The Issue This case arises out of the Petitioner's objection to the issuance of a septic tank permit for property adjacent to his lot in Panama City Beach, Florida. The sole issue before the Hearing Officer, as alleged by Petitioner's pleading, is whether the applicant's permit for septic tank should be denied on the basis that it is in violation of Rule 10D-6.24, Florida Administrative Code, which requires that no septic tank be placed within 75 feet of a private water supply well. On November 15, 1982, by certified mail, the Bay County Health Department notified Petitioner of its intent to grant a permit for a septic tank at 6713 Gulf Drive, Panama City Beach, Florida. Thereafter, on December 13, 1982, Respondent filed a petition for formal proceeding, objecting to the issuance of the aforementioned permit and requesting a formal hearing. Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held at which the Petitioner testified on his own behalf and also called Paul Miller, an Environmental Sanitarian for the Bay County Health Department as a witness. Respondents called as witnesses Michael Sarra, Bay County Health Department, William Curtis Wright, and Thomas F. Gladstone. Petitioner offered and had admitted two exhibits and Respondents offered and had admitted three exhibits. The Petitioner, subsequent to the formal hearing, filed with the undersigned Hearing Officer two late-filed exhibits. No permission had been granted or requested at the formal hearing for the filing of late-filed exhibits and, therefore, those exhibits were neither considered nor utilized as a basis for the Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law in this Recommended Order. Petitioner submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those findings of fact are not adopted herein, they were considered by the undersigned Hearing Officer and determined to be irrelevant to the issues in this cause or not supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact On or about June 15, 1982, Mr. Dewayne Dilmore, by and through his contractor, Tom Gladstone, applied for a septic tank permit for a new residence located at 6713 Gulf Drive, Panama City Beach, Florida (See Petitioner's Exhibit B). After a required change in the design drawings reducing the structure from a 3-bedroom to a 2-bedroom residence, the application was determined to be in compliance with all statutory and regulatory requirements and was approved by the Bay County Health Department. Petitioner, Samuel M. Torrence, owns a residence at 6715 Gulf Drive, Panama City Beach, Florida. This home is west of and contiguous to Mr. Dilmore's lot. In response to a Notice of Intent to issue a septic tank permit for the adjacent lot, 6713 Gulf Drive, Mr. Torrence objected on the grounds that such septic tank would be located within 75 feet of his private water supply well. Prior to the June 15, 1982, application by Mr. Dilmore, there was an existing septic tank on Mr. Dilmore's lot. This septic tank had been on the lot since April, 1961. The Petitioner's home at 6715 Gulf Drive was constructed in 1968 or 1969. 4 The replacement septic tank on the applicant's lot will be located farther from the Petitioner's property than the existing septic tank. The testimony of Paul Miller and Michael Sarra, along with the approved application, establish that the application of Dewayne Dilmore and the proposed replacement septic tank meet all requirements of Rule 10D-6.24, Florida Administrative Code, and Florida Statute 381.272(1982). Approximately two years ago, Mr. Torrence had his home at 6715 Gulf Drive hooked into city water, and has no private well hooked up to any of the pipes of his home. Although the Petitioner contended that the replacement septic tank would be within 75 feet of a private well on his property, there was no evidence in the record of the specific location on his property of a private well or any measurements he had made. The evidence does not show that there is in fact a private well within 75 feet of the location of the replacement septic tank. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has an established policy of grandfathering existing septic tanks, and this policy permits the septic tank on the Dilmore property as a replacement of an existing septic tank regardless of whether said tank would be located within 75 feet of a private water supply well on the Petitioner's property.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is:: RECOMMENDED: That the permit for septic tank be issued and Petitioner's request to halt issuance should be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 12 day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS 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 12 day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Samuel M. Torrence Post Office Box 7106 Dothan, Alabama 36302 John Pearce, Esquire Department of HRS 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Mr. Mike Sarra and Mr. Paul Miller Bay County Health Department Post Office Box 1728 Panama City, Florida 32402 Mr. David H. Pingree Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), should fine the Respondent, William Loiacano, d/b/a Gulf Coast Food Distributors, Inc., for maintaining a sanitary nuisance.2/
Findings Of Fact In 1990,6/ the Respondent, William Loiacano, d/b/a Gulf Coast Food Distributors, Inc., purchased property at 8402 Lemon Road, Port Richey, Florida, for purposes of relocating his on-going food distributing business. The prior owner operated a carpet business, with approximately five employees, at the location. The Respondent had about 45-50 employees. Shortly after the Respondent started doing business at the new location, he began to have problems with the existing septic tank system. The problem seemed to relate to the increased use of the toilets in the building by the added number of the Respondent's employees. In September, 1990, an HRS environmental health specialist inspected the premises and observed evidence of raw sewage bubbling to the surface from the septic system's drain field and flowing into a stormwater retention pond on the property.7/ The Respondent was directed to abate the nuisance, and a discussion of the Respondent's alternatives ensued. The Respondent rejected the first proposed alternative of connecting to a central public sewer. The nearest connection was over 1000 feet away and would entail significant cost to the Respondent. (The cost would have been even higher if gravity flow was not possible, and it became necessary to pump to the connection point.) The Respondent chose, with HRS' permission, the next alternative of trying to solve the problem by installing a second septic tank system on the property. The second septic tank system for which the Respondent applied, and which he had built, was designed for domestic use by 15 employees. In addition, after installation of the second septic tank system, the Respondent began processing a relish pack and a salad mix on the premises. The processing method for these products required the use of a great deal of water. On or about February 7, 1991, another HRS environmental health specialist inspected the premises and again found evidence of raw sewage bubbling to the surface, this time from the new septic system's drain field, and flowing into the stormwater retention pond. The amount of water flowing into the drainfields, from a combination of the use of the toilets in the building, together with the new processing operations taking place in the building, had overtaxed the double septic tank system, and the system failed. Given the quantities of water needed to process the new products, the Respondent should have anticipated, and probably was aware of, the system failure. The Respondent was directed to fix the problem within a week or stop the processing the new products on the premises. The Respondent tried several water conservation methods in an attempt to address the problem without having to either stop processing the new products or incur the cost of connecting to the central public sewer system. He knew, or should have known, that his efforts were futile, given the quantities of water needed to process the relish pack and salad mix. HRS also referred the matter to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. DER inspected on or about February 18, 1991, and told the Respondent that he could not dispose of the industrial waste from the operation of his business in the on-premises septic system without an industrial waste disposal permit. In connection with this, DER apparently advised the Respondent that he would be required to test the water in the stormwater retention pond for certain contaminants. The Respondent was unable to understand what he needed to test for, and how, and sought assistance from DER and HRS. Although there is evidence that HRS tried to help the Respondent by referring him to certain individuals employed by the DER for answers, the Respondent did not follow HRS' guidance. In any case, the efforts would have been futile, as the Respondent did not have enough property to dispose of the industrial wastes from the operation of his business on-site using a septic tank system. On or about June 19, 1991, a neighbor complained to the Respondent about the smell of raw sewage coming from the Respondent's septic system. The Respondent did not receive his neighbor's observations kindly. The neighbor complained to HRS and the Pasco County Sheriff's office. An HRS inspection on June 20, 1991, confirmed the existence of a sanitary nuisance on the premises. Again, raw sewage was bubbling to the surface from the new septic system's drain field and was flowing into the stormwater retention pond. HRS arranged for another meeting with the Respondent on June 27, 1991. At the June 27, 1991, meeting, HRS required that the Respondent stop processing the relish pack and the salad mix until he could hook up to the central public sewer. It was felt that the septic tank systems might be adequate pending connection to the central public sewer if the quantities of water required for processing those products on the premises were eliminated and if other preventive measures were taken. From June 27, 1991, forward to the date of the hearing, the Respondent purchased relish pack and salad mix from other suppliers rather than process them on the premises at 8402 Lemon Road. In addition, the Respondent continued to attempt to conserve water, had the septic tanks pumped out as frequently as required (sometimes practically daily), and had his employees utilize portable toilets in an attempt to avoid additional septic tank failures. After learning that excessive water use at the premises was partially a result of plumbing leaks, the Respondent also had the plumbing fixed. The Respondent also immediately initiated the long process of connecting to the central public sewer. He had a meeting with the assistant county administrator for utilities service for Pasco County on July 3, 1991. They discussed alternatives for connecting the Respondent's business. Initially, the County wanted the Respondent to pay to run a sewer line over 1000 feet to the south of his property to enable the County to efficiently connect other businesses and property owners in that area. But this option would have been costly to the Respondent, and there was no guarantee that gravity flow was possible between the Respondent's property and the connection point. If not, the Respondent also would have to pay the cost of pumping to the connection point. The Respondent hired an engineer to design an alternative that would be less costly. He also sought the cooperation of his neighbors, who would be required to connect to central sewer when the Respondent did. The engineer also worked with those neighbors in designing an alternate connection. On or about September 9, 1991, another meeting was held among the Respondent and his engineer and the county's utilites construction team. As a result of this meeting, the County agreed to modify the connection route in accordance with the Respondent's proposal. The Respondent's engineer continued his work on the design of the connection. HRS inspections on or about September 11 and 25, 1991, revealed that the Respondent's septic system was failing again and that raw sewage again was bubbling to the surface from the new septic system's drain field and flowing into the stormwater retention pond. HRS arranged to meet with the Respondent again on October 4, 1991, along with a Pasco County deputy sheriff and a DER industrial wastewater compliance inspector. At this meeting, the Respondent felt that the deputy sheriff was threatening to arrest him for violation of the law, and he angrily terminated the meeting and asked all of them to leave the premises. In December, 1991, the Respondent arranged a meeting with the County and his neighbors to discuss sharing the cost of the connection route the Respondent was proposing to build. The neighbors, realizing the Respondent's weak bargaining position, refused to share the Respondent's costs. At this point, the County conceded to pay the approximate $9,000 to jack and bore under the road, but the Respondent was required to pay to run a sewer line approximately 300 feet to the south and to construct a manhole on his neighbors' side of the road, as well as on his side of the road. (The second manhole would be used by the neighbors to connect their properties to the line the Respondent was building when the County required them to connect.) The total cost to the Respondent for his part of the construction of the connection to the public sewer will be approximately $24,000. On January 17, 1992, the Respondent paid a $3,428 impact fee for connecting to the central public sewer, based on projected water use. On January 23, 1992, the Respondent applied for a force main interconnect permit. At the time of the final hearing, the jack and bore and the construction of the new sewer line connecting the Respondent's property to the central sewer were about to begin. The evidence indicates that, once HRS made it clear to the Respondent on or about June 27, 1991, that connection to the central public sewer was the Respondent's only remaining option, the Respondent moved with reasonable dispatch. The time it took to arrange to be connected to the public sewer was within normal ranges, and there is no evidence that the Respondent did anything to cause unnecessary delays. (Delays, if any, were caused by the need for the Respondent's engineer to work with and get cooperation from the Respondent's neighbors, who were not as anxious as the Respondent to have the new sewer line built.) There also is no evidence that the Respondent processed relish pack or salad mix on the premises after June 27, 1991. In addition, the Respondent continued to attempt to conserve water, had the septic tanks pumped out frequently (sometimes practically daily), and had his employees utilize portable toilets in an attempt to avoid additional septic tank failures. The evidence also indicates that, after June 27, 1991, all concerned were hopeful that the measures the Respondent was taking would prevent, or at least minimize, septic system failures pending connection to the public sewer. After June 27, 1991, HRS presented direct evidence of septic tank system failures only on two occasions in September, 1991. The evidence is that, after becoming aware of the system failures in September, 1991, HRS sought the imposition of a fine against the Respondent. The evidence suggests two other important motivating reasons for HRS' action: first, not being aware of the actions the Respondent took between June 27 and September, 1991, to connect to the central sewer, HRS mistakenly believed that the Respondent was ignoring its instructions; and, second, HRS mistook the Respondent's angry outburst at the meeting at the Respondent's place of business in September, 1991, when he felt he was being threatened with arrest for violation of the law, as being evidence that the Respondent was not genuine in his apparent concern and efforts to respond to HRS' guidance and instruction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) enter a final order fining the Respondent, William Loiacano, d/b/a Gulf Coast Food Distributors, Inc., in the amount of $5,000. RECOMMENDED this 29 day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 day of April, 1992.
The Issue At issue in DOAH Case No. 04-4333 is whether Respondent committed the two violations of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.022 alleged in the citation issued on September 29, 2004, and, if so, whether the imposition of a $1,000.00 fine was properly imposed. At issue in DOAH Case No. 05-0695 is whether Respondent committed the three violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint issued on February 21, 2005, and, if so, whether his septic tank contractor registration should be revoked or some lesser penalty imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing the statutory provisions pertaining to the practice of septic tank contracting in Florida pursuant to Chapter 489, Part III, and Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes (2004). At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent Matt Beebe, was a registered septic tank contractor, having been issued registration number SR0971283, and was the qualifying contractor for his business, Southern Sanitation, Inc. ("Southern Sanitation"), having been issued registration number SA0970864. On June 7, 2001, Mr. Beebe was cited for installing a septic system without a permit, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.022, and paid a fine of $500.00 without contest. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Beebe also operated a septage disposal service business under the Southern Sanitation name, having been issued operating permit number 11-QN-0054. Improper Septage Disposal and Sanitary Nuisance On September 29, 2004, Kenneth Rech, the Department's environmental health and engineering director for Collier County, received a telephone complaint that a Southern Sanitation septage hauling truck had been seen emptying its contents onto a vacant lot at 295 Brandy Lane in Naples. Mr. Rech and his assistant, James Miller, drove out to the location to investigate the complaint. When he arrived at the location, Mr. Rech first spoke to the complainant, who lived across the street from the vacant lot. The complainant estimated that the Southern Sanitation truck left the lot about 20 minutes before Mr. Rech arrived. Mr. Rech and Mr. Miller investigated the site. Mr. Rech described the area containing the dumped contents of the truck as a low-lying wetland. The property was about ten acres in size. The owner kept horses on the lot. Mr. Rech testified that there was a strong smell of septage, though the dumped contents were light gray in color. Raw septage is generally black. Based on the smell, Mr. Rech concluded that the dumped contents included septage mixed with some other material. Mr. Rech telephoned Erin Kurbec to meet him at the dump site. Ms. Kurbec is a Department employee responsible for oversight of septage hauling and disposal businesses. Ms. Kurbec in turn phoned Mr. Beebe and asked him to come to the site. Mr. Rech testified that Mr. Beebe was "very agitated" when he arrived at the dump site, calling Ms. Kurbec a "liar," and protesting that the Department did not have the right to ask for his company's hauling logs. Because of Mr. Beebe's aggressive behavior, Mr. Rech phoned to request a Sheriff's deputy to come to the site. Mr. Beebe conceded that he was somewhat agitated because Ms. Kubec asked him to come to the site, but would not tell him why she wanted to see his truck. She would only say that it was a "spot check," which Mr. Beebe did not believe. By the time the Sheriff's deputy arrived, the situation had calmed down. Mr. Beebe told Mr. Rech that he had dumped approximately 3,000 gallons of "drillers' mud" on the site. Drillers' mud, or bentonite clay, is a colloidal clay sold under various trade names that forms a slick slurry, or gel, when water is added. The appearance of the material dumped at the site was consistent with that of drillers' mud. Mr. Beebe testified that the owner of the vacant lot asked him to dump the drillers' mud to fill in a low-lying, hard to reach area of the property. The liquid-like consistency of the drillers' mud made it ideal for filling this difficult portion of the property. Mr. Beebe's testimony as to having permission to dump materials on the property is credited. Mr. Rech took two samples of the dumped material from a pooled area about six inches deep. He used sterile sample equipment and containers. Because Mr. Beebe had alerted him to the possibility that there could be horse manure under the dumped material, Mr. Rech was careful to scoop the contents from the top of the dumped material. Mr. Rech provided one of the samples to Mr. Beebe to allow Mr. Beebe to have a laboratory of his choice analyze the material. Mr. Rech sent the other sample to the Department's Tampa laboratory, which found the sample to contain a fecal coliform count of 4,800 colonies per gram. The laboratory's report was stamped with the disclosure stating, "Sample does not meet the following NELAC requirements: 1) exceeds 6 hr. hold time; 2) this matrix is not certified under NELAC." NELAC is the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference, a voluntary association of state and federal agencies, the purpose of which is to establish and promote mutually acceptable performance standards for the operation of environmental laboratories. NELAC certifies environmental laboratories such as the Department's Tampa facility, which was not certified for solid matrices such as the sample provided by Mr. Rech. Dr. Philip Amuso is the director of the Department's Tampa laboratory. Dr. Amuso testified as to the testing procedures and the disclosure statement included on the laboratory report. He concluded that neither of the disclosures affected the validity of the fecal coliform count found in the sample. Dr. Amuso testified that the applicable testing standard calls for a sample to be analyzed for fecal coliform within six hours of the sample collection time. The sample in question was not tested within six hours. However, Dr. Amuso testified that the longer a sample is held, the lower the fecal coliform count will be, because the fecal coliform colonies tend to die off over time. Thus, Dr. Amuso testified that the fecal coliform count in the sample was likely understated, due to the failure to analyze the sample within six hours. Dr. Amuso testified that his laboratory chose to classify the sample as solid. The Tampa laboratory was required to note on its report that it is not NELAC-certified for solid matrices. However, Dr. Amuso testified that the classification of the sample had no impact on the analysis performed or the validity of the result. He explained that the laboratory could have classified the sample as a non-potable liquid, a matrix for which the Tampa laboratory is NELAC-certified, and the same analysis would have been performed and would have yielded the same result. Mr. Beebe forwarded his sample of the dumped material to Sanders Laboratories, Inc. ("Sanders"), a private environmental testing service. The Sanders laboratory classified the sample as a non-potable liquid and performed its analysis within six hours of the sample's collection. The Sanders laboratory report dated September 30, 2004, found the fecal coliform count to be 1,600,000 colonies per 100 milliliters. Placed in comparable terms to the Tampa laboratory's report, this sample showed a fecal coliform count of 16,000 colonies per gram, or about three times higher than the Tampa laboratory's sample. Dr. Amuso attributed this higher reading to the fact that Sanders ran its test within six hours of collection. Dr. Amuso testified that the fecal coliform count of 4,800 colonies per gram found in the Tampa laboratory's sample constituted "pretty significant" contamination. Mr. Rech testified that a count of 4,800 colonies per gram is about one-half of the count found in raw, untreated septage from a septic tank, and that such a count is "bad" in terms of public health significance. Mr. Rech testified that the fecal coliform count in the Sanders sample was "in the range" for raw untreated septage. Mr. Rech stated that the laboratory analyses led to the conclusion that there was a substantial amount of untreated septage mixed with the drillers' mud in the dumped materials. He concluded there was more septage than could reasonably be attributed to residue from a previous dump of septage in Mr. Beebe's truck. He added that it would be impossible to clean the tank of a septage disposal truck sufficiently to prevent fecal contamination of a subsequent non-septage load. Mr. Beebe conceded that Mr. Rech told him that he should not use a septage hauling truck for any other kind of load, especially where that load would be dumped on the ground. Before leaving the dump site on September 29, 2004, Mr. Rech and Ms. Kurbec handed Mr. Beebe the citation for failure to properly treat or dispose of septage and the creation or maintenance of a sanitary nuisance. The citation directed Mr. Beebe to pay a fine of $500.00 for each of the two violations. Mr. Rech testified that he and Ms. Kurbec were able to conclude from their on-site observations that Mr. Beebe had improperly disposed of septage and had created a sanitary nuisance. Mr. Rech stated that the subsequent laboratory analysis served to confirm those conclusions. Mr. Rech testified that untreated septage consists of human waste containing high levels of fecal coliform and viruses, bacteria, and parasites that cause a wide range of gastrointestinal and neurological conditions in humans. Mr. Rech stated that untreated septage dumped anywhere other than at a properly regulated disposal site constitutes a public health nuisance. He noted that the materials were dumped by Mr. Beebe within roughly 100 feet of residential drinking water wells. Mr. Beebe admitted that he dumped the contents of his disposal truck on the vacant lot, though he denied that it contained septage. He theorized that the high fecal coliform counts in the laboratory analyses were caused by animal manure beneath the drillers' mud that he dumped on the property. Dr. Amuso conceded that no testing had been performed to establish the ambient level of coliform on the property, and further conceded that the laboratory tests do not distinguish human from animal feces in measuring the coliform count. However, as noted above, Mr. Rech knew that there were animals on the property and carefully took his sample from the top of the dumped material. Mr. Rech testified that the strong smell of septage, and the high coliform count found by the subsequent laboratory analyses left no doubt that untreated human waste had been dumped on the property by Mr. Beebe. The Department established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mr. Beebe dumped a mixture of drillers' mud and untreated septage on the lot at 295 Brandy Lane in Naples. Holding Tank On or before January 6, 2005, Mr. Beebe placed a 900-gallon domestic wastewater holding tank into a pre-dug hole at the newly built residence of Edward Ehlen at 616 Crescent Street on Marco Island. Mr. Beebe did not dig the hole, nor did he connect the holding tank to Mr. Ehlen's house. Mr. Ehlen testified that he contracted with the City of Marco Island in July 2004 to connect his new residence, an $800,000 house, to the city sewer system. The connection was to be completed no later than November 2004, when Mr. Ehlen and his family expected to take occupancy of the house. The city did not complete the connection and, therefore, allowed Mr. Ehlen to install a holding tank to be used until the sewer connection was completed. After the holding tank was installed, the city inspected the tank and gave Mr. Ehlen a temporary certificate of occupancy. On January 6, 2005, after Mr. Ehlen and his family had moved into their house, the Department discovered that the Ehlen home was using a holding tank to collect its wastewater. On January 7, 2005, the Department issued to Mr. Ehlen an "Official Notice to Correct and Abate a Sanitary Nuisance," finding that Mr. Ehlen was in violation of "Florida Statutes Chapters 381 and 386" because "plumbing discharge from your home is connected to a sewage holding tank which has not been permitted or inspected by this department." The Notice also provided, in relevant part: You are hereby directed to correct this condition by complying with all the conditions listed below. Apply for a "temporary" Holding Tank permit by close of business on Monday, January 10, 2005. [This permit will be valid for a maximum of 120 days, Permit fee is $185.00] Apply for an abandonment permit for the temporary holding tank by close of business Monday, January 10, 2005. [This permit will be valid for a maximum of 120 days. Complete tank removal will be required within 10 days of hook up to public sewer. Permit fee is $40.00] Have a licensed septic contractor excavate the holding tank for inspection of all connections and seals by this department by Wednesday, January 12, 2005. Sign and maintain a pump-out agreement with a licensed septage hauler until the temporary holding tank is properly abandoned and inspected by this department. Provide a copy of this agreement to the department by Wednesday, January 12, 2005. [Minimum required pump-out frequency to be every other day]. Complete hookup to Marco Island Utilities sewer system within 120 days of receipt of this notice. Failure to comply may result in administrative and/or civil enforcement action, including administrative fines of up to $500 per day per violation of law. On January 12, 2005, the Department issued a 120-day temporary permit to Mr. Ehlen for his holding tank. Also on January 12, 2005, Mr. Ehlen signed a contract with Southern Sanitation pursuant to which Mr. Beebe's company agreed to pump out the holding tank three times per week. Mr. Beebe conceded that he did not obtain a permit from the Health Department before he placed the holding tank in the hole on Mr. Ehlen's property. Mr. Beebe relied on Mr. Ehlen's statement that the City of Marco Island had approved the installation of the holding tank. Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.0101(7) provides that a construction permit must be obtained before the placement or installation of any holding tank. The Department established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mr. Beebe placed a 900-gallon domestic wastewater holding tank into a pre-dug hole at the Ehlen's residence without obtaining a Department permit. Mr. Beebe's good faith belief that Mr. Ehlen had obtained approval for the placement of the tank is noted as a mitigating factor, but cannot operate as a defense for a registered septic tank contractor's admitted failure to confirm the status of any permit with the Department prior to commencing work on the project. Collection and Hauling Log Mr. Beebe's annual operating permit from the Department authorizes him to pump septage from septic tanks and holding tanks and haul it to an approved treatment site for disposal and treatment. Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.010(7)(e) requires a septage hauler to maintain a collection and hauling log "at the treatment site or at the main business location" and to retain that log for a period of five years. The rule lists the following items for inclusion in the log: Date of septage or water collection; Address of collection; Indicate whether the point of collection is a residence or business and if a business, the type of business; Estimated volume, in gallons, of septage or water transported; Receipts for lime or other materials used for treatment; Location of the approved treatment facility; Date and time of discharge to the treatment facility; and Acknowledgement from treatment facility of receipt of septage or waste. On September 29, 2004, the date on which the Department investigated Mr. Beebe's dumping of drillers' mud and sewage on the lot at 295 Brandy Lane in Naples, the Department requested that Mr. Beebe provide his septage collection and hauling log. On September 30, 2004, Mr. Beebe faxed to the Department a single-page, typed document titled, "RE: Southern Sanitation, Inc. Truck Log for Trucks 1 and 2." The document stated that on September 29, 2004, "Truck #1" transported 3,000 gallons of "Well Drillers Mud" from Southern Well Drillers Services drilling site and disposed of it at 295 Brandy Lane. The document stated that "Truck #2" did not haul materials on September 29, 2004. Mr. Rech testified that this document did not satisfy the rule criteria for collection and hauling logs. He noted that this was not a log kept by the drivers of the trucks, but merely a statement from Mr. Beebe attesting to what the trucks had hauled on a single day. Mr. Rech also pointed out that the Department had inspected and authorized Mr. Beebe to haul septage in two trucks identified by their vehicle identification numbers, but that Mr. Beebe's single-page "log" provided no information specifically identifying the trucks in question. On February 3, 2005, the Department sent a letter to Mr. Beebe requesting that he produce, among other documentation, "your original collection and hauling logs for all domestic sewage and food establishment sludge and/or septage you collected and disposed of from January 1, 2004 through February 2, 2005." On February 11, 2005, Mr. Beebe responded to the Department's request, providing copies of "Septic Receiving Logs" maintained by the North County Water Reclamation Facility ("NCWRF"), the Collier County wastewater facility at which Mr. Beebe disposed of his loads. There were log pages for January through June 2004, and October through December 2004. The logs included the dates of disposal, the number of gallons and type of waste in the load (septic or grease), and the signature of the Southern Sanitation driver who dropped off the load. On March 8, 2005, Mr. Beebe submitted to the Department supplemental information covering January 2005. It includes a typed "Pump Job List" for January 2005, prepared on March 3, 2005. The list contains dates, addresses, and approximate gallons collected, including eight entries for pumping out Mr. Ehlen's holding tank. Individual trucks were not identified on this list. The supplemental information also included an NCWRF Septic Receiving Log for January 2005. Mr. Beebe testified that the Department had never asked him for an accounting during the eight years he has operated his business and that the Department did so in this case only after he contested the allegations in the Brandy Lane dumping case. Mr. Beebe appeared to believe that the Department was acting punitively in requesting documents that Mr. Beebe, as the owner of a permitted septage disposal business, was required to keep. Mr. Beebe did not contest the apparent fact that he did not keep collection and hauling logs for his trucks in the normal course of business. Such documentation as he provided was insufficiently detailed to meet the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.010(7)(e), and in some instances was cobbled together well after the fact in order to provide the Department with some documentation of Southern Sanitation's activities. Mr. Rech testified that the Department requires accurate logs of collections and disposals to allow it to monitor compliance and investigate complaints. An accurate, detailed, and contemporaneously-created log would have allowed the Department to discover what Mr. Beebe's truck had collected and dumped prior to the Brandy Lane dumping incident and would have allowed the Department to reconcile the amounts of septage collected by Mr. Beebe from January 2004 through February 2005, with the amounts of septage Mr. Beebe properly disposed of during the same period. The Department established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mr. Beebe did not maintain a septage collection and hauling log as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.010(7)(e). Improper disposal of septage The terms of Mr. Beebe's septage disposal service permit required him to dispose of his collected septage at the NCWRF. Dale Waller, the plant manager of the NCWRF, testified as to the procedures followed by sewage haulers at the facility. Mr. Waller testified that the facility has a computer capable of generating reports as to the quantity of disposals made by haulers, but that the computer system often does not operate correctly. Therefore, the facility's chief means of monitoring disposals is the "Septic Receiving Logs" discussed above. The Septic Receiving Log requires the hauler to record the date of disposal, whether the disposal consisted of septage or grease, the amount of disposed material in gallons, and the driver's signature and printed name. The number of gallons disposed is shown on a calibrated gauge when the waste is pumped out of the truck. Mr. Waller testified that this gauge is accurate within five per cent of the actual amount pumped. The county sends invoices each month to the hauler, based on the number of gallons and the type of waste disposed of at the facility. The Septic Receiving Log is maintained in the foyer of the NCWRF building, with a monthly sheet for each hauling company that uses the facility. No NCWRF employee monitors the haulers as they make their log entries. Mr. Waller testified that it is essentially an honor system for the haulers. Due to computer problems, the NCWRF had no computer records of disposals for the month of January 2005. The Septic Receiving Log for Southern Sanitation for that month showed six entries totaling 11,908 gallons of septage and grease, plus two early January 2005 entries of 3,450 gallons that were placed on the December 2004 log, for a total of 15,358 gallons. Mr. Waller testified that in March 2005, Mr. Beebe submitted a revised Septic Receiving Log for Southern Sanitation for the month of January 2005. Mr. Beebe also provided this revised log to the Department as part of his March 8, 2005, supplemental information for the month of January 2005. This revised log listed three additional disposals of septage in the month of January 2005: 2,550 gallons on January 17; 2,000 gallons on January 24; and 1,700 gallons on January 28. These additional 6,250 gallons brought the reported total disposals of septage and grease for January 2005 to 21,608 gallons. The NCWRF declined to accept the revised Septic Receiving Log as an official record of Southern Sanitation's disposals at the facility for the month of January 2005, because the NCWRF could not verify the additional disposals. Mr. Beebe was billed only for those disposals documented on the original Septic Receiving Log kept at the facility. As part of the March 8, 2005, submission of supplemental information, Mr. Beebe provided to the Department a "pump job list" for January 1 through 28, 2005. This list indicated that Southern Sanitation collected between 21,000 and 22,600 gallons of wastewater during the period specified, a number that roughly corresponds to the total number of gallons reported by Mr. Beebe in his revised Septic Receiving Log for the month of January 2005. At the hearing, the Department contended that because Mr. Beebe reported collecting between 21,000 and 22,600 gallons of waste, but could only verify the proper disposal of 15,358 gallons of waste, Mr. Beebe must have improperly disposed of at least 5,600 gallons and as much as 7,200 gallons of waste. In a similar fashion, the Department examined the amounts that Mr. Beebe reported pumping from Mr. Ehlen's holding tank, compared those amounts to the Ehlen household's water usage for the month of January 2005, and concluded that Mr. Beebe further underreported the amount of waste collected that month and, therefore, must have improperly disposed of even more than 5,600 to 7,200 gallons of waste. Mr. Beebe was forthright regarding the issues in these cases, even when his testimony was against his own interests. In light of his overall credibility, Mr. Beebe's denial that he made any improper disposals of waste is credited. No evidence was presented to show that Mr. Beebe actually made these improper disposals. The Department's contention was a surmise derived from discrepancies in Mr. Beebe's reports of collections and disposals. Based on all the evidence, the undersigned finds that the discrepancies in the reports were more likely due to Mr. Beebe's poor record-keeping and his after-the-fact efforts to create records complying with Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.010(7)(e), rather than any illegal dumping of waste. The Department failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Beebe improperly disposed of septage during the month of January 2005.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, the Department of Health, enter a final order imposing a $1000.00 fine for the violations described above, relating to DOAH Case No. 04-4333, and imposing a fine of $1,500.00 and a 90-day suspension of Respondent's septage disposal operating permit for the violations described above, relating to DOAH Case No. 05-0695. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 7th day of July, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael F. Kayusa, Esquire Post Office Box 6096 Fort Myers, Florida 33911 Susan Mastin Scott, Esquire Department of Health 2295 Victoria Avenue, Room 206 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 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 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 Respondent violated Rule 64E-6.003, Florida Administrative Code, by repairing a septic tank and/or drainfield without a permit and, if so, what penalty should be imposed on him.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Health (Department), is the state agency charged with administering and enforcing laws and rules relating to sanitation. Section 381.0011(4), Florida Statutes. Respondent failed to appear at the duly-appointed time and place for the administrative hearing in this matter. On April 22, 1999, Gregory Crumpton, Environmental Specialist with the Pasco County Health Department, responded to a sanitary nuisance complaint regarding Respondent's property located at 7111 Lofty Drive, Port Richey, Florida. Based on that complaint, on April 22, 1999, Mr. Crumpton inspected Respondent's property. His inspection revealed the presence of untreated or improperly treated human waste from an improperly maintained septic tank. Based on his April 22, 1999, inspection of Respondent's property and his determination that the condition existing on Respondent's property constituted a sanitary nuisance, Mr. Crumpton issued an Official Notice to Abate a Sanitary Nuisance. The notice was left on Respondent's property. Moreover, on April 22, 1999, a copy of the notice was mailed to Respondent by certified mail. Respondent signed the return receipt acknowledging that he had received the notice. On April 26, 1999, Mr. Crumpton received a second complaint from a neighbor of Respondent who reported that Respondent's septic tank was being repaired without a permit. Upon inspecting Respondent's property on April 27, 1999, Mr. Crumpton observed that repair work was being performed on Respondent's septic tank without a permit. On April 27, 1999, Mr. Crumpton met with Respondent regarding the inspection and issued to Respondent a second Official Notice to Abate a Sanitary Nuisance, which was sent by certified mail. This notice was issued to Respondent because of the installation and/or repair to septic tank and/or drainfield without a permit. The April 27, 1999, notice advised Respondent that his failure to secure a septic tank repair permit could result in his being fined up to $500.00 per day until he obtained the required permit. Although Respondent was advised that he could be fined up to $500.00 per day for failing to secure a permit to repair his septic tank, as of May 18, 1999, Respondent had not secured the permit. On May 18, 1999, Mr. Crumpton issued a citation alleging that Respondent had installed and/or repaired a septic tank and/or drainfield without a permit. As of the date of the final hearing in this matter, October 19, 1999, Respondent had failed to secure a septic tank repair permit.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of $500.00, obtain a septic tank repair permit, and effect repairs. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 2nd day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara A. McPherson, Esquire Department of Health 300 31st Street North Suite 338 St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 Shane Whitfield 7111 Lofty Drive Port Richey, Florida 34668 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
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
The Issue Did Petitioner violate Section 386.041 and Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Citation for Violation Onsite Sewage Program/Sanitary Nuisance?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Department, through the Polk County Health Department, was the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of issuing permits for the construction, installation, modification, abandonment, or repair of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems. The property in question is a duplex apartment building owned by Respondent and located at 1101-1103 Old South Drive, Lakeland, Florida. The two apartments in the duplex are serviced by a single septic tank and drainfield. In the summer of 1997, Petitioner determined that the drainfield needed repair and engaged the services of an individual who was not licensed to repair drainfields. Additionally, Petitioner did not obtain a permit for the repair to the drainfield. During the fall of 1997, Petitioner continued to experience trouble with the drainfield. Thereafter, on two separate occasions, Petitioner engaged the services of Burns Septic Tank Company (Burns) and Central Fla. Septic Tank Co. (Central) to pump-out the septic tank. Both Burns and Central indicated on their invoices for pumping out the septic tank that the drainfield was in need of repair. On December 9, 1997, after receiving a complaint from one of Petitioner’s tenants, the Department’s Environmental Specialist, Wade Schulz, made an inspection of the septic tank and drainfield at 1101-1103 Old South Drive, Lakeland, Florida. Schulz’s inspection revealed that the septic tank was backing up at the duplex apartments and that the septic tank D-box, old rock, and the drainfield pipe were exposed to the ground. Additionally, it was discovered that septage was flowing directly from the system to a wet drainage ditch. On December 9, 1997, Schulz verbally notified Petitioner that the system was in violation of: (a) Section 386.041, Florida Statutes (Nuisance injurious to health); (b) Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes (Prior approved system shall remain in operating condition); and (c) Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes (No person shall repair without permit). A written copy of the Citation for Violation Onsite Sewage Program/Sanitary Nuisance (Citation) was mailed to Petitioner but was returned as undeliverable. A copy of the Citation was personally served on Petitioner on January 23, 1998. After receiving the verbal citation from Schulz, Petitioner engaged Robby’s Septic Tank Service and had the septic tank pumped out. Other than pumping out the septic tank, Petitioner has made no other effort to correct the problem. After receiving the Citation, Petitioner met with the Department’s representative in an attempt to work out a solution. However, Petitioner contended that there was nothing wrong with the drainfield and refused to pay any fine. On July 9, 1998, the Department visited the site again and found that nothing had been done to correct the problem. Furthermore, the Department found that the system was still being improperly maintained. It was the opinion of both Schulz and Tony Warr, the Department’s Environmental Supervisor, that the only way to correct the problem was to completely repair the drainfield. It was Petitioner’s contention that the drainage ditch was clogged up resulting in a high water table around the drainfield and that if Polk County cleaned out the drainage ditch, allowing the water to flow off, it would resolve the problem of the drainfield. While the drainage ditch may be a problem, there was insufficient evidence to show that unclogging the drainage ditch would resolve the problem of the drainfield. It is clear that Petitioner’s drainfield is not operating properly and is in need of repair.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order finding the Petitioner guilty of the violations as charged and requiring Petitioner to pay a fine in the amount of $1,500.00 as set forth in the Citation for Violation Onsite Sewage Program/Sanitary Nuisance, Part 6. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin AO2 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Dr. James Howell, Secretary Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6 Room 306 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Glenn E. Woodard, pro se Post Office Box 2000 Eaton Park, Florida 33801 Roland Reis, Esquire Department of Health 1290 Golfview Avenue, Fourth Floor Bartow, Florida 33830
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent installed a septic system without a permit; whether a permit was required for the installation; whether the installation was of inadequate size; whether the Respondent caused the disconnection of an existing system without a permit, and whether that system was improperly abandoned. A related issue is whether the proposed $1,500.00 fine should be imposed if the violations are proven or what, if any, fine is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged, in pertinent part, by its organic statutes and rules, with regulating the practice of septic tank contracting and the installation and repair of septic tank and drainfield waste disposal systems and with licensure of such contractors pursuant to Rule Chapter 64E, Florida Administrative Code. The Respondent, Trammel Fowler (Fowler), is a licensed septic tank contractor regulated by the statutes and rules cited herein. Fowler has never been issued any citations or been subjected to discipline under the relevant statutes and rules enforced by the Petitioner with regard to septic system design, construction, installation and repair. He has worked in the septic tank installation business for 19 years. The Respondent installed a septic tank and drainfield system at 5642 Old Bethel Road, Crestview, Florida, a residential construction project (home) in 1993. The original septic tank system installed by the Respondent was finally approved on June 11, 1993. The home site at issue was originally designed to have the septic tank and drainfield system located in the backyard of the residence. Plumbing errors by the general contractor and the plumbing sub-contractor caused the plumbing system to be "stubbed-out" to the front of the house so that the septic tank and drainfield system was installed in the front of the house rather than in the backyard as originally designed and approved by the Petitioner. Additional excavation work was required at the site, which caused the soil type to change in the front of the house where the septic tank and drainfield were to be installed. This in turn required the Okaloosa County Health Department to require additional drainfield square footage to be added to the previously approved 600 square feet of drainfield, so that the drainfield installed in the front of the house by the Respondent ultimately encompassed 800 square feet. Thus, although the original site plans approved by the Okaloosa County Health Department were not followed, subsequent modifications to the system resulted in the septic tank system being fully approved by the Petitioner (through the Okaloosa County Health Department), on June 11, 1993. In the ensuing months, landscaping problems at the site caused surface water to collect around and above the drainfield area. This, coupled with a continuous water flow from the residence caused by leaking appliances, and particularly the commode, resulted in raw or partially treated wastewater becoming exposed on the surface of the ground, as a sanitary nuisance. This was caused as the septic tank and drainfield system became saturated by the excess water from the two referenced sources. This caused the failure of that septic tank and drainfield system within nine months of its original installation, as was noted on March 4, 1994, by the Department's representative Mr. Sims. It is undisputed that the Respondent, Mr. Fowler, did not cause or contribute to this septic tank system failure. He constructed the system as designed and approved by the Department (or as re- approved by the Department in June 1993 with the relocation of the system to the front yard of the residence and with the augmentation of the drainfield referenced above). The Department was aware of the failure of the original system in the front yard of the residence as early as March 1994. There is no evidence that an actual permit for repair of that system was ever issued. Mr. Fowler maintains that the Department had a policy at that time of authorizing repairs to systems that failed within one year of original installation, as this one did, without a written, formal permit process, but rather by informal approval and inspection of the repair work. The Petitioner disagrees and Mr. Sims, the Petitioner's representative, states that a permit was required, although no fee was charged. Indeed in 1994 a rule was enacted authorizing issuance of a permit for repair work for systems that failed within one year of original installation without being accompanied by the charging of a fee for that permit. In any event, prior to the rule change, repairs were authorized for failures within one year by the Department without a permit, but were required to be inspected and a notation made in the permit file or in some cases on a "nuisance complaint card," so authorization and inspection was supposed to be documented. When by the time the repair was effected by the installation of the backyard septic tank and drainfield system or "overflow-system" in February 1995, the rule change requiring issuance of a repair permit without fee had become effective. There is evidence that the Respondent was aware of this since, sometime in 1994, he had obtained a permit authorizing repair of a septic tank and drainfield site on "Windsor Circle" as shown by the Petitioner's Exhibits 6 and 7 in evidence. Be that as it may, the Respondent contends that Mr. Brown, the environmental specialist and inspector for the Department, met with him at the repair site in question and at least verbally authorized the repair of the system by installation of the septic tank and drainfield in the backyard of the residence; to be connected to the sewer line which also was connected with the malfunctioning system in the front yard of that residence. Mr. Brown in his testimony purports to have no memory of authorizing the repair work or inspecting it and seems confused as to whether he met with the Respondent at the site. The Petitioner acknowledges, as does Mr. Brown, that he has had problems since that time with memory lapses, attendant to two life-threatening injuries, which have apparently caused problems with memory loss. He purportedly suffers from post-traumatic stress syndrome and is taking medication with regard thereto. There is no dispute that he has problems with recall. Moreover, there is evidence that Mr. Brown met with the Respondent at an address on Old Bethel Road for some reason, as shown by a notation in Department records in February 1995. Consequently, while there is no doubt that the repair work in question was done without a written permit, there is evidence to corroborate Mr. Fowler's testimony to the effect that Mr. Brown inspected and reviewed the repair system while it was actually being installed by Fowler and approved it. Thus, it is possible that Mr. Fowler was under a good faith impression that the Department had a policy of inspecting and approving repair work without there being a permit related to it at the time when he installed the secondary "overflow" system at the Old Bethel Road site in February of 1995, even though that impression may have been legally mistaken, because the rule requiring a permit at no fee for repair work was already in effect. In any event, Mr. Fowler installed the so-called "repair system" in February 1995, which he has termed an "overflow" system designed to augment the treatment capability of the previously-approved system installed in the front yard at that residence. That system, as found above, consisted of 800 square feet of drainfield. The "overflow" system installed in the backyard by Mr. Fowler in February 1995 without the permit, has only 300 square feet of drainfield. This is clearly well below the minimum required for such a system and tends to support Mr. Fowler's testimony that it was intended really as a repair job in the form of a overflow system to handle extra flow that the original system in the front yard would not be able to handle in performing the intended treatment function. It is unlikely that Mr. Fowler, with or without a permit, would have installed a system he clearly would know to be of only one-half (or less) of the adequate size and treatment capability for the residence, if it had been intended to be a separately functioning independent treatment system for the residence. In fact, the "overflow" system was connected through a "T" or "Y" fitting in the sewer line outfall pipe from the house with the original septic tank and drainfield system in the front yard of the residence, so that flow could go to both systems simultaneously from the residential sewer line. There is conflicting testimony as to whether such a dually draining system could work properly. One septic tank contractor testified that it could and could adequately split the flow between the two septic tank and drainfield systems so as to perform adequate treatment without backups or overflows, while a witness for the Department testified that such a split-fitting could cause stoppages and therefore sewage backups. Be that as it may, the installation of the system in a connected fashion to the original system supports Mr. Fowler's testimony and contention that the system installed in the backyard, with 300 square feet of drainfield, was intended as a repair system merely to augment the treatment function being provided by the poorly functioning original system in the front yard. In fact, the preponderant evidence shows that, with the elimination of leakage from the appliances in the house and the correction of the water-pooling problem caused by improper landscaping, that the system would function adequately thus connected. Indeed, when the plumber or the general contractor for the residence disconnected the original front-yard septic tank system from the overflow system, so that all of the sewage in the house went to the overflow system with the smaller drainfield, that system still functioned adequately for one and one-half years until failure in approximately August 1997. It is undisputed that the Respondent had no part in the unreported and unapproved disconnection of the original front system from the overflow tank and drainfield system in the backyard. The evidence shows a preponderant likelihood that the total system would have functioned adequately indefinitely had the two remained connected so that sewage could flow to the front yard system with the 800 square feet of drainfield, with the excess water flow problems referenced above already corrected. Mr. Brown, the Department environmental specialist and inspector, did not recall specifically whether he had been at the Old Bethel Road site at issue, but testified that it was definitely possible. He testified that the time entry notation he made admitted into evidence as Exhibit No. 3, may have reflected an inspection for a repair job at the Old Bethel Road site. Mr. Brown admitted that he was present on Old Bethel Road in February 1995, but did not recall his purpose of being there. His testimony thus did not contradict the testimony of Trammel Fowler. Mr. Brown also testified that he was aware of problems at the Old Bethel Road site and testified that Mr. Wykle of the Department and Mr. Sims were also aware of problems at the Old Bethel Road site. Douglas Sims of the Department testified that the two systems, the original front tank and drainfield and the overflow tank and drainfield installed in the backyard by Mr. Fowler could not work together if they were connected. This is belied by testimony of a septic tank contractor, Ken Arnett, who was a rebuttal witness called by the Department. Mr. Arnett testified that he would expect a system of the type contemplated by Mr. Fowler and Mr. Brown to function properly. It thus seems from the preponderant weight of the evidence that the reason the Old Bethel Road residential system quit functioning properly, in approximately August 1997, is that the plumbing contractor, at the behest of the residential building contractor for the residence constructed there, disconnected the overflow system from the original front yard system, so that all the house effluent was going to the overflow system, which was never intended to have a complete, standard-sized drainfield for such a dwelling, prevalent soil conditions, elevations and the like. Mr. Brown, a long time employee of the Department was familiar with the statewide rules affecting septic tank contractors and installation and familiar with local department rules and policies relating to repairs. He testified that for a period of time in the early 1990's, there was an unwritten policy by the Okaloosa County Health Department that some repair permits would be waived for certain repairs provided a final inspection by the Department was made. He stated that if the septic tank system failed within one year under certain circumstances, a repair permit would be waived as long as the Department was aware of the repair. Mr. Brown could not recall when the policy ended, but estimated it to be sometime between 1995 and 1997. He called the discontinuation of the local policy to waive repair permits a "gradual phase out." Mr. Brown also recalled that the Okaloosa County Health Department's unwritten, local policy concerning waiver of repair permits was known and relied upon by septic tank contractors in certain situations. Cecil Rogers, a long-time septic tank contractor who dealt with the Okaloosa County Health Department regularly, testified that there was a standard policy to allow repairs to be made to septic tank systems that failed within one year without requiring a permit. There thus seems to have been an unwritten policy or practice among septic tank contractors and the Okaloosa County Health Department to the effect that if a system failed within one year and the contractor was willing to repair the system without cost to the homeowner, that the permit would be waived as long as the system or repair could be inspected by the Department. The system originally installed which failed appears to have been installed before the effective date of the rule requiring that a no-charge permit be obtained for repair work. The repair work in question, the installation of the overflow system, appears to have been effected after the effective date of the new rule. It also appears that Mr. Fowler knew of the new rule because of his obtaining a permit for repair work at the Windsor Circle repair site in 1994. It also would appear that Mr. Brown likely verbally approved and inspected the repair work at the subject site, giving Mr. Fowler the impression that he was authorized to go ahead and make the repair by installing the overflow system. Thus, although he may have technically violated the rule requiring a no-charge permit for repair work, it does not appear that he had any intent to circumvent the authority of the Department, since the preponderant evidence shows that Mr. Brown knew of and approved the installation. Thus, in this regard, a minimal penalty would be warranted. Moreover, after the original septic system at the Old Bethel Road site failed in March of 1994, through no fault of Fowler, Fowler paid to make the repair by installing the overflow system at his own expense. The original new home purchaser at that site, and Mr. Fowler's customer, Mr. Wayne Aaberg, thus did not sustain any personal expenses for the repair work performed by Fowler. The Petitioner did not present any evidence to establish that the repairs made by Fowler caused the septic tank system at Old Bethel Road to fail. The Petitioner, through the testimony of environmental manager Douglas Sims, itself established that the plumbing contractor actually disconnected the front system from the overflow system and made a physical connection only to the rear system installed by Mr. Fowler, rather than Fowler, and without Mr. Fowler's knowledge. The Petitioner, apparently through Douglas Sims, failed to conduct an investigation to determine which party actually was responsible for physically abandoning or disconnecting the original front system from the home and from the overflow system prior to the charges being filed against Mr. Fowler. Mr. Fowler did not cause the physical disconnection of the two systems and the residence and is not a licensed plumber. He did not, during the course of his contracting business for septic tanks and drainfields make physical connections or disconnections to dwelling units, but instead left that to the responsibility of the general contractor and/or the plumbing contractor. The Petitioner presented no evidence establishing any monetary harm to any customer of the Respondent. The disconnection of the systems which caused the failure was not shown to have been the responsibility nor fault of Mr. Fowler. Rather, any monetary harm to the homeowner who owned the residence when the failure occurred in August 1997, after the original repair installation had been paid for by Mr. Fowler was caused by the plumbing contractor and/or the general contractor, Kemp Brothers, who directed the plumbing contractor to disconnect the original front system from the overflow system. Consequently, any monetary damage caused by fixing the failure which occurred in August 1997, and which engendered the subject dispute, was not caused by Mr. Fowler. Finally, Mr. Douglas Sims of the Department, testified that he knew of two other un-permitted repairs by septic tank contractors which were known to the Department. In both of those cases, the contractors were only issued a Letter of Warning. Mr. Sims testified that if the Respondent herein had made repairs to the existing system at his own cost after the failure occurring in August of 1997, then the Department would have only issued a Letter of Warning. Mr. Fowler paid to fix the original system in February 1995, but felt that monetary responsibility for the August 1997 failure was not his fault and thus did not offer to pay for that.
Recommendation Accordingly, 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 finding that the Respondent effected repair work to a septic tank and drainfield system without the required written permit but that, in view of the above-found and concluded extenuating circumstances, that a minimal penalty of a letter of warning be issued to the Respondent by the Department and that the citation for violation, in all other respects, be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of January, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of January, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney M. Johnson, Esquire Department of Health Northwest Law Office 1295 West Fairfield Drive Pensacola, Florida 32501 Matthew D. Bordelon, Esquire 2721 Gulf Breeze Parkway Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health Bin A00 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast 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.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 64E-6.022(1)(b)2., 64E-6.022(1)(d), and 64E-6.022(1)(p) by repairing an onsite sewage disposal system without a permit, resulting in missed inspections, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with enforcing the statutory and regulatory provisions pertaining to the practice of septic tank installations and repairs in Florida. See § 381.0065(3), Fla. Stat. (2003). Repair of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems must be performed under the supervision and control of a registered septic tank contractor. Respondent is the qualifying registered septic tank contractor for All Florida Septic Tank Service, Inc., having been issued the registration number SR00011389. Respondent has 15 years of experience in the field of septic system construction and repair. The qualifying registered septic tank contractor for Simmons Septic and Tractor Service, Inc., is Joey Wayne Simmons. The qualifying registered septic tank contractor for AA Septic Tank Service, Inc., is Billy Wayne Joyner. However, Mr. Simmons, Mr. Joyner, and Respondent work closely together, sometimes working together on a job and/or acting as the qualifying registered septic tank contractor on each other's behalf. On September 2, 2003, the septic disposal system at the residence of Jack Young was not functioning properly. Mr. Young contracted with one of the above-referenced septic tank services to repair the system. On September 2, 2003, Respondent and another employee of All Florida Septic Tank Service, Inc., along with two employees from AA Septic Tank Service, Inc., went to Mr. Young's residence to repair Mr. Young's onsite sewage disposal system. No one applied for a permit to make any repairs to Mr. Young's system. With Respondent acting as the registered septic tank contractor, the men used a backhoe to dig up the septic tank, which was buried three feet in the ground. Respondent then repaired the pump and ran a new one and one-quarter force main line to the existing header because the old line had been compromised by roots. Respondent also cleaned roots from inside the distribution box. Respondent then sealed the tank and directed the men to cover it up. No one called Petitioner's local office, the Duval County Health Department, to request an inspection of the repair before covering the tank. The work on Mr. Young's septic system involved the replacement of an effluent transmission line. It required a permit because it constituted more than a minor repair to the pump and distribution box. Respondent should not have performed the work without a permit from the Duval County Health Department. Because there was no permit, there was no request for inspection by the Duval County Health Department. When the work was completed, Mr. Young gave Respondent a check in the amount of $1,000, payable to Mr. Simmons. The check reflected payment for repair to the filter bed, otherwise known as the drainfield. Respondent indicated his receipt of the check by signing the AA Septic Tank Service, Inc.'s Daily Truck Log and Maintenance Report. In February 2004, Mr. Young's septic system began to fail once again due to root blockage in the lines. Respondent advised Mr. Young that a permit would be required in order to make any further repairs. Mr. Young refused to pull a permit or to pay for any additional costs. On February 17, 2004, Mr. Young contacted Petitioner to report the failure of his system's drainfield. On February 18, 2004, Petitioner's inspector confirmed that Mr. Young's drainfield had failed and was causing a sanitary nuisance. During the hearing, Respondent admitted that there are no disputed issues of material facts in this case. He stated that he agreed with everything. However, he did not agree that the work he performed for Mr. Young required a permit from and inspections by Petitioner's Duval County Health Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order, finding that Respondent violated the standards of practice and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Catherine R. Berry, Esquire Department of Health 515 West Sixth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32206-4311 James L. Smith All Florida Septic Tank Service, Inc. 8300 West Beaver Street Jacksonville, Florida 32220 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 Dr. John A. Agwunobi, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
