Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, respondent, Frank Jantlick, held registered building contractor and registered plumbing contractor license numbers RB 0016816 and RF 0038428 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. He presently resides at 1206 Driftwood Drive, New Port Richey, Florida and operates both Jantlick Construction and Jantlick Plumbing in the same city. Jantlick is of Polish descent. The proper Polish spelling of his name is J-a-n-c-z-l-i-k. The "Americanized" spelling of his name is J-a-n-t-l-i-c-k. Because his name has been misspelled so often he has registered with both the State and the local construction boards using the Americanized spelling of his name. In July, 1980 one Margaret L. Johnson approached respondent and asked if he would construct three triplexes on her property. Jantlick finally agreed to do so for $129,000 and a construction agreement was signed by both on August 8, 1980. The triplexes were to be constructed at 712-728 East Tennessee Avenue, New Port Richey, Florida. Respondent signed the contract spelling his name J-a- n-c-z-l-i-k even though he was registered with the State as J-a-n-t-l-i-c-k. Jantlick could not start construction until Johnson obtained a bank loan. She did so in December, 1980 and Jantlick began construction shortly thereafter. A zoning change within the city was imminent and, because of this, Jantlick was in a hurry to begin construction so the project would be grandfathered in under the old zoning law. Thomas L. Shell, a licensed plumber, approached Jantlick and asked if he could do the plumbing work on the project. Because Jantlick had known Shell's family for many years, he orally agreed that Shell could do the plumbing work. Shell pulled the City plumbing permits for the job on December 22, 1980. This was necessary since Jantlick was only licensed to do plumbing work within Pasco County, but not within the City of New Port Richey. In order to comply with the City ordinance, it was necessary for either Shell to do the plumbing work, or for Jantlick to do it under Shell's supervision. On January 10, 1981, Shell's wife, Danielle, sent a letter on the firm stationery to the city stating In part: Plumbing service was not commenced by Tom Shell Plumbing. But, rather, Mr. Janczlik had already contracted another plumber to perform rough-in and top-out plumbing, without the permission of Mr. Shell. The letter was signed by Danielle, and according to Shell, constituted notice that he was no longer the licensed plumber on the job. Shell did not furnish a copy of the letter to Jantlick and did not otherwise advise him he was quitting the job. Jantlick could not get Shell to promptly begin the rough-in work on the triplexes, and because he wanted to commence construction before the zoning law changed, he and another plumber did the initial plumbing work. The evidence is conflicting as to whether Shell inspected and supervised this stage of the work, but it is found that he did, and that Jantlick was lawfully operating within the purview of the city ordinance. It is also found that Shell had knowledge of Jantlick's work, and authorized it to be done under his license and supervision. Shell acknowledged that he performed the final stage of the job (final trim), but denied doing the second stage (tub set). However, Shell's own ledger cards reflect he received periodic payments from Jantlick during the spring of 1981 for plumbing services, and it is found that Shell performed the final two stages of the plumbing work. The administrative complaint alleges that at some unknown date after the petitioner's investigation was started, respondent approached Shell and offered to pay him if he would "falsely tell the Department of Professional Regulation investigator that Shell had done the plumbing work on the Triplexes." Shell stified that Jantlick had telephoned him and offered to "take care of him" if he could tell a false story to the investigator. But Jantlick denied this, and Shell's testimony is not deemed to be credible, particularly since he had already performed two-thirds of the job himself, inspected and supervised the other third, and received several thousand dollars in payment for his services. Therefore, it is found that Jantlick did not approach Shell and offer him money in return for giving false testimony. Jantlick did not affix his registration number to the contract executed by him and Johnson. This is required to be done by Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Jantlick is seventy years old, and has been a contractor in Pasco County for over twenty-five years. He has had no prior disciplinary charges filed against him. For all his troubles on the project, he is still owed almost $12,000 by Johnson.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty as charged in Counts V and VI of the administrative complaint and that he be given a reprimand. All other charges should be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of May, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 21st day of May, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel P. Rock, Esquire The Oakland Building 117 North Boulevard New Port Richey, Florida 33552 Edward C. Hill, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue In this disciplinary proceeding, the issues are: Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued by the Petitioner; and Whether disciplinary penalties should be imposed on Respondent if Petitioner proves one or more of the violations charged in its Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Brian Vincent Burns ("Burns"), at all times material to this matter, was a certified general contractor subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Petitioner. Burns was first licensed on October 26, 1981. Petitioner issued Burns license number CGO 020464. Burns' license expires on August 31, 2012. Action Restoration Inc. ("Action"), is and was, at all times material in this matter, the company where Burns is qualified. On October 24, 2007, Brian Burns-Action Restoration entered a Contractor Agreement ("Contract") with owner, Donnell Bryant, to construct a bathroom addition at Bryant's residence located at 3314 NW 23rd Court, Lauderdale Lakes, Florida 33311. Burns admitted at the hearing that the Contract failed to include any written disclosure statement explaining consumer's rights under the Florida Homeowner's Construction Recovery Fund. The Contract provided a draw schedule detailing the amount of the payment and at which points during the project payments were to be made to Action. The total contract price was $36,000. Per Bryant's Contract, Bryant paid the first draw of $6000.00 down at contract signing and Action started the job. During the job, Burns followed the critical path method. The method consisted of each step of the job being completed before the next could take place because each built upon the other. Action applied for a permit to build the bathroom addition on the house under Burns' contractor's license and became the contractor of record for the project. Action began the job in November 2007. It included excavating, obtaining the soil test, forming up the plywood to form the concrete, putting the rebar in, and pouring. On November 26, 2007, Bryant paid Action $7,250 as draw two when the footing was completed. The next step of the project was the block. Burns hired three workers to pour the concrete block. On or about December 20, 2007, Action put the truss anchors in the wet concrete. On or about December 21, 2007, Action completed the tie beams and was paid $8000.00 for draw three of the contract. At some point, Burns and Bryant agreed to change the trusses to make them more energy efficient and structurally sound for windstorms. The design change delayed the job being finished by the deadline. During December 2007, there was a period when Burns did not return Bryant's phone calls. Bryant was very anxious for the bathroom addition project to be completed and became angry at Burns when he couldn't reach him. Bryant thought Burns had abandoned his job when he didn't see Burns from around the Christmas holiday until after the new year. After the new year, in January 2008, Bryant met with Burns and a third party, Walsh. At the meeting, Bryant determined that Walsh was the foreman for Action who oversaw the work. Walsh never worked for Burns or Action and has never been paid by either. Burns had only met Walsh in 2007 and worked on one previous project with him. Burns knew Walsh to be a mason. From the meeting, Bryant understood that the initial contract work had been transferred to Walsh to complete the bathroom addition project Action had contracted for originally. As a result, Bryant stopped paying Burns and agreed to pay Walsh the remaining sum of $14,000.00 on the contract. After the meeting, Burns continued to work on the Bryant contract off site. He worked to get the new trusses design approved so that the work could move forward at the residential site. Around January 17, 2008, Burns took the new trusses design to the truss shop professional engineers to do the drawings. After approval, Burns took the design to the architect, which was approved on February 1, 2008. Then, Burns processed the drawing though the City of Lauderdale, which approved them on February 18, 2008. After approval by the City of Lauderdale, Burns called Bryant several times, and Bryant never returned his call or responded. Burns never returned to the Bryant residence to work on the job because he thought a new contractor had been hired to complete the job in Action's place. Action had only completed 50% of the job on the contract at the time. Plumbing, electric, duct work, and stucco were left to be done for the bathroom addition to be completed. During the period when Burns was getting the new trusses design approved, Bryant paid Walsh $4000.00, with check number 5761 as a draw, on February 15, 2008. The Contract was amended and stated, "$Total owe $14,000-$4000.00 2/15/08>New Balance $10,000" Walsh's signature was by the total with "pd 5761 2/15"1 Burns admitted at hearing that Action was still the contractor of record because the permit remained open for the project in his name. Burns said, "I made an error in judgment in not going to see to it that it was closed out." Walsh continued to work on Bryant's bathroom addition and got paid monies until June 2008. As Walsh completed portions of the job, Bryant paid him the following: $800 on April 18, 2008, for the wall and tile; $3,500 on June 3, 2008, for the construction of the bathroom; and $325 on June 9, 2008, for the stucco for the bathroom. Walsh also was paid for other construction work beside the bathroom addition for Bryant. Bryant never heard from Walsh again after paying him $325.00 with the June 9, 2008, check. He contacted him numerous times to no avail. The job was not completed. On December 30, 2008, Bryant signed a contract with Complete Property Repair to complete the bathroom addition Action had started. The contract amount was for $36,800. The contract included redoing some of the previous work completed by Action and some upgrades including a two-person Jacuzzi and travertine rock instead of tile. The Charges: In Count I, Petitioner charges Respondent with abandoning a construction project in which the contractor is engaged or under contract as a contractor in violation of section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes. In Count II, Petitioner charges Respondent with failing to include a written statement explaining the consumer's right's under the Florida Homeowners' Construction Recovery Fund in the contract with Donnell Bryant in violation of Section 489.1425(1)(d)1.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order that: (a) finds Respondent guilty as charged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint, imposing as a fine of $2,500, and placing Burns' license on probation for a period of one year; (b) finds Respondent guilty as charged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint, imposing a fine of $250.00; and (c) not imposing any restitution since it was not proven in this matter at hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 2011.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Petitioner, Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, (Board), was the Pinellas County agency responsible for the certification and regulation of construction specialties. Respondent was certified by the Board as an irrigation systems specialty contractor under license C-5997 in force at the time. Respondent was the qualifying contractor for Sun City Lawn Irrigation. On or about May 17, 1994, Respondent contracted with William J. Schneider, who resided at 5661 25th Avenue North in St. Petersburg, to install a lawn irrigation system in Mr. Schneider's front lawn. The automatic system was to incorporate 2 zones and was, according to the contract and the testimony of Mr. Schneider, to be connected to Schneider's then existing 1/2 horsepower electric pump which drew water from several wells on his property. Mr. Schneider claims there are four wells. No evidence was introduced to contradict that. On the day the system was installed, Mr. Schneider was not at home. Respondent's employees performed a test of the water capacity on Mr. Schneider's property. At first, the wells produced 10 gpm, which was adequate for the system, but after a few minutes of drawdown, they found that the wells were producing only 4 gpm, along with some air. At that time Mr. Freestone, Respondent's sales manager, spoke with Mrs. Schneider about the situation, advising her there were two options open. One was to install a larger pump and the second was to connect the system to the city water supply. Mrs. Schneider returned to the house, presumably to call Mr. Schneider to get his decision on the matter. He claims she did not reach him. Respondent claims that she thereafter returned with directions to install a water line for connection to the city system. This is completely contrary to what Mr. Schneider had wanted and to what is included in the contract. Mr. Schneider claims he did not want to connect to city water because of the added expense of doing so, and he claims he made this very clear to Respondent's employees at the beginning and at all times thereafter. In any case, the system was installed and was, somehow, connected to the city water system near the place where the water line enters the house. In addition, no backflow preventer was installed to insure against contamination getting into the water system as is required by the building code. Most, if not all, the work on this project was completed by Respondent's son and employee, Scott, who was not present at the hearing. Respondent attempted to introduce an unsworn written statement by Scott Bosworth, but it was not accepted. Scott advised Mr. Schneider, when he returned from work that day, that they had been unable to use his pump and wells. Nonetheless, Mr. Schneider paid Respondent in full for the work for which he had contracted, except for a supplemental charge in the amount of $190.95 for the tie in to the city water and the valves and other items connected therewith. Mr. Schneider claims that he made several calls to Respondent's office in an effort to correct the situation but was unable to reach anyone who could give him satisfaction. However, the evidence indicates that on at least one occasion, Mr. Schneider got through and was called back by Mr. Freestone with whom he discussed the situation and the additional charges. He was subsequently advised by counsel that he did not have to pay the additional sum and did not do so. Some time thereafter, Mr. Schneider was advised by the city that he would be fined because of the illegal installation. He then contacted another irrigation company, run by Mr. Williams, who examined the system and determined that the irrigation system installed by Respondent had been connected to the city water system and that no backflow preventer had been installed. A check with the city's building department revealed that no permit had been procured for this installation. Respondent's license to install irrigation systems does not include authority to connect that system with the public water system. That procedure must be done by a licensed plumber. Respondent and Mr. Freestone, the only individuals in the company who had the authority to arrange with a plumber to make the actual hook up to the city system, both deny that any arrangement was made by them to have the system connected to the city water system. Mr. Schneider arrived home on the day in question to find only Respondent's son, Scott, at work on the project. Scott indicated it would be necessary to move two bushes near the house to facilitate connection of the system with the water supply. Mr. Schneider contracted with Scott to move the bushes and remove them from the premises. Scott moved them but failed to remove them. In light of the fact that Scott was working on the system at the time Mr. Schneider arrived home, and the system was found to be connected to the city system thereafter without anyone else touching it, it must be concluded that the connection was made him. Respondent admits he did not come to the property in question while the system was being installed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued by the Board suspending the license of the Respondent for a period of six months with provision for withholding execution of the suspension for a period of one year conditioned upon such criteria as may be deemed appropriate by the Board. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 31st day of March, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road Largo, Florida 34643-5116 Larry J. Bosworth 8901 14th Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33716
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner should obtain credit for the answers he gave to questions 1, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, 17 and 19 of the June, 1990 certified plumbing contractor examination.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received, the following findings of fact are made: The Petitioner is an unsuccessful applicant for licensure to become a certified plumbing contractor. Petitioner took the examination administered in June, 1990, and timely filed written challenges to questions numbered 1, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, 17 and 19. The examination was developed by the National Assessment Institute, a division of ASCI, for the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Department). Petitioner's challenges were disallowed by the Department and the instant review was initiated by Petitioner. The challenged questions can be divided into two categories: questions 1, 3, and 4 of the exam required the applicant to review a plan view of a plumbing configuration and to draw an isometric view of the plumbing design. The second group of questions: 12, 13, 14, 17 and 19 required the applicant to answer multiple choice options based upon the Standard Plumbing Code and the illustrations related to each question. With regard to questions 1, 3, and 4 the skill tested was the applicant's ability to look at the plan view, a single dimension floor plan, and to draw the isometric view, a three dimensional plan of the piping system with elevations relative to the fixtures being depicted. As to each of these questions the applicant was to assume the following: GIVEN: Floor plan for a sanitary waste and vent system serving a typical commercial building. Assume the drawing and piping arrangement are in accordance with the Standard Plumbing Code. Draw an isometric piping diagram in the space provided on the right. Maintain the same fixture arrangement and piping configuration. Do not show pipe sizes. With regard to question 1, the Petitioner challenged the question because the isometric drawing for the floor drain would have to be lower than the other fixtures. Since the plan view only depicted one pipe, which connected the water closets and the urinals, Petitioner determined that the floor drain could not be drawn at the appropriate elevation. To correctly draw the isometric for this question Petitioner would have had to assume the question deviated from a normal construction drafting method and "hid" a pipe below the pipe serving the other fixtures. Instead of indicating the second pipe for the floor drain, Petitioner omitted it altogether since he believed only one pipe was there. Petitioner altered the piping configuration with regard to the shower for question 1 in that he tied the vent stack to the one vent through the roof instead of showing the shower with its own vent. Consequently, Petitioner's isometric drawing for question 1 was incorrect. With regard to question 3, Petitioner challenged this question since he felt his isometric drawing correctly depicted the plumbing configuration. Question 3 showed a plan view of four bathrooms utilizing a "T" shaped pipe to which the fixtures would drain. Petitioner's isometric drawing did not show traps for the lavatories to be installed. Instead, Petitioner indicated "LAVS" next to the piping configuration. Traps are required for all lavatories and should have been depicted on the isometric drawing. The Petitioner's drawing for question 3 was therefore incorrect. Petitioner's challenge to question 4 was based upon his assertion that the plan view did not depict a kitchen sink vent and that, therefore, his isometric of that plan would only need to draw the piping as shown. Additionally, Petitioner noted that the sink was not described in the schedule of fixtures listed in the legend for the examination. Petitioner's challenge to question 4 is valid because the configuration shown in the plan view would be improper and contrary to code. Consequently Petitioner's isometric, while not to code standard, conforms to the plan requested. The Department's assertion that the wall clean out should be viewed also as a vent is contrary to the way vents are depicted throughout the test and was not credible. The Petitioner's challenge to question 12 claimed that while his answer was incorrect the Department's answer was also incorrect. The most correct selection from the options offered was "D". Petitioner has substantiated this claim based upon the horizontal branch having a sufficient diameter to accommodate the four "sink" fixtures. Consequently, this question should be deleted from scoring. This question could have reasonably been calculated based upon two interpretations of the code. Accordingly, the only correct answer was "D". Question 13 related to a horizontal fixture branch for a public bathroom setting. In the diagram two back-to-back bathrooms with three water closets (tank type) and two lavatories were depicted. As drawn the Department claimed the illustration complies with the code. The Petitioner determined that the loop vent for the configuration was too small. The essence of Petitioner's claim is based upon an assertion that the developed length of the piping for fixture clearances must be considered to compute the vent size on the vertical rise. Based upon the code requirements the 2 inch vent depicted in zone "H" cannot meet standards. Consequently, the system does not comply with the code. Petitioner should receive credit for this question. Question 14 related to zone "I" which depicted a bathroom configuration. According to the Department, the system, as illustrated, complied with the code. Petitioner's response to the question found the vertical vent through the roof to be too small. The issue for this question relates to whether the floor drain should be assigned 5 drainage fixture units or 1 drainage fixture unit. The number of the fixture units dictates the pipe size. In this instance the 1 1/2 inch vent pipe is incorrect. Consequently, the Department's answer for this question was incorrect. The Petitioner's answer was more correct but was also erroneous since the size pipe through the roof was large enough. Zone "L" depicted a horizontal combination for a waste and vent system located within an area which did not allow the fixtures to be individually vented. Question 17 required the applicant to review the configuration and to determine whether the drawing was correct or incorrect. If incorrect, the options required the applicant to specify the reason the system failed to meet code. For this question the Department and the Petitioner both concluded that the system was incorrect. The reasons differed, however, as to why the depicted design failed. In this instance the system could be permitted if the upstream system were washed. The Petitioner's answer was as correct as that of the Department; consequently, Petitioner should receive credit for his answer. Petitioner's challenge to question 19 claimed that the Department's answer required the applicant to look at a separate zone ("M") to reach the answer. The review of the second zone was contrary to the general instructions according to Petitioner. Petitioner's assertion in this regard was incorrect since the zones were interrelated and reasonably had to be reviewed together. Based upon that assessment the Department's answer was the most correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered granting Petitioner's challenge to the examination as to questions 4, 12, 13, 14, and 17; giving Petitioner credit for his answers to questions 4, 13, and 17, and deleting questions 12 and 14. Further, that the examination questions and answers provided at hearing be sealed and not open to public inspection. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Rulings on the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Petitioner: Petitioner did not submit proposed facts in a form to allow specific rulings as to acceptance or rejection of a stated fact. The unnumbered paragraphs consuming 10 pages contained argument, comment, and supposition in addition to factual matters related to the challenge. The paragraphs (referred to in order of their presentation) which can be accepted are as follows: 2, 4, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21 and 22. All other paragraphs contain either comment or are too nonspecific to accept in the form presented. Consequently they are rejected as argument, recitation or citation to testimony, or irrelevant. Rulings on the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Respondent: Respondent also failed to present proposed findings of fact in a form to allow rulings on a convenient basis. Rulings are addressed by numbered paragraphs as to those accepted: The first sentence of paragraph 1 is accepted. The last three sentences of paragraph 1 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 2, the first sentence and the last two sentences of the paragraph are accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 3 is accepted. The first three sentences of paragraph 4 are accepted. The first three sentences of paragraph 5 are accepted. The last sentence of paragraph 7 is accepted. The first three sentences and the last sentence of paragraph 8 are accepted. The remaining portions of the proposed facts are rejected as recitation of testimony, comment, or argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony S. Rachuba, Jr. TR Mechanical, Inc. 1665 Foulkrod Street Philadelphia, PA 19124 Vytas J. Urba, Staff Atty. Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien, Exec. Director DPR-Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Jack McRay, General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether the Petitioner, Nelson Castillo, is entitled to be certified for a commercial pool/spa contractor’s license.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an applicant for certification as a commercial pool/spa contractor. The Petitioner currently holds certification as a pool/spa servicing contractor. The Petitioner has held this certification for approximately eight years. The Petitioner, in his capacity as a certified pool/spa servicing contractor, was the subject of three administrative cases referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The cases were designated DOAH Case Nos. 04-2380PL, 04-2381PL, and 04-2382PL. As to all three cases, on September 20, 2004, the Petitioner executed a Stipulation (the Stipulation) that provided, in pertinent part: 3. Respondent [this Petitioner] neither admits nor denies the allegations of fact contained in the Administrative Complaints attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” * * * FINE AND COSTS: Respondent shall pay a fine in the amount of Ten Thousand and 00/100 dollars ($10,000.00) and costs in the amount of One Thousand Three Hundred Ten and 51/100 dollars ($1,310.51), for a total of Eleven Thousand Three Hundred Ten and 51/100 dollars ($11,310.51), to the Board. RESTITUTION: The Respondent shall pay restitution to Jose and Bernardina Rodriguez in the amount of Five Thousand One Hundred Seventy Five dollars ($5,175.00) and to Orestes and Lourdes Martinez in the amount of Six Thousand Five Hundred dollars ($6,500.00), in installments, as set forth below. * * * 6. EARLY TERMINATION OF PROBATION AFTER TWO (2) YEARS: After two (2) years of satisfactory probation appearances, if the Respondent pays in full all of the fine and costs described in paragraph 2 above and pays in full all of the restitution described in paragraph 3 above and furnishes satisfactory written evidence thereof to the Executive Director of the Board, then the Respondent’s probation shall terminate. * * * 12. Upon the Board’s adoption of this Stipulation, Respondent understands and agrees that this Stipulation constitutes disciplinary action within the meaning of Section 455.227(1)(f), and 489.129, Florida Statutes. [Emphasis and Italic in original.] The Stipulation was approved by the Respondent at its public meeting on November 11, 2004. Since that time, the Respondent has not taken any other administrative action against the Petitioner. Also considered at the November 2004 meeting, however, was the Petitioner’s application to become a certified commercial pool/spa contractor. The denial of the Petitioner’s application for that certification was the genesis of the instant case. The Petitioner freely, and with advice of counsel, executed and accepted the terms of the Stipulation. At the time the Stipulation was executed, the Petitioner understood the terms of the agreement. The Petitioner’s certification as a pool/spa servicing contractor is valid. The Respondent has taken no additional adverse action against the servicing certification. The Petitioner has not paid all the sums required by the stipulation. It is barely two years since the Final Order Approving Settlement Stipulation was entered. The Petitioner’s certification as a pool/spa servicing contractor was disciplined as a result of the entry of the Final Order Approving the Settlement Stipulation. The scope of work that the Petitioner may perform pursuant to his certification as a pool/spa servicing contractor differs from the scope of work authorized by the certification sought in the instant matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order that denies the Petitioner’s application for certification as a commercial pool/spa contractor. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of February, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Claudel Pressa, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Warren Diener, Esquire Bared & Associates, P.A. The Atrium 1500 San Remo Avenue, Suite 248 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 G. W. Harrell, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the Respondent violated the statutes by committing the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint?
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a registered residential contractor having been issued license number RR 0030688. Respondent's last known address is c/o Griffin Remodeling & Repairs, 7443 Laura Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32208. On July 9, 1982, Respondent, as qualifier for Griffin Remodeling & Repairs, entered into a contract with Freddie L. Jarrell to repair his home at 2121 Forbes Street, Jacksonville, Florida for $1,000.00. On August 4, 1982, Respondent entered into a second contract with Jarrell to do additional work of the same nature on the home. These contracts included painting and retiling a bathroom in the home. In August 1982, Respondent, or his workmen removed plumbing fixtures in Jarrell's bathroom without obtaining a plumbing permit. Failure to pull a plumbing permit in a timely manner for this type of project is a violation of the Building Code of the City of Jacksonville. The tile was reworked but the plumbing was not reinstalled. There was a controversy between Respondent and Jarrell over who was responsible for plumbing. Respondent arranged for the plumbing to be reinstalled; however, he did not pay for it. The plumber reinstalled the fixtures and thereafter pulled a permit after paying a late fee. On August 6, 1982, Respondent sought payment for both of the above- referenced contracts. Jarrell refused until Respondent promised to do all work remaining under the contract. The Respondent gave Jarrell a note signed by his secretary which stated Respondent would fix the water closet (toilet), paint the attic screen, reinstall light switches, and remove tile from the front yard. The Respondent did not reinstall the switches and reset the water closet. Respondent was repeatedly contacted and notified by Jarrell that there were items still left undone. Respondent did not return to the project to do those things that he had promised to do. Respondent was at no time licensed to do plumbing work; however, frequently contractors will pull out fixtures and pay the penalty for not pulling the permit which costs less than having the plumber come out on the job twice.
Recommendation Having found the Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(c), (d) and (j), it is recommended that his license be suspended for one year and he be given credit for the year during which he was incarcerated and did not practice. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of April, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Troy Griffin 7443 North Laura Street Jacksonville, Florida 32208 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether Petitioner may be granted provisional certification as a plumbing inspector and provisional certification as a mechanical inspector.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Florida Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Board (Board) is the executive branch agency, within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, charged, among other duties, with administering Part XII, Chapter 468, Florida Statutes, and issuing standard and provisional certification of plumbing inspectors and mechanical inspectors. The Board denied Petitioner’s applications for provisional licensing as a plumbing inspector, and as a mechanical inspector, because his application(s) “does not demonstrate, affirmed by affidavit signed by an architect, engineer, contractor, or building code administrator, that you have the required experience for the certification sought.” At all times material, Robert McCormick was Respondent Board’s Chairman. The Board considers applications for, and licenses applicants as, building inspectors, plans examiners, and building code administrators. Such personnel usually work with municipal, county, or state entities, although in some places private contractors provide such services. Licensees review proposed construction plans of both residential and commercial projects as well as monitor the progress of construction to assure that all building code standards are met. Each construction trade has a specific and complex code of regulations. Inspectors in each category must assure compliance with that respective trade’s regulations. Most of the work of an inspector is performed in the field at a job site. Plumbing and mechanical inspectors must be versed in both residential and commercial construction codes. The mechanical trade is, at minimum, concerned with heating, air- conditioning, and ventilation systems. The plumbing trade is, at minimum, concerned with water systems, drains, pipes, and gas. At hearing, Petitioner submitted no information whatsoever about his experience in these areas, and relied exclusively upon his application affidavits. Petitioner is employed by a public entity, the City of Deland. The Board has issued him a provisional license as a building inspector. As a building inspector, Petitioner reviews structural and non-structural aspects of construction for one- and two-family dwellings, as well as means of egress and accessibility, but he does not address specific systems or codes, such as plumbing and mechanical, within the structure to assure compliance with the Florida Building Code. Petitioner has already taken and passed both the Florida-required test for standard plumbing inspector certification and for standard mechanical inspector certification. Mr. McCormick, testifying on behalf of the Board, acknowledged Petitioner’s successful test results, but considered Petitioner’s passing the examination to be the last statutory requirement time-wise (or just one of the statutory prongs) for obtaining the standard license. For provisional licenses, the Board still requires five years’ experience as specified by statute for each specialized field (plumbing and mechanical) to be attested-to by adequate affidavits. (TR-69) By virtue of having a provisional building inspector certification issued by the same Board involved with the present applications, Petitioner has already demonstrated, via affidavit, five years’ experience in general building construction. As part of his application(s) for the plumbing and mechanical inspector provisional licenses, Petitioner submitted two affidavits of his current employer and six affidavits from others with knowledge of his work experience. Some of these affidavits also had been used by Petitioner in applying for his building inspector license. The affidavits were signed by engineers, building code administrators, and/or licensed contractors, and account for Petitioner’s work experience from 1988 to the present, most of which experience occurred in Ohio. The affidavits purport to describe, in general terms, Petitioner’s experience, job duties, and overall knowledge of the plumbing and mechanical trades during that time frame. The Board has created an Application Review Committee, consisting of Board members, to review all applications and make a recommendation to the Board as to whether each application should be approved or denied. Mr. McCormick was on the Application Review Committee which reviewed Petitioner’s application on October 14, 2008, and recommended against Petitioner’s provisional licensure in the plumbing and mechanical trades. There is no persuasive evidence that the Application Review Committee made any direct inquiries of Petitioner’s affiants to supplement their affidavits or that it was required to do so. There is no evidence that Petitioner was notified of the Application Review Committee’s meeting or that the law requires that Petitioner be notified of it. However, Petitioner was notified, according to law, of the Board’s meeting on October 17, 2008, when a vote was taken and his pending mechanical and plumbing applications were denied, effective with the Board’s October 30, 2008, Intent to Deny. There is no evidence that Petitioner was present or offered any additional information at the Board’s meeting to support his application(s). According to Mr. McCormick, Petitioner’s affidavits did not describe Petitioner’s work experience in sufficient detail for the two respective categories of inspector. Overall, Mr. McCormick felt all of Petitioner’s affidavits for plumbing and mechanical provisional certification were not specific in the two categories chosen. The Application Review Committee and the Board were looking for affidavits that showed discrete and significant expertise in each trade category, not just experience as a general contractor overseeing other experts in those trades and systems. Petitioner previously had been a general contractor and a licensed Ohio Real Estate Corporate Salesperson. Petitioner’s status as a general contractor in Ohio was insufficient, according to Mr. McCormick, because nothing in the affidavits correlated the licensure of general contractors in Ohio with licensure of general contractors in Florida for purposes of trade category licensing and because Petitioner had already received credit for his prior general contracting experience via his Florida provisional building inspector license. (See Finding of Fact 9.) Mr. McCormick specifically addressed some of these affidavits at hearing. He indicated that the affidavit of Matt Adair, a building official in Deland, Florida, was vague as to five years of the necessary mechanical or plumbing experience, but that it had been accepted by the Application Review Committee as the public employer’s intent to utilize Petitioner for commercial plumbing and mechanical inspections if Petitioner were provisionally licensed in those categories. An affidavit by Jim Ziegler, an Ohio building official, spanned 20 years, and addressed Petitioner’s success in commercial plumbing, masonry, and HVAC (an air-conditioning/mechanical trade), only because of Petitioner’s “hands on” workmanship and supervisory skills as a general contractor in Ohio. The affidavit of Frank Pirc covered 1996-2006, and only described Petitioner as a supervising general contractor with good knowledge of commercial and residential cooling systems. The affidavit of John Bogert, a general contractor, was very specific for plumbing for 1995- 2006, but in Mr. McCormick’s view, Mr. Bogert’s affidavit was unacceptable because it conflicted with an employment history submitted by Petitioner in the same application file. (See affidavits for correct name spellings, rather than the Transcript, which uses phonetic spellings.) Mr. McCormick further stated that no affiant actually identified the period of full-time employment that Petitioner worked in each trade category. Mr. McCormick acknowledged that Petitioner had demonstrated 20 years’ experience in general building, which encompasses some plumbing and some work in the mechanical trade, spread out over that 20-year time frame. However, he testified that the Committee and Board were looking for evidence, via affidavit, that the applicant had a minimum of five years solely dedicated to each trade or five years of full-time work experience in plumbing and five years of full-time work experience in a mechanical trade, not just five years’ total experience based on the applicant’s time in both trades added together. Moreover, in his opinion on behalf of the Board, 20 years as a building contractor had already been acknowledged with the granting of Petitioner’s provisional building inspector’s license. To illustrate his foregoing analysis, Mr. McCormick divided five years into average full-time work hours of 2,000 work hours per year and 10,000 work hours for a five-year long period of employment, but he did not specify that the Committee or Board was adding up full-time work hours to otherwise modify the five years per category requirement of the statute or to alter any Administrative Code rules. Mr. McCormick summed-up problems the Committee and the Board had with Petitioner’s affidavits, saying they showed that Petitioner “did a lot of things over 20 years . . . [but] It is not incumbent on the Board to figure out which part of those 20 years to assign to which trade.” (TR-65) Mr. McCormick acknowledged that, added together, the affidavits submitted by Petitioner covered 20 years of employment, but he further testified that the Committee and Board were looking for affidavits which showed an applicant’s specific duties by trade category, covering specific times/dates, which specific times/dates amounted to five years for each category of building trade.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Building Code Administrators and Inspectors enter a Final Order denying Petitioner’s applications. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2009.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure by endorsement, pursuant to Section 489.115, Florida Statutes (2003).
Findings Of Fact On or about April 4, 2003, Petitioner applied for a certified plumbing contractor's license by endorsement. Applicants who seek a licensure by endorsement must have passed an examination that is substantially equivalent to the examination given in Florida or hold a license in another state or territory of the United States where the criteria for issuance of the license is substantially equivalent to Florida's criteria. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner was licensed or certified as a plumber in Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee. For the purpose of his application for licensure by endorsement, Petitioner submitted information to the Board regarding the examination he took in Georgia. Petitioner was not precluded from submitting information regarding the examinations he took in Alabama and Tennessee. However, Petitioner submitted the information regarding the examination he took in Georgia because it was the one he had taken most recently. Georgia gives three different plumbing examinations and issues three different plumbing licenses. One examination is for a journeyman's license. Another examination is for a Class I restricted plumbing license. Still, another examination is given for a Class II unrestricted plumbing license. In order to obtain his plumbing license in Georgia, Petitioner successfully completed the Class I Restricted Georgia Examination (Georgia Examination). Florida issues only one certified plumbing contractor's license and that license is the equivalent of Georgia's Class II unrestricted plumbing license. To meet the examination requirement for licensure as a plumber in Florida, an applicant must successfully complete the Certification Examination for Plumbing Contractors (Florida Examination or Certification Examination for Plumbing Contractors). Stephen Allen, a psychometrician employed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, evaluated the Georgia Examination to determine if it were substantially equivalent to the Florida Examination. In determining whether the Georgia Examination and the Florida Examination were substantially equivalent, Mr. Allen considered and compared the material covered; the emphasis placed on various topics; the actual content of the examinations; the general characteristics of the examination; the number of questions; the amount of time allowed to complete the examination; the weight given to various areas or categories of the examinations; and the method of measuring knowledge in the various content areas. Based on a comprehensive review and analysis of the Georgia Examination and the Florida Examination, Mr. Allen properly determined that the Georgia Examination was not substantially equivalent to the Florida Examination. The area in which the examinations are significantly different is the isometric area or category. First, the relative weight on the isometric area of the examinations varies greatly. On the Florida Examination, the weight given to the isometric area is 31 percent. On the Georgia Examination, the weight given to the isometric area is, at most, only 6 percent. Second, the knowledge of isometrics is measured differently on the examinations. The Florida Examination requires that the candidate demonstrate knowledge of isometrics by having the candidate draw five different isometric drawings, which show the room's plumbing based on the fixtures to be installed. The five drawings are graded on legibility, orientation, flow, angles, piping, labeling, and vents. The Georgia Examination is a multiple choice examination and measures knowledge of isometrics by the candidate's selecting the correct answer from four possible answers. The Georgia Examination successfully completed by Petitioner to obtain his master plumber's restricted license is not substantially equivalent to the Florida Examination. Petitioner is ineligible for licensure by endorsement because the examination he took in Georgia is not substantially equivalent to the Florida Examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 15th day of December, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara Rockhill Edwards, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 William Lantrip 927 Lakewood Drive Dunedin, Florida 34698-7218 Timothy Vaccaro, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Nancy Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue Whether, on January 14, 1997, the Department of Health (Department or DOH), approved an alternative drainfield system for Plastic Tubing Industries, Inc. (PTI), consisting of a 9- pipe system on an equivalency of one linear foot of PTI's system to two square feet of mineral aggregate or one linear foot of PTI's system to three square feet of mineral aggregate.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Plastic Tubing Industries, Inc. (PTI), formerly Plastic Tubing, Inc., was originally formed in Florida in 1974. PTI manufactures plastic drain pipe and the fittings that accompany such pipe. Many of its products and processes are patented. In conjunction with its business, PTI has developed several alternative drainfield systems that utilize plastic tubing or corrugated pipe in lieu of a standard subsurface system made with mineral aggregate for septic tank drainfields. An alternative drainfield system substitutes pipe, or other materials, for aggregate (gravel or rock) used in traditional systems. Before installation in the State of Florida, PTI was required to obtain approval for its alternative drainfield system from the Department. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 10D-6.049, effective January 3, 1995, amended November 19, 1997, and February 3, 1999; and replaced with Fla. Admin. Code R. 64E- 6.009. The Department was, at all times relevant to this administrative proceeding, the state agency authorized to approve the use of alternative systems (to standard subsurface systems) in the State of Florida. Approvals of alternative systems were based on the Department's analysis of, in part, plans prepared by an engineer registered in the State of Florida and submitted by applicants. See Rule 10D-6.049.1 Septic Tanks and Drainfields "Alternative system" means "any approved onsite sewage treatment and disposal system used in lieu of, including modifications to, a standard subsurface system." Rule 10D- 6.042(3). "Standard subsurface drain field system" means "an onsite sewage system and disposal system drain field consisting of a distribution box or header pipe in a drain trench or absorption bed with all portions of the drain field side walls installed below the elevation of undisturbed native soil (see Figure 3)." Rule 10D-6.042(45). The primary purpose of any on-site septic tank system, and ultimately, the septic tank drainfield, is the storage and dispersal of wastewater until the soil can accept it. In other words, a drainfield is a transmission device that takes water and other liquids from a septic tank to the ground. Liquids leave the septic tank into the drainfield which is designed to store the liquid before letting it flow into the ground or soil. Mineral aggregate provides a conducive medium to spread and temporarily store the effluent. Storage capacity refers to the amount of effluent coming out of a septic tank that will be stored in the aggregate or aggregate alternative, here the pipes, until the ground will accept the effluent. Filtrative surface area refers to the openings (in the pipe or aggregate) that allow the water/effluent to leave the storage area and enter the soil. In the case of mineral aggregate, the openings between the aggregate provide an exit for the water/effluent into the soil. With respect to PTI's pipe product, the water leaves the holes in the pipes and travels through voids created from the ridges and valleys of the pipes and enters the soil. An alternative system is evaluated by how the alternative system compares in function (storage capacity and filtrative surface area) to mineral aggregate. In November 1998, the Department defined "reduction" for the first time to mean any change in the actual bottom area size of the drainfield or a change in the footprint of a drainfield. For example, if a product system is 33-inches wide, it would have a reduction because it is less than 36 inches wide. Prior to November 1998, reduction referred to a reduction in linear feet, rather than total trench area or footprint. Thus, if 80 feet of an alternative product could function as well as a 100-foot trench of aggregate, a reduction of 20 feet would occur. PTI did not ask for a reduction in drainfield linear footage, and in particular, regarding the 9-pipe system. The Approval Process On or about April 21, 1995, PTI submitted a letter to the Department which apparently requested approval "to utilize both the 9-pipe and 13-pipe configurations in lieu of mineral aggregate material in septic tank drainfield systems." (Petitioner Exhibit 2.) This letter is not part of the final hearing record, but is reflected in the Department's May 24, 1995 letter from Paul Booher, P.E., to Fred Atchley, on behalf of PTI.2 (The quoted language is from the May 24, 1995 letter.) In the May 24, 1995, letter, the Department requested PTI to provide additional information to assist the Department in its evaluation of PTI's request. In part, the Department stated that there are three mechanisms that affect the performance of the infiltrative surface, i.e., chemical, biological, and physical, and that "[b]iological, and perhaps other physical (soil size) considerations, affect the performance of drainfield systems." By letter dated July 7, 1995, PTI's engineer, John E. Garlanger, Ph.D., P.E., a principal with Ardaman & Associates, Inc., provided PTI, to the attention of Mr. Atchley, a letter/report which responded to the Department letter of May 24, 1995. Dr. Garlanger stated in part: "As requested, Ardaman & Associates, Inc. has prepared cross-sectional drawings showing the dimensions associated with the installation of a 9- pipe and 13-pipe Rockless Drain Field System (PTI System) in both mound trench and subsurface trench drain field system." In addition to the letter/report, Dr. Garlanger provided a drawing labeled "Installation Guidelines Multi-Pipe Rockless Drain Field System Plastic Tubing Industries, Inc.," File No. 95-104. (Joint Exhibit 1.) The July 7, 1995, drawing depicts the 9-pipe system and 13-pipe system. The 9-pipe system consists of nine four- inch diameter corrugated polyethylene pipes. Four pipes are placed on top of five pipes and one of the four pipes is a distribution pipe. The nine pipes are bundled together, are 8.63 inches in height and 23.25 inches in width, and depicted within a two-foot wide trench. Note 4 of 6 on the drawing indicated that the "ACTUAL WIDTH OF BOTH 9-PIPE AND 13-PIPE SYSTEMS AFTER PLACEMENT IN THE TRENCH IS GREATER THAN SHOWN BY UP TO 10 % DUE TO SPREADING OF THE PIPES WITHIN THE BUNDLES." (The same drawing also illustrates the 13-pipe system with six pipes placed on top of seven pipes and bundled. The 13-pipe system is 8.63 inches in height and 32.375 inches in width and depicted within a three-foot wide trench. Note 4 is also referenced. (Joint Exhibit 1.)) Dr. Garlanger provided six notes to the July 7, 1995 drawing, as follows: 1.) STORAGE VOLUME BENEATH BOTTOM OF 0.75- INCH DIAMETER PERFORATIONS IN DISTRIBUTION PIPE FOR 9-PIPE SYSTEM IS GREATER THAN 1180 in3/ft (5.1 gal/ft) [1190 in3/ft (5.2 gal/ft)] AND FOR 13-PIPE SYSTEM IS GREATER THAN 1690 in3/ft (7.3 gal/ft) [1710 in3/ft (7.4 gal/ft)]. THIS COMPARES WITH A STORAGE VOLUME OF 660 in3/ft (2.8 gal/FT) FOR CONVENTIONAL 2-FOOT WIDE AGGREGATE-FILLED TRENCH AND 1000 in3/ft (4.3 gal/ft) FOR A CONVENTIONAL 3-FOOT WIDE AGGREGATE-FILLED TRENCH. 2.) TOTAL AVAILABLE STORAGE VOLUME WITHIN 9-PIPE SYSTEM IS 1985 in3/ft (8.6 gal/ft) [2070 in3/ft (8.9 gal/ft)] AND WITHIN 13-PIPE SYSTEM IS 2910 in3/ft (12.6 gal/ft) [2980 in3/ft (12.9 gal/ft)]. THIS COMPARES WITH A TOTAL STORAGE VOLUME OF 1185 in3/ft (5.13 gal/ft) [1200 in3/ft (5.2 gal/ft)] FOR 2-FOOT WIDE, 12-INCH DEEP AGGREGATE SYSTEM AND 1790 in3/ft (7.75 gal/ft) [1800 in3/ft (7.8 gal/ft)] FOR A 3-FOOT WIDE, 12-INCH DEEP AGGREGATE SYSTEM. 3.) THE BOTTOM AREA AVAILABLE FOR FILTRATION IS GREATER THAN 160 in2/ft FOR THE 9-PIPE SYSTEM AND GREATER THAN 220 in2/ft FOR THE 13-PIPE SYSTEM. COMPARABLE BOTTOM AREAS FOR AGGREGATE SYSTEMS ARE 100 in2/ft FOR A 2- FOOT TRENCH AND 150 in2/ft FOR A 3-FOOT TRENCH. 4.) ACTUAL WIDTH OF BOTH 9-PIPE AND 13-PIPE SYSTEMS AFTER PLACEMENT IN THE TRENCH IS GREATER THAN SHOWN BY UP TO 10% DUE TO SPREADING OF THE PIPES WITHIN THE BUNDLES. 5.) PERFORATIONS [IN DISTRIBUTION PIPE] ARE SPACED 4" ON CENTER. PERFORATION AREA IS 2.65 in2/LINEAL FOOT. 6.) EITHER OF THE UPPER PIPES IN THE DISTRIBUTION PIPE BUNDLE MAY BE USED FOR THE DISTRIBUTION PIPE. THE LOWER PIPE SHALL NOT BE USED FOR THE DISTRIBUTION PIPE. [THE DISTRIBUTION PIPE SHALL BE MARKED WITH A REFERENCE LINE TO ORIENT THE PERFORATIONS. THE DISTRIBUTION PIPE SHALL BE COUPLED BETWEEN EACH BUNDLE TO PROVIDE A CONTINUOUS LENGTH OF PIPE.] (The language appearing in brackets appears in the revised drawing, Joint Exhibit 2, submitted by PTI with Dr. Garlanger's December 8, 1996, letter, DOH Exhibit 4.) In his July 7, 1995 letter to PTI, Dr. Garlanger, in responding to Mr. Booher's letter of May 24, 1995, stated in part: Explain how the pipe bundles fulfill the requirement for a 12-inch deep drain field? Paragraph 10D-6.056(3)(e) requires the mineral aggregate material have a total depth of at least 12 inches and that the distribution pipe have a minimum of six inches of aggregate under the pipe. The purpose of the aggregate is to provide a highly conductive medium to spread and temporarily store the wastewater above the infiltrative surface between loading cycles. Twelve inches of mineral aggregate in a 2- foot wide trench can store approximately 5.25 gallons of wastewater per foot. Deducting the dead storage below the perforations in the distribution pipe, the total available storage in a conventional 2- foot wide trench drain is 5.13 gallons per foot and in a conventional 3-foot wide trench is 7.75 gallons per foot. The height of the 9-pipe and 13-pipe systems is 8.360 inches. The distance from the bottom of the trench to the bottom of the perforations in the distribution pipe is 4.836 inches. The total available water storage in a 9-pipe system after deducting the dead storage is 8.60 gallons per foot and in a 13-pipe system after making the same deduction is 12.58 gallons per foot. In both cases, the total available storage is greater for the PTI system. [See Note 2 above.] Note that the total available water storage capacity below the bottom of the perforations in the distribution pipe is also greater for the PTI System than for the aggregate system: 5.1 gal/ft for the 9-pipe system compared to 2.8 gal/ft for a conventional 2-foot wide trench and 7.3 gal/ft for the 13-pipe system compared to 4.3 gal/ft for the conventional 3-foot wide trench. [See Note 1 above.] Because the thickness of aggregate below the pipe is less than the minimum requirement of 6 inches, we are concerned about the distribution of the effluent over the infiltrative surface, especially since the sidewalls are such an integral part of the operation of the system. The hydraulic conductivity of both the aggregate system and the bundled pipe system is several orders of magnitude higher than that of the in situ sand that underlies the drain field. In both cases, but certainly for the PTI System, water flowing out of the perforations in the distribution pipe can spread out evenly across the infiltrative surface. The depth to which the water rises above the infiltrative surface depends primarily on the inflow rate and the hydraulic conductivity of the organic mat that forms on the bottom of the trench. Because of the differences in porosity between the two systems, the water increases in depth faster in the aggregate system than in the PIT System. However, the ultimate depth of water for a given inflow rate will be roughly the same for both systems, i.e., when inflow equals outflow. The only difference between the two systems is in the volume of water that is stored in the trench during each loading period; the PTI System stores more. There should be no significant difference in the effect of the sidewalls on the infiltrative capacity of the two systems. The effect of increasing sidewall seepage on the overall hydraulic performance of a drain field system is not large. For a 2-foot wide trench, increasing the sidewall seepage by raising the water depth from 5 to 6 inches increases the peak infiltration rate by less than 7 percent. The corresponding increase for a 3-foot wide trench is less than 5 percent. State the area per lineal foot of bundle that constitutes the infiltrative surface. The surface area at the bottom of the trench that is available for filtration of suspended solids in the effluent is greater than 160 in2/lineal foot for the 9-pipe system and greater than 220 in2/lineal foot for the 13-pipe system. This compares with 100 in2/lineal foot for a 2-foot wide aggregate-filled trench and 150 in2/lineal foot for a 3-foot wide aggregate-filled trench. [See Note 3 above.] (The underlined portions are inquiries made by Mr. Booher. The language in brackets refers to the "Notes" mentioned above.) DOH Exhibit 3 is a copy of Dr. Garlanger's July 7, 1995, letter, which also contains Mr. Booher's comments of August 14, 1995. It is noted that Dr. Garlanger discusses the calculations which appear in Notes 1, 2, and 3, in that portion of Dr. Garlanger's letter/report recited above. Mr. Booher also made notations on the July 7, 1995, drawing, with respect to, among other things, the Notes. Material here, beside Note 3, Mr. Booher wrote "Gravel Shadow? @ .35% open." (Joint Exhibit 1.) Mr. Booher also noted on Dr. Garlanger's July 7, 1995, letter/report "disagree" and other notations with respect to Dr. Garlanger's explanation under the subject discussed in Note 3 above, and under the heading "State the area per lineal foot of bundle that constitutes the infiltrative surface." (Emphasis in original.) (See Finding of Fact 16, p. 13.) On October 15, 1996, Mr. Booher requested additional information from Mr. Atchley, as follows: Per our conference call yesterday please provide the following for approval of the rockless pipe drainfield: A written request. Drawings showing the distribution and void pipe locations. Indicate the pipe bundle configurations. If you intend to use the notes on drawing 95-104 titled "Installation guidelines-Multi-pipe rockless drainfield system" please fully include and explain the calculations, including drawings with the areas calculated shown by shading. Explain comparison calculations. For example, gravel percent voids used, effective gravel depth, percent assumed for gravel shadowing and how determined, percent used for pipe shadowing and how determined. If the distribution pipes are of different material than the void pipe please so indicate. Reference the applicable ASTM standard for all materials. Below item 6, the following handwritten note (by Mr. Booher) appears: "Fred-Don't get optomistic [sic]-we are attempting to define 'gravel equivalent.'" (Joint Exhibit 5.) In response to Mr. Booher's October 15, 1996, request for additional information, on December 8, 1996, Dr. Garlanger provided a two-page letter, and Attachment 1 to Mr. Atchley. Attachment 1 provided "Calculations for Storage Volumes and Infiltration Areas for Multi-Pipe Rockless System and Conventional Gravel Drain." Material here, Attachment 1 contained a summary of Dr. Garlanger's conclusions (and the actual calculations) comparing PTI's multi-pipe system, 9-pipe and 13-pipe, to 24 and 36-inch wide gravel-filled trenches, regarding three parameters: storage volume below holes in the distribution pipe; filtration area; and total storage volume in the system. The specific calculations and illustrations are provided, including "area and volume calculations," in Attachment 1 on pages 1-10. (DOH Exhibit 4 and Joint Exhibit 4.) Dr. Garlanger also provided comparison calculations responding to item 4 in Mr. Booher's October 15, 1996 letter (see Finding of Fact 18) as follows: Explain comparison calculations. For example, gravel percent voids used, effective gravel depth, percent assumed for gravel shadowing and how determined. The comparison calculations are presented in Attachment 1. The gravel porosity was calculated based on a typical dry density for loosely placed FDOT No. 57 stone of 110 pcf and a specific gravity for limestone of 2.8, resulting in a calculated porosity of approximately 35 percent. For a conventional gravel-filled trench, the area available for filtration was calculated as the total area of the gravel times porosity, i.e., the percent assumed for gravel shadowing was 100-35=65 percent. For the multi- pipe rockless drain, the contact between the bottom of each pipe and the ground surface was taken as 2 inches per lineal inch of pipe which provides sufficient bearing area to support the overburden pressure. Computation of equivalent storage in the gravel assumed a minimum of 6 inches of No. 57 stone beneath the invert of the pipe and a distance of 0.83 inches from the invert of the pipe to the bottom of the drain holes. (Emphasis added.) (Mr. Booher's request is underlined before Dr. Garlanger's response.) Dr. Garlanger also provided a drawing labeled "Installation Guidelines Multi-Pipe Rockless Drain Field System Plastic Tubing Industries, Inc.," File No. 95-104. This drawing reflects general revisions of October 11, 1995, and December 6, 1996, to the original drawing dated July 7, 1995, which accompanied Dr. Garlanger's July 7, 1995, letter to Mr. Atchley. See Findings of Fact 14-15. Six "Notes" were presented in the December 6, 1996, drawing revisions, with some changes made to Notes 1, 2, 5, and 6 which do not appear to be material. See Finding of Fact 15. No changes are made to Notes 3 and 4. Material here, Note 3 pertains to "the bottom area available for filtration" and Dr. Garlanger's calculations showing the 9-pipe system comparing more favorably (equal to or greater) to a 24 and 36-inch (two and three feet wide, respectively) wide aggregate (gravel) trench without any changes in response to Mr. Booher's August 14, 1995, comments and October 15, 1996, request for additional "comparison calculation" and explanation regarding "gravel shadowing." (Notes 1-3 are derived from the calculations appearing in Attachment 1, pages 1-9.) Dr. Garlanger's submissions indicated that one linear foot of the 9-pipe system is equal to or greater than three square feet of gravel. Also, the representation that the 9-pipe system fits within a 24-inch trench does not relate to equivalency. See Finding of Fact 36. Dr. Garlanger's December 8, 1996, letter, with Attachment 1, and the revised drawing, were forwarded to Mr. Booher with a cover letter from Mr. Atchley, dated December 11, 1996. Mr. Atchley stated in his letter: Enclosed are the drawings and calculations you requested. The "numbers" add up favorably. I look forward to your response and anticipated approval based on this information. Please notice the difference in volume (total capacity), porosity and filtrative surface area. Based on these calculations we could justify a reduction of up to 40%. However, we do not wish to apply for any reduction at this time. We do ask that the bed installation constraint be removed from our acceptance letter. There seems to be more and more bed type installations even though the FAC 10D-6 clearly states that a trench system is the preferred method. Consequently, we will be requiring that certified installers of our systems employ a method of back filling that will insure against collapse of any part of the system. This method would also have to provide within reason, a guaranty against operating any equipment onto the drain field area until sufficient cover has been established. After 10 to 12 inches of cover has been established we ask them to mark the bed area with stakes and flagging to serve as a warning to other sub-contractors such as the sod installers and the finished grade tractor operator. If there are any questions please call me at (407) 298-5121. (On January 13, 1997, Mr. Atchley also sent Mr. Booher a similar letter, but also included some additional data regarding 1996 sales, including but not limited to average system size per square foot, the number of active installers, installations per month.) On January 14, 1997, Mr. Booher issued the following approval letter to Mr. Atchley: Dear Mr. Atchley: We have reviewed the engineering drawings dated 07/07/95 with revision 2 dated 12/06/96 and data prepared and sealed by Ardaman & Associates dated December 8, 1996, and received in this office on December 16, 1996. Your request for alternative drainfield system approval letters dated December 11, 1996, and January 13, 1997, have also been reviewed. The PTI nine pipe bundle and PTI thirteen pipe bundle Multi-Pipe Rockless Drainfield Systems are hereby approved for use in the State of Florida. We have concerns about the total effective sidewall contact surface area, especially when systems are installed with no fall. We also have concerns regarding the structural integrity of the pipe bundle systems when used in large bed applications. Nevertheless, approval is granted based on the design and recommendations submitted by your professional engineer for which he is solely responsible; the comparative data versus a standard drainfield system; and the satisfactory performance in Florida of similar PTI Multi-Pipe Rockless Drainfield System installations. Except as herein noted, all systems shall be installed in accordance with sections 381.0065-381.0067 Florida Statutes, and all rules in Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code (FAC). All installations shall be sized and installed meeting all rules in Rule 10D-6, FAC and shall also meet the following conditions: All licensed septic tank contractors who are going to install these systems shall be field instructed by certified employees of PTI on the proper installation and backfilling requirements of the systems prior to installation. Prior to the first installation in each county, contact the local Health Department to provide hands on training for the county health department staff. Both the 9 and 13 pipe bundle systems can be installed in subsurface, filled, or mound trench or bed systems. In bed systems the maximum centerline to centerline spacing of the distribution pipe shall be 36 inches. The distribution piping may be used to house low pressure distribution networks. A copy of the applicable limited warranty shall be provided to each homeowner/builder. Department approval of any alternative system application or any other type system does not guarantee or imply that any individual system installation will perform satisfactorily for a specific period of time. The individual system design engineer or the registered septic tank contractor if an engineer didn't design the system is primarily responsible for determining the best system design to meet specific wastewater treatment and disposal needs and to address the specific property site conditions and limitations. If you have any questions please call us at (904) 488-4070. (Emphasis added.) This letter was accompanied by a facsimile sheet which indicated, in part, that the Department intended to "notify the 67 counties within the week." On January 29, 1997, Mr. Booher authored an Interoffice Memorandum which was issued from John Heber, Chief, On-Site Sewage Program, Mr. Booher's supervisor at the time, to the County Health Department Director/Administrator. (Joint Exhibit 11.) This Interoffice Memorandum provided in part: The PTI 9 pipe and 13 pipe "Multi- Purpose Rockless Drainfield Systems" have both been given alternative systems approval for use in Florida. The systems are to be installed in accordance with drawing file number 95- 104 dated 07/07/95, revision 2 dated 12/06/96, copy attached. Except as hereby noted, systems shall be installed in accordance with sections 381.0065 - 381.0067, Florida Statutes, and all rules in Chapter 10D- 6, Florida Administrative Code (FAC). The following conditions apply: The 9 pipe system shall be rated at 1 linear foot equals 2 square feet of drainfield area. The 13 pipe system shall be rated at 1 linear foot equals 3 square feet of drainfield area. The 9 pipe and 13 pipe bundle systems may be installed in subsurface, filled or mounded trench or bed applications. Dosing will be acceptable when used to overcome a gravity situation. Pressurized systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code. Please be reminded that certain pressurized dosing systems must be designed by engineers registered in the State of Florida. For designs requiring the use of smaller diameter pipe (either screw joint or glue joint), the 9 pipe and 13 pipe systems distribution pipe shall house the pressurized pipe system. All licensed septic tank contactors who are going to install these systems shall be field instructed by certified employees of PTI on the proper installation and backfilling requirements of the systems prior to installation. Prior to the first installation in each county, contact the local Health Department to provide hands on training for the county health department staff. A copy of the applicable limited warranty shall be provided to each homeowner/builder. Department approval of any alternative system application or an other type system does not guarantee or imply that any individual system installation will perform satisfactorily for a specific period of time. The individual system design engineer (or the registered septic tank contractor if an engineer does not design the system) is primarily responsible for determining the best system design to meet specific wastewater treatment and disposal needs and to address the specific property site conditions and limitations. If you have any questions, please call me or Paul Booher, P.E., at (904) 488-4070, or SC 278-4070. (Emphasis in original.) On March 13, 1998, the Department issued a document entitled "Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems Alternative Drainfield Products." This document describes several product names including PTI's product as follows: "PTI 'NPRDS' 9 ea.- 2-tier 13 ea.-2-tier." The engineer of record is listed as Ardaman and Associates, and the type of permit issued is referred to as "Alternative Status" along the same line as "PTI 'MPRDS"" and "No reduction in area" along the line "9 ea.-2 tier." Mr. Everson may have seen this chart prior to seeing the November 27, 2000, chart mentioned below. But, the mention of no reduction would have been consistent with his understanding that reduction referred to a reduction in linear feet and PTI did not request a reduction in linear feet. On November 27, 2000, an employee of the Department prepared a similar chart which included a description of product names and included the same PTI product. However, under the heading "Type of Permit Issued and Sizing Criteria," the following language appears: PRODUCT NAME DESCRIPTION SUBMISSION DATE APPROVAL DATE CPHU NOTIFICATION DATE ENGINEER OF RECORD TYPE OF PERMIT ISSUED and SIZING CRITERIA *** *** *** *** *** *** PTI "MPRDS" 9 ea.-2 tier 12/06/96 12/14/96 01/15/97 Ardaman and Associates 1 linear foot of product = 2 sq ft of mineral aggregate 13 ea.-2 tier 1 linear foot of product = 3 sq ft of mineral aggregate On February 26, 2001, the Department issued a similar chart which contained the same information regarding PTI as the November 27, 2000, chart, which appears above. All of the charts were designed to provide guidance to the local health departments regarding the alternative drainfield systems approved in the State of Florida and the ratings, e.g., equivalency, assigned to each. See Findings of Fact 26-28. The November 27, 2000, and February 26, 2001, charts described PTI's 9-pipe system approved by the Department on a one-to-two square foot equivalency to mineral aggregate. In late 2000, while working with a Department representative on an industry presentation, Mr. Everson, vice president of PTI, discovered the November 27, 2000, chart mentioned above. Mr. Everson believed this representation to be incorrect and reported it to Michael Maroschak, the president of PTI. Discussions transpired between representatives of PTI and the Department. Ultimately, the Department implicitly decided that the Department had approved PTI's 9-pipe system, consistent with these charts. On March 18, 2003, the Department advised PTI in writing that it "stands by its previous decisions on the matter." PTI then filed its Petition challenging this agency action. Resolution of the Controversy PTI has developed various pipe configurations to serve as alternative drainfield systems. PTI requested the Department to approve its 9-pipe and 13-pipe bundle Multi-Pipe Rockless Drainfield Systems in or around April of 1995. The 9-pipe system is the subject of this proceeding. As early as May 1995, the Department understood that PTI requested approval to utilize both PTI's 9-pipe and 13-pipe configurations in lieu of mineral aggregate material in septic tank drainfield systems. Over the course of over a year and a half, in support of its approval request and in response to questions posed by the Department, PTI, by and through Dr. Garlanger, PTI's registered Professional Engineer, submitted an engineering drawing (signed and sealed), as revised, and specific specifications and calculations to indicate that one linear foot of the 9-pipe system compared favorably, on paper, with a conventional three-foot wide, 12-inch deep (three square feet) aggregate system. The Department raised questions regarding PTI's proposal to which PTI, and specifically Dr. Garlanger, responded. During the approval process, the Department raised issues related to "gravel shadowing" and Dr. Garlanger's calculations regarding the "bottom area available for filtration." See, e.g., (DOH Exhibit 3, p. 2; Joint Exhibit 1.) Dr. Garlanger responded to these inquiries. See, e.g., (DOH Exhibits 3 and 4; Joint Exhibits 1 and 2.) Dr. Garlanger has been a registered Professional Engineer in the State of Florida since 1974 and has served as vice-president for Ardaman & Associates and chief engineer since 1975. He was accepted as an expert in the areas of hydrology, hydro-geology, and geotechnical engineering. Dr. Garlanger prepared and signed and sealed the engineering drawings and all comparative data submitted by PTI with its approval request. Dr. Garlanger's engineering drawings, including the "Notes" as revised, and calculations indicated favorable (equal to or greater than) comparisons of one linear foot of PTI's 9- pipe system with two and three square feet of aggregate (gravel). The fact that the 9-pipe system fits within a 24-inch or two-foot wide trench does not affect its equivalency to three square feet of aggregate (gravel) with respect to the three parameters in Notes 1-3 and in the calculations referred to in Attachment 1. See Finding of Fact 22. During the final hearing, the Department, consistent with written comments made during the approval process, suggested that the "gravel shadowing" or "a shadowing technique" that occurs with alternative systems to compare their infiltrative surface area (bottom area available for filtration) to aggregate, has never been used by the Department "as an evaluator." Mr. Booher3 explained that this technique "reduces the size of the actual area, the length times the width of the drain field [sic], by a cross sectional area of interrupting gravel, saying the actual absorption area is reduced as a result of the gravel that is sitting on the infiltrative surface and reduces the total area, absorptive area, to about one-third of the actual total area. And that's what [he] disagree[s] with." Mr. Booher also stated that he would not approve a 9- pipe system at a three square-foot equivalent because of biological loading. He explained his position in some detail. In the May 24, 1995, letter to PTI, the Department stated that it was "interested in verifying that the drainfield environment will support aerobic treatment over the long term." This question expressed the Department's concern regarding "biological loading and problems that can develop. Dr. Garlanger responded to this inquiry and his explanation was accepted by Mr. Booher "because everyone claims it." See (DOH Exhibit 3; Petitioner Exhibit 2, p. 3.) The Department also contended that it did not approve PTI's request because PTI did not ask for a "reduction." Mr. Booher explained during the final hearing that Dr. Garlanger's drawings (Joint Exhibits 1 and 2) referred to "the 9-inch pipe and the 24-inch trench and the 13-inch pipe and the 36-inch trench because that note 4 says that if you put them in accordance with this document, then you will be a full 24-inch, 9-inch, 24-inch equivalent and 36-inch, 13-pipe equivalent" and that he "needed to restrict [his] review to no reduction in area." Mr. Booher also commented on Note 3, for which he disagreed during the approval process. It did not matter to Mr. Booher that Dr. Garlanger used "the shadow masking technique because [PTI] was not asking for any reduction." He considered Note 3 as "just more information, as opposed to an evaluation for determination of the sizing." In other words, according to Mr. Booher, the Department's approval letter of January 14, 1997, did not address the idea of using the 9-pipe system in a 36-inch trench" because PTI "asked for no reduction." 4 The Department's position is also based, in part, on Mr. Atchley's cover letters of December 11, 1996, and January 13, 1997, in which Mr. Atchley, referring to Dr. Garlanger's drawings and calculations, that "[b]ased on these calculations we could justify a reduction of up to 40%. However, we do not wish to apply for any reduction at this time." The weight of the evidence indicates that the reference to the "40%" pertains to the 13-pipe system, which would have been a large reduction, and not the 9-pipe system. The 9-pipe system qualified for only a minimal reduction which was not requested. Also, PTI did not request a reduction in linear feet. There is a conflict in the evidence regarding what PTI requested. Mr. Atchley opines that PTI did not request approval of the 9-pipe system such that one linear foot of product is equivalent to three square feet of aggregate. Mr. Booher agrees and also opines that the Department did not approve this configuration. Mr. Everson takes the opposite view as does Dr. Garlanger. The conflict is resolved in PTI's favor. While Mr. Booher's comments appearing of record, regarding PTI's request for approval and the Department's approval, and which were explained more fully during the final hearing, are credible, the fact remains that the Department granted approval "based on the design and recommendations submitted by [PTI's] professional engineer for which he is solely responsible; the comparative data versus a standard drainfield system; and the satisfactory performance in Florida of similar PTI Multi-Pipe Rockless Drainfield System installations." (Joint Exhibit 6.) The Department did not take exception in its approval letter, as it did during the final hearing, to PTI's submissions by Dr. Garlanger, PTI's professional engineer.5 Dr. Garlanger's submissions and his explanation of his submissions are credible. The weight of the evidence indicates that PTI requested approval for and the Department approved PTI's 9-pipe system on an equivalency of one linear foot of product to three square feet of mineral aggregate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order concluding that Plastic Tubing Industries, Inc.'s 9-pipe bundle Multi-Pipe Rockless Drainfield System, such that one linear foot of PTI's 9-pipe system is equivalent to three square feet of mineral aggregate, is approved for use in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES A. STAMPELOS 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 11th day of December, 2003.
