack in a dosing or septic tank does not require a permit. Replacement of an entire dosing tank or septic tank unless there is already an umbrella permit does require a new permit. See above, Findings of Fact 9 and 10. It is not standard practice for DHRS to inspect/evaluate the site before a replacement permit or an abandonment permit is issued. Such inspections are discretionary in practice and such permits are often issued on the spot at the time of application. See Findings of Fact 12 and 13. At Avocado Street, Respondents pumped out the Hales' septic tank and discovered that the dosing pump was not working. Respondents replaced the pump, but also discovered that the existing dosing tank was inadequate. Due to the inadequacy of the existing dosing tank, dosing pumps repeatedly had burned up. Respondents sent an employee to pull a DHRS permit for replacement of the existing dosing tank, which permit they felt could be pulled immediately. Then they proceeded, without permit in hand, to replace the dosing pump and install a larger dosing tank. Andrew Trapp, DHRS' Environmental Health Specialist in the Orange City office, became aware of the Avocado Street situation only because of a phone call from an employee of the Respondent company asking if a permit had ever been issued. Because a permit never had been issued, Trapp's suspicion was aroused. Therefore, he performed the discretionary onsite inspection and found the new dosing tank. The Avocado Street work of Respondents did not represent a public nuisance. The agency intentionally and violationally issued an after-the-fact permit to Mr. Hale with an employee of Respondent as Mr. Hale's agent on August 23-24, 1995. Any other suggested dates for this permit application are rejected as computer error. The project was reinspected by agency personnel who oversaw Respondents' employees repair a tank leak. DHRS finally approved the whole project. II. Case 96-0573 Clyde Morris Boulevard a/k/a The IWS or BFI Job The Clyde Morris Boulevard property was leased by IWS/BFI from the City of Daytona Beach. Mastercraft Plumbing was the prime contractor responsible for connecting an existing septic system on the Clyde Morris Boulevard property to a public sewer system. Mastercraft hired Respondents to handle the abandonment of a septic tank which Mastercraft was replacing. Abandonment is more fully described above in Finding of Fact 10. Although DHRS presented some hearsay to the effect that Mastercraft expected Respondents to obtain the DHRS abandonment permit, there is no direct evidence for such hearsay to support or explain. Contrary evidence was presented that persons within the IWS/BFI hierarchies had led Respondents to believe that Mastercraft had pulled the necessary DHRS permit or an umbrella plumbing permit which would cover Respondents' abandonment activities. See, Finding of Fact 19. However, there is no direct, competent, or conclusive evidence one way or the other. Respondents' actual abandonment work was completed on or about April 10, 1995. Respondents charged Mastercraft for the work but not for pulling any abandonment permit from DHRS, because Respondents did not pull any such permit. Once Respondents discovered that Mastercraft had not pulled the DHRS septic permit, Jerry Thompson, as an employee of Respondent company, pulled a permit as Mastercraft's agent on May 9, 1995. As previously stated, pre- inspection is not standard practice and DHRS abandonment permits are often issued in a single day. II. Case No. 96-0573 Bridal (or Briddle) Path Lane a/k/a Oakridge Acres a/k/a Mrs. Mahalik's Property Respondents were called to repair a septic tank at Mrs. Mahalik's home on Bridal Path Lane in October 1994. Most of the work did not require DHRS permits. See Findings of Fact 8-10. Respondents charged Mrs. Mahalik, among other things, for installing a new 300 gallon dosing tank. Approximately four months later, in February 1995, Mrs. Mahalik telephoned the Flagler County Public Health Unit and asked whether Respondents' repair had been permitted. DHRS had no record of it. An after-the-fact application was made for the job and a permit for the Mahalik job was issued in March 1995 to Mrs. Mahalik with Respondent company as her agent. Replacement of a dosing tank required a permit under Rule 10D-6.043 F.A.C. in 1994 but Rule 10D-6.044(5) F.A.C., requiring the stoppage of work while applying for an amended permit, did not exist until January 3, 1995.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order finding Respondents Donald P. Roberts and Rayco Properties, Inc. d/b/a Woody's Septic Tank Service guilty as set out in the Conclusions of Law and assessing against both Donald P. Roberts and the company, jointly and severally a total fine of $4,450 and suspending both for 120 days from the date of the final order. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of November, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of November, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is registered with Petitioner for performing septic tank contracting services. In early 1991, Mr. Dennis Scott purchased a single family residence at 19169 Acorn Road in Ft. Myers. He purchased it as a rental property. About a year later, he began having problems with the septic tank system. He had the tank pumped out, but the problem returned a short time later. Mr. Scott told his maintenance man to contract with someone to fix the septic tank system. The maintenance man contacted Respondent. They agreed that Respondent would repair the system for $925. The record is silent as to specifically what the maintenance man told Respondent or what he told the maintenance man. In any event, Respondent and Mr. Scott did not converse. Respondent enlarged the existing drainfield, although the record does not indicate that he did so because he was asked to do so by the maintenance man or because Respondent thought that this repair would fix the problem. On May 28, 1992, Respondent and a team of employees appeared at the Acorn Road address to repair the septic tank system. Respondent left the site shortly after the men began work. Mr. Scott had nothing to do with the hiring of Respondent or even with paying him. Because Mr. Scott was unavailable, a friend wrote Respondent a check when the job was finished, and Mr. Scott later repaid the friend. On August 25, 1992, the system backed up again. Mr. Scott was not alarmed because of recent heavy rains. When the system backed up again a month later, Mr. Scott called Respondent, but could not get a call returned at first. Eventually, someone at Respondent's business said that he would come out and take a look at the system. In early December, 1992, the system backed up again and no one had come out to look at it from Respondent's business. At the request of Mr. Scott, another contractor visited the site and, on December 14, 1992, dug up the drainfield. The original drainfield had been installed improperly so as to run slightly uphill. This caused the system to operate inefficiently, although hydraulic pressure was evidently strong enough to draw the sewage through the drainfield. The record is unclear whether the extension installed by Respondent also ran uphill or whether Respondent improperly designed the extension. Mr. Scott and the second contractor testified that the extension ran uphill. However, one of Petitioner's inspectors inspected the drainfield addition before it was covered and certified that it was acceptable, which meant that it did not run uphill. The source of conflicting evidence, inasmuch as it comes from an employee of Petitioner, undermines Petitioner's case. The record is equally deficient to hold Respondent liable for poor design of the Acorn Road drainfield. There is no indication of what Mr. Scott wanted or, more importantly, what the maintenance man told Respondent. In any event, the evidence does not establish that Respondent installed an uphill drainfield. In early 1994, a house was listed for sale at 817 Gleason Parkway in Cape Coral. The listing agent informed the agent who had found a prospective buyer that there might be a problem with the septic tank system. The agent called Respondent's business and asked for a preclosing inspection of the septic tank system. The parties postponed the closing until the inspection could be completed and any necessary funds reserved to fix the system. The drainfield for the septic tank system at 817 Gleason Parkway was elevated due to the relatively high water table in the area. Even so, the system was poorly designed because the drainfield was too low and too small, based upon applicable requirements of law at the time of the original construction of the system and its renovation five years ago. Respondent was familiar with the system. He had reconstructed the system in 1990, although he did not redesign the new system, and had maintained the system since. He was aware that the tank had an automatic alarm that sounded when the fluid level became too high. In fact, Respondent conducted a cursory inspection due to his reliance on the automatic alarm in the tank, the imminent availability of centralized sewer service in the area, and possibly his unwillingness to disappoint a real estate agent by jeopardizing a pending sale. Among other omissions was his failure to probe the drainfield to determine its condition. Had Respondent conducted a competent inspection, he would have found that the stones in the drainfield were greasy, indicative of a failing system. Much of the time sewage water stagnated beside the drainfield mound. If pooled water were not present at the time of his inspection, the tall dollarweed growing on the mound should have alerted him to the prevailing damp conditions. Additionally, Respondent should have noticed lawnmower tracks through the typically soaked areas around the drainfield, as well as the thick grass that was uncut due to the soaked ground under it. Although water may not have been erupting from the drainfield mound at the time of Respondent's inspection, a reasonably close examination of the area would have revealed a small hole where sewage had erupted in the recent past from the mound. Instead, Respondent certified on April 4, 1994, that the "septic tank was in good working order." Respondent had been contacted to inspect the septic tank system, including the drainfield. Respondent was aware of the scope of his assignment, and his certification implied that the entire system was in good working order. Within two weeks after Respondent's certification, the system failed completely. Petitioner ordered the new owner to incur substantial expenses to repair the onsite system until he could tie into centralized sewer services.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order imposing against Respondent a $500 administrative fine and suspending his license for 90 days. ENTERED on March 30, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on March 30, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-2: adopted or adopted in substance. 3: rejected as recitation of evidence and subordinate. 4-5: adopted or adopted in substance. 6-15: rejected as recitation of evidence and subordinate. 16: adopted or adopted in substance. 17-19: adopted or adopted in substance. 20: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-2: adopted or adopted in substance. 3-4: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, recitation of evidence, and subordinate. 5: rejected as irrelevant. 6: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, recitation of evidence, and subordinate. 7-9: rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. 10: rejected as irrelevant. The rule speaks of harm to any "person," not to a customer or other person in privity with the contractor. 11: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 12: adopted or adopted in substance, but Petitioner's indirect responsibility does not excuse Respondent's grossly incompetent inspection of the system. 13-14: adopted or adopted in substance. 15: rejected as unnecessary. 16-17: rejected as subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Mastin Scott, Senior Attorney Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services P.O. Box 60085 Ft. Myers, FL 33906 Thomas B. Hart Humphrey & Knott, P.A. P.O. Box 2449 Ft. Myers, FL 33902-2449 Kim Tucker, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Robert L. Powell Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
