The Issue Whether Petitioner’s application for a variance to permit an onsite treatment and disposal system should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The lot of land for which the Bank seeks a variance for an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system is located at 341 Compass Lake Drive in Jackson County, Florida. The lot is approximately 40 feet wide and 300 feet deep, with approximately 40 feet of frontage on Compass Lake. Prior to its severance in 2010, the lot was part of a larger parcel of land with an address of 343 Compass Drive in Jackson County. The larger parcel was owned by Charles Paulk and had substantial improvements consisting of a house, boathouse, and dock. In 2004, Mr. Paulk borrowed money from the Bank and gave the Bank a mortgage lien on the entire larger parcel to secure the loan. At some point, a survey was prepared which subdivided the larger parcel into two lots -- the first containing the substantial improvements, and the other consisting of the approximately 40-foot by 300-foot lot at issue, which is .28 acres in size, with no improvements. There is no indication that the survey was ever recorded in the public records. Later, in 2010, Mr. Paulk decided to sell the lot with the substantial improvements for $330,000. Because the Bank had a lien on the entire larger parcel, Mr. Paulk requested that the Bank release its lien on the lot with the substantial improvements. The Bank agreed to release its lien on the lot with substantial improvements and, after receiving what the Bank felt was a “sufficient pay-down” on the loan, shifted its lien to the smaller, unimproved lot that is at issue in this case. The sale and release of lien transaction “substantially reduced the loan versus the collateral value” that the Bank previously had. According to the Bank’s Senior Vice President, James Goodson, after the sale transaction, there was “not a lot of money left on the loan ” Mr. Goodson testified that, at the time that the Bank agreed to release its lien on the substantially improved lot and shift its lien to the remaining unimproved lot, it was unaware that a variance would be required for an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system (septic tank) on the unimproved lot. The facts as outlined above, however, demonstrate that the Bank was an active participant and beneficiary of the transaction that ultimately resulted in the creation of the two lots, one of which was the approximately 40-foot by 300-foot unimproved lot at issue in this case. In 2012, Mr. Paulk experienced financial problems and was having difficulty paying back the loan to the Bank secured by the unimproved lot. Because it was easier than foreclosure, the Bank agreed to take a deed to the unimproved lot in lieu of foreclosure.1/ At the time of the Bank’s release of lien in 2010, as well as at the time of the deed in lieu of foreclosure, the 40- foot by 300-foot lot size of the unimproved lot was too small to meet the statutory requirements for a septic permit. Mr. Goodson testified that, at the time that the Bank accepted the deed in lieu of foreclosure, the Bank was aware that the lot was too small and would need a variance for a septic tank. He did not explain, however, why the Bank had earlier been unaware of the need for a variance when it agreed to release its lien on the substantially improved lot in 2010. After the Bank acquired title to the unimproved lot, a third party offered to purchase it on the condition that the Bank could obtain a permit. The Bank went to Jackson County to request a permit, knowing that its request would be denied because the lot size was insufficient for a septic tank without a variance. Nevertheless, the Bank believed that it would qualify for a variance on hardship grounds because it did not “intentionally” create the hardship. The Bank commenced the permitting process by submitting an application with the Jackson County Health Department on October 4, 2012. The County denied the application on the grounds that the lot was deficient in width and total area. Next, the Bank submitted a request to the Department for a variance. The request was considered by the Department’s Variance Review and Advisory Committee (Committee) on December 6, 2012. The Committee has only recommending authority to the State Health Officer. In a four to three vote, the Committee recommended approval of a variance. The members voting against a recommendation for approval were representatives of the State Health Office, the Department of Environmental Protection, and the County Health Department. Eight objections from adjacent property owners were provided to the Committee’s review and consideration. After considering the facts, including the decision of the County Health Department, objections filed by adjacent property owners, actions taken by the Bank, and the recommendations of all the members of the Committee, Gerald Briggs, Bureau Chief for Onsite Sewage Programs for the Department of Health, made the Department’s preliminary decision that the Bank’s variance request should be denied, concluding, among other things, that “[a]ny perceived hardship that [the Bank] might experience as a result of the obligation to meet established standards comes about as a direct result of your own proposed action.” Likewise, considering the facts and evidence as presented in this case, the undersigned finds, as a matter of fact, that the Bank intentionally participated in and benefitted from the transaction that resulted in the hardship posed by the small lot size that it now owns and for which it seeks a variance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a Final Order denying SunSouth Bank’s application for a variance. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III 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 21st day of March, 2014.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's challenge to the failing grade he received on the contract administration portion of the October 2000 General Contractor Examination should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner sat for the contract administration portion of the Florida certification examination for general contractors administered in October 2000 (Contract Administration Examination). The Contract Administration Examination consisted of 60 multiple-choice questions of equal value, worth a total of 100 points. To attain a passing score on the Contract Administration Examination, candidates needed to receive a total of 70 points. Of the 378 candidates who took the Contract Administration Examination, 156 received passing scores. Petitioner was not among this group of successful candidates. He received a failing score of 66.67 on the examination. Question 2 of the Contract Administration Examination was a clear and unambiguous multiple-choice question that required the candidate to determine, based upon the information given, on what workday (not calendar day) the pouring of concrete footings for a residential construction project would begin. There was only one correct answer to this question. Approximately 50 percent of the candidates chose this correct response. Petitioner chose another answer that was clearly incorrect because it represented the calendar day (not the workday) on which the pouring would begin. He therefore appropriately received no credit for his answer. Question 9 of the Contract Administration Examination was a clear and unambiguous multiple-choice question that fairly tested the candidate's knowledge of the requirements of Section 489.113(3), Florida Statutes, which provides as follows: A contractor shall subcontract all electrical, mechanical, plumbing, roofing, sheet metal, swimming pool, and air- conditioning work, unless such contractor holds a state certificate or registration in the respective trade category, however: A general, building, or residential contractor, except as otherwise provided in this part, shall be responsible for any construction or alteration of a structural component of a building or structure, and any certified general contractor or certified underground utility and excavation contractor may perform clearing and grubbing, grading, excavation, and other site work for any construction project in the state. Any certified building contractor or certified residential contractor may perform clearing and grubbing, grading, excavation, and other site work for any construction project in this state, limited to the lot on which any specific building is located. A general, building, or residential contractor shall not be required to subcontract the installation, or repair made under warranty, of wood shingles, wood shakes, or asphalt or fiberglass shingle roofing materials on a new building of his or her own construction. A general contractor shall not be required to subcontract structural swimming pool work. A general contractor, on new site development work, site redevelopment work, mobile home parks, and commercial properties, shall not be required to subcontract the construction of the main sanitary sewer collection system, the storm collection system, and the water distribution system, not including the continuation of utility lines from the mains to the buildings. A general contractor shall not be required to subcontract the continuation of utility lines from the mains in mobile home parks, and such continuations are to be considered a part of the main sewer collection and main water distribution systems. A solar contractor shall not be required to subcontract minor, as defined by board rule, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, or roofing work so long as that work is within the scope of the license held by the solar contractor and where such work exclusively pertains to the installation of residential solar energy equipment as defined by rules of the board adopted in conjunction with the Electrical Contracting Licensing Board. No general, building, or residential contractor certified after 1973 shall act as, hold himself or herself out to be, or advertise himself or herself to be a roofing contractor unless he or she is certified or registered as a roofing contractor. There was only one correct answer to this question. Approximately 65 percent of the candidates chose this correct response. Petitioner chose another answer that was clearly incorrect inasmuch as a newly licensed general contractor is not free, pursuant to Section 489.113(3)(b), Florida Statutes, to install or repair wood shake roofs on existing buildings constructed by other contractors. Petitioner therefore appropriately received no credit for his answer. Question 29 of the Contract Administration Examination was a clear and unambiguous multiple-choice question that fairly tested the candidate's ability to calculate, based upon the information given, the cost of delivering 28,000 lineal feet of #5 bars of reinforcing steel. There was only one correct answer to this question . Approximately 67 percent of the candidates chose this correct response. Petitioner chose another answer that was clearly incorrect. He therefore appropriately received no credit for his answer. Question 38 of the Contract Administration Examination was a clear and unambiguous multiple-choice question that fairly tested the candidate's ability to distinguish between unit price contracts and other types of contracts, including lump sum contracts. Approximately 82 percent of the candidates chose this correct response. Petitioner chose another answer that was clearly incorrect. He therefore appropriately received no credit for his answer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received on the contract administration portion of the October 2000 certification examination for general contractors. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 May, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Richards 3802 Lakewood Road Lake Worth, Florida 33461 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Kathleen O'Dowd, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Hardy L. Roberts III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue Is Respondent, Watson Construction Company, Inc. (Watson), entitled to a general permit allowing it to operate a construction and demolition debris facility in Newberry, Alachua County, Florida?
Findings Of Fact DEP, in accordance with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, is responsible for enhancing the beauty and quality of the environment; conservation and recycling of natural resources; prevention of the spread of disease and creation of nuisances; protection of the public health, safety and welfare; and provision for a coordinated statewide solid waste management program. It accomplishes these tasks, in part, by regulatory oversight directed to entities who operate solid waste facilities in Florida. That oversight includes permitting the activities by the facilities subject to compliance with statutory and rule requirements. Watson wishes to operate a solid waste facility in Newberry, Florida. In particular, Watson seeks to operate a C&D facility for off-site disposal of C&D debris to be placed where sand has been mined. Watson would pursue this enterprise by using a general permit, as allowed by DEP. Petitioner, City of Newberry (the City), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. It opposes Watson's use of a general permit to conduct business as a C&D facility, based upon the belief that Watson has not demonstrated compliance with regulatory provisions that would allow Watson to use a general permit. Petitioner, Citizens for Watermelon Pond, Inc. (Citizens), is a corporation constituted of persons who oppose the use of the general permit for the same reasons expressed by the City. On July 21, 1994, Watson noticed DEP that it intended to use a general permit to operate a C&D facility. On July 29, 1994, a notice was published in the Gainesville Sun, a local newspaper, concerning the pendency of the use of a general permit to operate the C&D facility in Newberry, Florida. On August 12 and 16, 1994, the Petitioners filed petitions seeking an administrative hearing on the use of a general permit by Watson to operate the C & D facility. On August 19, 1994, DEP issued a Notice of Denial of the permission to use a general permit to operate the C&D facility. This permit request was under an arrangement between Watson and a co-applicant, Whitehurst. Following the Notice of Denial, no further action being requested by the applicants, DEP issued an order closing its file. In December 1994, in its name only, Watson resubmitted an application to use a general permit to operate the C&D facility in question. The level of consideration at that time was as a pre-application review. This was followed by a formal notice by Watson and application to use a general permit to operate the C&D facility. The formal application was filed on January 17, 1995. On January 24, 1995, notice was published in the Gainesville Sun concerning the more recent intention to use a general permit to operate the C&D facility. On February 6, 1995, Citizens filed a verified petition opposing the use of the general permit contemplated by the January 17, 1995 application. Two days later, the City filed a verified petition in opposition to the most recent request to use a general permit to operate the C&D facility. On February 15, 1995, DEP gave notice that it did not object to Watson's use of a general permit to operate the C&D facility. Watson's most recent request to use a general permit to operate a C&D facility was made on a form provided by DEP in accordance with Rule 62- 701.900(3), Florida Administrative Code. The application to use a general permit was sealed by a professional engineer. The legal description of the property in question is described in the application. It is located in Newberry, Alachua County, Florida. The site location for the proposed C&D facility is one and one-eighth mile south of Southwest 46th Avenue on the east side of County Road 337 in Newberry, Florida. Documentation has been provided which identifies the legal authorization to use the property as a C&D facility. The C&D facility has a planned active life of 50 years. It is intended that the sand that is excavated will be replaced by C&D debris at a similar grade. The mailing address and telephone number of the C&D owner and operator is identified. Watson is the owner/operator. There are 158 acres within the proposed site. Approximately 143 acres would be used in the C&D operation by mining sand as a prelude to recontouring the site by placing the C&D debris. It is intended to excavate tan sand and silty sand to a depth of 20-30 feet. Although Watson anticipates excavating sand to a depth of 30 feet, bore hole data reveals the existence of sand below that depth. Watson does not intend to excavate below 62 feet mean sea level (MSL). In any event, it is not the intention to excavate below the interface of the sand and underlying sandy clays. Once the sand has been excavated, it is anticipated that the bottom of the C&D disposal area will be approximately 15 feet above the piezometric water table associated with the Floridan Aquifer, according to the applicant. The proposed site is located in rolling terrain, whose elevations range from approximately 80 feet MSL to 100 feet MSL. To support the use of a general permit, Watson has provided a site plan with a scale not greater than 200 feet to the inch, which identifies the project location, with proposed disposal areas, total acreage of the site and of the proposed disposal area, and other relevant features that exist on or within 500 feet of the site. The property boundaries are identified. The site would be fenced. Access to the facility would be controlled by a locked gate on County Road 337. The gate would be open during daily operations. The site does not contain surface water. There being no surface water, the C&D facility does not require a surface water management permit from the Suwannee River Water Management District. The site does not present a problem with stormwater runoff. A potable well is located within 500 feet of the property boundary. However, placement of C&D debris would be offset by a 500-foot buffer from the well. Wetlands are located 2,100 feet from the southern edge of the proposed site in the eastern part of the adjacent Whitehurst parcel. Within 3,000 feet of the proposed site is an old phosphate mining pit on the Whitehurst parcel, and 6,200 feet from the proposed site is the northern-most unnamed pond associated with Watermelon Pond. The site is not susceptible to flooding at present. The sand mined at the proposed site would be used to build roads and for foundations for houses and other buildings. Clay removed from the building sites to make room for the sand would be placed in the C&D facility. The material that is removed from building sites and substituted by sand fill is clay with a high shrink and swell factor. That material, together with flint rocks, tree limbs and stumps, would be transported to the C&D facility by Watson's dump trucks. At present, Watson has 20 dump trucks. The dump trucks hold 20 yards each. In addition to those materials removed from Watson job sites by dump trucks, Watson has approximately 36 roll-off dumpsters which hold 20 yards each. Two Watson trucks are available to transport the roll-off dumpsters to the C&D facility. The roll-off dumpsters are placed on construction sites, not exclusively Watson's, and construction materials not used in the building process would be placed in the roll-off dumpsters for disposal at the C&D facility. Approximately 70 percent of the fill material to be placed in the C&D facility would be unsuitable soils, trees, limbs and stumps. The remaining material would be the C&D debris from construction at sites where the dumpsters have been placed. The dump trucks that hold the clay, limbs and stumps would be loaded by Watson employees, who can control what is placed in the trucks. Watson would not control what is placed in the roll-off dumpsters at other construction sites. The Watson dump trucks from job sites directly related to its activities would arrive at the C&D facility and dump their loads for compaction. Those loads would not be spotted for unsuitable fill materials. By contrast, the roll-off dumpsters would be examined at the construction site by the Watson driver. If the driver discovers excessive amounts of material not classified for C&D fill, contact would be made with the Watson office and the material taken to the Alachua County landfill for disposal. If the driver picks up the dumpster at the construction site and there are limited amounts of material not suitable for disposition at the C&D facility, the dumpster would be taken to the C&D facility. The material would be spread out, and a spotter would segregate materials that are not suitable for C&D fill. The unsuitable material would be placed in temporary containers at the disposal site and transported off-site to a permitted landfill or other appropriate facility. Some material brought to the landfill would be recycled. Woods, such as pine or hardwood would be recycled. The limbs and stumps would be placed in the pit as fill. Copper, aluminum, steel, iron, and any other metal would be recycled. The metals would be sold to a scrap-iron facility. An employee at the landfill would keep the money earned from recycling. Metal embedded in broken concrete would be used as fill. The C&D facility would be operated by two persons: one, a loader/operator who loads the dump trucks with the sand that is being excavated; the second individual, a bulldozer operator who pushes the dump truck loads of clay, limbs, and stumps into the fill area and spreads them. He would also spot the roll-off dumpsters and segregate the fill material from unsuitable material. The sorted construction material to be used as fill would be pushed into the working face of the pit, where the tree limbs, stumps and clay would have also been placed. It is anticipated that six to ten roll-off dumpsters with C&D material would be brought to the C&D facility on a daily basis. The amount of unsuitable material that must be sorted from the dumpsters would vary with the individual loads. Watson operates an existing C&D facility in Alachua County, Florida. The proposed C&D facility would be similar in its operation. Based upon the experience in the existing facility, there is no indication that the proposed C&D facility could not be adequately operated by two employees, taking into account the need to segregate unsuitable material before filling. The spotter would receive verbal training concerning his duties. The training provided the spotter is on-site training. He would be reminded once a week of the need to do an adequate job of looking for unsuitable materials. At present, Alachua County inspects the existing C&D facility on a weekly basis and reminds the spotter at that facility what is appropriate for placement and what is not. The expectation is that the same function would be performed at the proposed facility. If sinkholes are encountered in excavating the sand, the equipment operator would contact the Watson office. In turn, Watson would contact its consulting engineer to address the problem, to include placing a plug or cap to repair the breach caused by the sinkhole. In the event that limerock is encountered in the excavation, a clay cap will be placed to prohibit leachate from flowing into the ground water. Areas where limerock is located at higher elevations and not covered by clay present the greatest risk for sinkhole formation. The period between excavation and fill will be approximately two years, leaving the site exposed at the level of excavation before fill is replaced. When the site is closed, the front-end loader operator and bulldozer operator will spread 24 inches of soil as a cap and grade the site in preparation for planting of pine trees. The soil material would be constituted as six inches of top soil suitable for planting pine trees. The remaining 18 inches would contain clay with high shrink/swell properties. The planting of pine trees would be done through a contract forester. The equipment operated at the facility would employ approved muffler systems. Odor generated by the facility is not anticipated to be a problem, in that household garbage, if found, would only be temporarily maintained, pending placement in an appropriate landfill. The site will be examined on a weekly basis to remove blown "litter". Proper provision is made for maintenance of slopes and compaction of fill material as it is placed. Through the application process noticing DEP that Watson intends to use a general permit to operate its C&D facility, DEP has been informed of the location of the proposed site. DEP would have permission to inspect the site during normal business hours. In response to Rule 62-701.420, Florida Administrative Code, Watson conducted a geotechnical investigation and prepared a report to support the application for a general permit. In support of the application Kenneth J. Hill, P.E. investigated the subsurface conditions at the proposed site through drilling activities. The drilling was done at the site and adjacent to the site. In May, 1995, Douglas L. Smith, Ph.D., P.G., conducted an electrical resistivity study (ER) at the site to investigate the subsurface conditions. Thomas H. Patton, Ph.D., P.G. and Charles Swallows, P.E. assisted in the investigation of the subsurface conditions at the site. Ralph E. Eng, P.E., signed and sealed the application for general permit for the proposed C&D facility. In rendering a report following his investigation of the subsurface conditions, Mr. Hill signed and sealed the report and supporting documentation. Likewise, Dr. Smith signed and sealed the report and supporting documentation associated with the ER study, together with Anthony F. Randazzo, Ph.D., P.G. The contribution by Dr. Patton and Mr. Swallows to the geotechnical investigation did not include signing and sealing a report and documentation. Nonetheless, Dr. Patton and Mr. Swallows, when testifying concerning the permit request, as with other professional witnesses, were found qualified to offer testimony consistent with their professional credentials and factual knowledge. 1/ A foundation analysis to determine the ability of the foundation to support the loads and stresses imposed by the fill material revealed that the weight of the construction debris was approximately 70 pounds per cubic foot, whereas the weight of the existing sand to be excavated is approximately 100 pounds per cubic foot. Thus, the placement of fill material following excavation would impose less stress on the subsurface than before. No significant settlement of the fill materials is expected to occur, resulting from its weight. The nature and fate of leachate promoted by the placement of fill at the site, in an environmental susceptible to bio-chemical and physical influences in transport through the subsurface, has the potential to adversely impact ground water. Those impacts could possibly cause violations of water- quality standards, ground-water standards, and drinking-water standards. These issues are considered based upon facts associated with the imperatives which must be properly addressed through the geotechnical investigation. That process anticipates gaining an understanding of subsurface conditions, to include the soil stratigraphy and ground-water table conditions. The ground-water table conditions involves estimations of the average and maximum high ground-water table. The geotechnical investigation should also explore the possibility of and address the existence of any sinkholes on the site. No specific testimony was given concerning the degree to which leachate, when present in the ground water at the Floridan Aquifer, might promote water-quality violations. Leachate properties and constituents were described in general terms of water-quality considerations, for example, hardness, nitrates, nitrites, alkalinity, presence of ammonia, chlorides, iron manganese, phenols, barium, arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, zinc, TDS and sulfates, urea formaldehyde, plaster, creosote, glues, and mastic hardeners. The evidence presented concerning the parameters for water quality did include a reference to barium, ranging from .5UG/L to 8UG/L in basically similar circumstances. The fill material can influence the natural PH by creating acidic conditions causing the PH to fall from a neutral 7.0 to 5.5 to 6.5. The process that takes place over time with the fill material also releases gases, such as methane, hydrogensulphide, and carbon dioxide. Rainwater falling on the ground's surface forms the basis for transporting the leachate through the subsurface. Only the Floridan Aquifer is potentially at risk, there being no surface water bodies or surficial aquifer at the site. Taking into account rainfall disposition by evapotranspiration, storm- water runoff, and subsurface infiltration, without certainty as to the amounts in those processes, it can be said that a significant amount of rainfall is available through infiltration to recharge the Floridan Aquifer and to transport leachate promoted by the fill. This is borne out by the absence of surface water bodies and a surficial aquifer on the site. To gain basic information concerning the subsurface conditions, Watson had 14 standard penetration test borings conducted by Mr. Hill and his firm. Those borings were advanced to depths of 35-72 feet. Additionally, three auger borings were performed to a depth of 40-50 feet. The auger borings were at sites A-1, A-2, and A-3, performed on April 17, 1993. In July of 1993, standard penetration test borings were performed at sites B-1, B-2, B-3, and B-4. In April of 1994, standard penetration test borings were performed at sites B-5, B-6, B-7, and B-8. In September of 1994, standard penetration test borings were performed at sites B-9, B-10, B-11, B-12, B-13, and B-14. The borings that were performed at the proposed site were at B-2, B-5, B-6, B-9, B-10, and B-14, for a total of six borings. The other borings were performed on the adjacent parcel. The borings at the proposed site were widely dispersed over the 143 acres contemplated for excavation and fill. The borings on the adjacent parcel, referred to as the Whitehurst parcel, were widely dispersed over 475 acres. Logs of the soil borings were prepared depicting the findings in the subsurface. The soil stratigraphy found in the borings was varied with sand, clayey sand, sandy clay and limerock present in some but not all borings. The sands that have been described are Aeolian. The sands are remnants of an ancient coastal dune system. Soil permeability tests were conducted on a limited basis at boring B- 9 at a 25-foot sample depth. The tan and orange clayey sand described had a co- efficient for permeability of 1x10-6. That sample and others described were obtained through a split-spoon. At B-12, at 35 feet, tan and orange clayey sand was found with a co-efficient for permeability of 2.6x10-8. At B-13, at 30 feet, tan and orange clayey sand was found and tested as 2.0x10-8 for the co- efficient for permeability. At B-14, at 30 feet, tan and orange sandy clay was found with a co-efficient for permeability of 9.6x10-9. In describing the soils, sieve analysis was not performed to more precisely classify the sediments encountered. This description of the strata is by appearance and texture. The clayey sand and sandy clay found in the borings retard discharge of the leachate to the ground water in the Floridan Aquifer based upon the permeability in those soils. Generally stated, the tan sands described have a co-efficient for permeability of 10-1 to 10-4. These sands are highly permeable, presenting an easy opportunity to convey the leachate contained in the infiltrating rainwater. Anomalous findings concerning soil permeability are shown at B-4, an off-site location, which portrays only sand in the boring. Also, B-9, which was drilled four to five feet east of a known sinkhole at the site is noteworthy in that the boring log describes tan and orange sandy clay, with trace limerock below 30 feet. This is in contrast to the field notation by the driller of the "p" for push and drilling rod "free fall" from 38 feet BLS to 42.5 feet BLS before encountering limerock, connoting a possible cavity in the 38-foot BLS to 42.5-foot BLS region. The karst feature that is located in the area where boring B-9 was conducted will be surveyed and marked with fence posts prior to excavation. No excavation will be conducted within 200 feet of that site. In addition to the phenomenon at the B-9 boring area, sinkholes at the surface were observed one-half to three-quarters of a mile northeast of the site. Sinkholes can occur when the placement of fill changes the hydraulics and loading in a karst environment. Finally, at B-6, limerock was encountered above the 46.9 feet MSL regional piezometric surface of the Floridan Aquifer. That limerock is considered part of the aquifer system. The head pressure at that location was not sufficient to force the ground water from the Floridan Aquifer. The more typical experience was as shown in B-5, where the surface of the limerock was lower than the regional piezometric surface. In B-5, ground water was not encountered until the clayey layer was breached and water rose in the drill hole. On occasions, such as the experience in B-5, there was an indication that Artesian conditions existed at those places. At the locations where the Artesian conditions were experienced, the Floridan Aquifer is confined. At B-6, where the limestone rises higher than the regional piezometric surface, the Floridan Aquifer is not confined. The bore hole at B-2 was terminated before breaching the clayey layer, and ground water was not encountered. Watson's consultant Hill considered that the ground-water table was found within the Floridan Aquifer at the site whose regional potentiometric surface was 46.9 MSL. He perceived that the findings showed ground water at 45 feet MSL constituting the average for the site. Watson estimated that the "seasonal high" ground-water table at the site was 48 feet MSL. The term "seasonal high" is equated to maximum high. Watson claims that the fluctuation in the ground-water table would be only a few feet. This would mean that the 45 feet MSL from bore hole data would represent not only the average across the site but the average value at the site at any point in time during the year. Watson makes this assertion notwithstanding that the borings were made over two years during different seasons. The basis for the estimate of maximum high ground-water table is not evident. In Dr. Patton's remarks in the application, there is a reference to the fact that the lowest encountered elevation for the Floridan Aquifer was 45 feet MSL and the highest was 55 feet MSL, making the average 50 feet MSL. This runs contrary to the remarks by Hill in which Hill said the elevation in the region was 46.9, the elevation detected was 45, and that the seasonal high would be 48. The only borings that were made in which the log reflects the MSL elevation and the boring depth are borings that were conducted in April 1994. On that date, the boring depth at which ground water was encountered varied from 37-43 feet and the MSL depth varied from 39-47 feet. If only the information for B-5 and B-6 on the site proper is used, those two data points associated with the borings on April 1994 reveal ground water at an excavation depth of 37 feet and between 45-47 feet MSL, respectively. Overall, without reference to MSL, the depths at which the ground water was encountered in the borings varied from 19-44 feet, if encountered. Although it is not shown in the boring log what the relationship is to MSL, at B-9, water was found at a drilling depth of 38 feet; at B-10, at a depth of 36 and one-half feet; at B-2, no water had been encountered at a drilling depth of 50 feet; at B-14, no water had been encountered at a drilling depth of 35 feet; at B-1, water was encountered at a level of 44 feet; at B-3, water had not been encountered at the concluding depth of 50 feet; at B-4, water had not been encountered at the concluding depth of 50 feet; at B-11, water was encountered at a drilling depth of 31 and one-half feet; at B-12, water was encountered at a drilling depth of 19 feet; at B-13, water was encountered at a drilling depth of 21 and one-half feet. Where elevations were measured for the water table in the bore holes, the holes were left open until the drillings had been concluded. Then the measurements were made. In this project, the consultant did not equilibrate the ground-water table by the traditional method of leaving a piezometer in the bore hole to maintain its integrity for a day before making the measurement. Watson has not provided sufficient information and explanation to determine a proper estimate of the average and maximum high ground-water table across the site. Returning to the ER investigation, it involved 39 soundings, which is roughly equivalent to drilling bore holes. The sounding profiles were determined through Wenner-Array Sounding and Lee-Directional Equipment. This technique involves the passing of an electrical current underground and measuring its resistance to flow. The expectation is that earth materials, for example, clay, sand, limestone, and cavities will resist the flow of electrical current differently. Substantially greater contrast in the degree of resistance, anomalies, is used to identify and locate earth materials, as well as the presence and shape of cavities. The sounding measurements reveal two- dimensional detail below the surface at progressively-greater depths. Lee- Directional measurements determine the direction of higher or lower resistivity along the survey line. While in the field, electrodes are placed in the ground at equal distances from one another. After a measurement, this distance is increased in an orderly fashion. The greater distance between the electrodes, the greater the depth of penetration. The ER equipment's electrical current has the capacity to penetrate through clay and into lower features in the subsurface. Subsurface from depths five to 100 feet were examined in this study. Within the 39 groundings surveyed, various soils were encountered. Generally, a thick cover of unconsolidated sand was found overlying clayey sand, with a clay layer varying in thickness and limestone found in some soundings, but not others. Where limestone was detected, it was at deeper levels in the southwestern part of the site. Because ER cannot distinguish between clayey sand and sandy clay, the area where those soils are found is referred to in the report as a thinner clayey sand layer. Also, in some places the upper surface of limestone has suffered weathering or deterioration and may appear as the lower part of the clay unit in terms of its electrical properties. The general portrayal in the ER study concerning the soil stratigraphy, wherein reference is made to dry sand up to 30 feet in thickness overlying a thinner clayey sand layer, approximately 10 feet in thickness, overlying a relatively thick clay layer from 10-60 feet and then limestone, does not coincide with the complexity in the stratigraphy found in the soil borings. In the ER study, at stations 8 and 10, voids were encountered. The nature of those voids is unexplained by this investigative process. At station 8, the void was found at approximately 100 feet deep. At station 10, the voids were at 50 feet and 100 feet deep. At station 14, anomalous findings were explained as the placement of fill and organic material during land-clearing operations. The suggestion in the written report, which summarizes the findings in the ER investigation, that a water table was encountered at approximately 40 feet deep, coinciding with the top of the clay layer, is contrary to the findings in the soil borings. To the extent that finding is intended to suggest that there is a perched water table or surficial aquifer above the clay layer, that view is contrary to other evidence adduced at hearing and is rejected. Like the soil borings, the ER soundings examined very discreet areas, but revealed less discreet information. This investigative process is not designed by itself to resolve disputes concerning the character of the subsurface, taking into account statutory and rule requirements for issuing a general permit. To portray the subsurface conditions, in June 1995, Petitioners undertook another basic study by employing ground-penetrating radar (GPR) to reveal the subsurface conditions. Again, GPR, like ER, affords limited insight into the conditions in the subsurface. More precise information than is revealed in the results from the GPR study would be needed to understand the subsurface conditions. GPR is comprised of several pieces of equipment that are connected with cables and a power source. This equipment is mobile. It uses a transmitter and receiver antenna that essentially glides along the ground surface. A signal is emitted through the transmitter. It perpetrates into the ground. It is reflected off materials of different electrical properties back to the receiving antenna and charted. The record that is made is continuous. Unlike ER, GPR is capable of detecting small anomalies in the subsurface. In employing the equipment in this investigation, Petitioners' consultant was looking for either stratigraphic or water-table reflectors and anomalous conditions. The experience at this site was comparable to the experience at other sites in gaining an understanding of how geologic materials are deposited. The GPR investigation covered approximately 10 percent of the site. Four lines were traversed east to west. Two lines were traversed north to south, and two other lines were traversed on a diagonal. GPR will not significantly penetrate clay. Its ability to penetrate is dependent in some measure upon the nature of the clay unit encountered. However, GPR reveals contrasts in the conductivity of clay, when compared to the overlying sand. The greater the contrast, the greater the reflection event. In this connection, the presence of moisture can slow or prohibit the electromagnetic energy generated by GPR. The GPR study revealed a substantial number of subsurface anomalies that might be indicative of possible access for leachate generated by the placement of fill to enter the Floridan Aquifer. These anomalies might represent sand columns and cover subsidence sinkholes. Any sinkholes on the site would be expected to be "cover subsidence"- type sinkholes. Those sinkholes occur through a process in which overlying strata slowly subsides into the sub-adjacent karst feature, rather than suddenly collapsing. Sinkholes develop rarely, but pose more risk of development in areas where sinkholes have occurred previously. Sinkholes are not always seen at the land surface. Sinkholes can present a risk to ground water in the aquifer in view of solution cavities found in the limestone which is part of the aquifer, thus allowing leachate to flow through the cavities into the ground water. Some anomalies found in the GPR study were more significant. One that was observed in the third traverse was 100 feet wide by 80-90 feet deep. There is an indication that this area might be filled with sands, creating a more ready access to the lower subsurface than would be expected with other soils. Another anomaly discovered was 200-300 feet long and 400-500 feet wide, approximately 50 feet below the surface. Overall subsurface conditions are not readily understood. Watson, through its consultant, suggests that the site is part of the Newberry Sand Hills region of the Brooksville Ridge system. As such, karst activity has proceeded in a slower manner than other places in Alachua County, with no presently active karst conditions. In opposition, Petitioners assert that the site is part of the Brooksville Ridge System, which is an internally-drained area of karst-dominated highly fractured terrain, according to its consultants. If Petitioners are correct, those circumstances lead to solutioning of the limestone and are not indicative of area of continuous impermeable clay layers found at the site as part of the Hawthorne formation that Watson's consultant surmises. The exact nature of the site concerning factors that must be considered in this permit application have not been adequately resolved in this record. While it is sufficiently evident that the Floridan Aquifer is not confined, it is unclear whether the circumstances at the site present unacceptable risks to the ground water, in view of existing subsurface conditions. From the record, the proper manner to resolve the issue would be to perform more soil borings on the site proper to identify the subsurface conditions concerning soil stratigraphy and ground-water location.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which denies Watson the use of a general permit to operate the proposed C&D facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 7th day of August, 1996.
The Issue Whether or not Respondent aided an unlicensed contractor to undertake a contracting job by obtaining or authorizing the obtaining of a permit using Respondent's licensure; and conducted business under a name not on his license and which he did not qualify, to wit: Quality Home Construction, in violations of Sections 489.129(1)(e), (g), (j) and (m) and 489.105(4) and 489.119, Florida Statutes. If these violations occurred, what administrative penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Petitioner), is the state agency charged with the regulation of contractors in Florida. Gerald Bartlett, Respondent herein, is a registered general contractor, having been issued license number RG 0012112. Respondent's license was first issued in July 1973 qualifying, G.S. Bartlett, Inc., and said license was renewed and active during times material herein. Respondent is also an employee of Energy, Engineering and Research Corporation (EER), acting as superintendent and/or construction manager of various jobs. On or about July 8, 1987, Manual Rua and John Aviles entered into a contract whereby Rua agreed to provide certain remodeling services to Aviles for a total sum of $9,926.50, at a home which Aviles was in the process of purchasing at 3608 Gardenia Drive in Tampa. Pursuant to that contract, Rua acted as an agent for Aviles and Rua specifically disclosed his status as an individual without a contractor's license and therefore without the ability to pull building permits. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). The contractual relationship between Rua and Aviles was consummated by them without Respondent's knowledge or participation. After Rua undertook the remodeling of Aviles' home, the City of Tampa Building Department issued a stop-work order on July 20, 1987 for lack of permits for the construction work Rua was performing on the Aviles home. Thereafter, Rua contacted Respondent to inquire whether Respondent would act as a consultant to Aviles on a remodeling job and assist in pulling a permit for the drywall, paint, door and window work, and to generally oversee the construction phase of the project. Respondent contacted his employer, EER, and EER, through its vice-president, Thomas Hebert, agreed to act as consultant for Aviles and instructed Respondent in the manner of obtaining the permits through EER. EER was not responsible for any electrical or plumbing work or for obtaining the permits for such work. EER, through its agent, Advance Construction Technical Services, Inc., pulled the permit for the drywall, paint, door and window work for the Aviles job. Respondent acted as construction manager for that phase of the project and as part of his employment responsibilities to EER, visited the work site approximately twice per week, gave instructions to Rua's employees, which instructions were followed including the advice of securing a load bearing wall which Rua and/or his agents had removed. While Respondent was overseeing the job as construction manager for EER, Rua asked Respondent to bid on other aspects of the project under his own general contractor's license. Respondent was awarded the job of repairing and extending a concrete pad, and for such work, Respondent pulled a permit under his qualified name G.S. Bartlett, Inc. That phase of the project was completed as contracted for and was done in a satisfactory manner. Respondent never obtained or authorized anyone to obtain a permit for anyone except his own qualified company for the separate concrete work. Respondent never engaged in business under the name of Quality Home Construction in connection with the Aviles remodeling job. In this regard, Respondent has known Manual Rua since their early childhood years. As a result of a long friendship between the two, Respondent and Rua considered embarking upon a business venture and in connection therewith, Rua initiated steps to form a partnership but this never formally came about. They did however, complete one construction project during the early 70's which lasted approximately 45 days, but they both realized that it was not profitable to continue that arrangement and it was disbanded. Respondent has never engaged in business under the name of Quality Home Construction in connection with any construction project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 28th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 89-1171 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraph 2 - Rejected as irrelevant to the issues posed in the Administrative Complaint, which alleges violation on Respondent's registered general contractor's license RG-0012112. Paragraph 5 - Rejected based on the determination in paragraph 3 wherein it was specifically determined that Respondent disclosed his status as an individual without any corporate affiliation. (Paragraph 3, Recommended Order.) Paragraph 8 - Rejected based on the determination that Aviles was in the process of purchasing the subject property. (Paragraph 3, Recommended Order.) Paragraph 9 - Rejected as irrelevant based on the determination in paragraph 4, Recommended Order, to the effect that the contractual relationship between Rua and Aviles was consummated without Respondent's knowledge or participation. Paragraph 11, last sentence, - Rejected as irrelevant for the reasons stated in paragraph 4, Recommended Order. Paragraph 12 - Rejected, irrelevant. (See paragraph 4, Recommended Order.) Paragraph 13 - Rejected, irrelevant. Paragraph 14 - Rejected, irrelevant. Paragraph 15 - Adopted as modified. (Paragraphs 1, 6 and 7, Recommended Order.) Paragraph 16 - Rejected, irrelevant. Paragraph 17 - Adopted as modified. (Paragraphs 5 and 6, Recommended Order.) Remainder rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 20 - Adopted as modified. (Paragraph 5, first sentence, Recommended Order.) Paragraph 21 - Adopted as modified. (Paragraph 3, second sentence, Recommended Order.) Paragraph 22 - Adopted as modified. (Paragraphs 7 and 8, Recommended Order.) Paragraph 23 - Rejected as contrary to other findings. (Paragraph 4, Recommended Order.) Paragraph 24 - Adopted as modified. (Paragraphs 5 and 8, Recommended Order.) Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraph 9 - Adopted as modified. (Paragraph 9, Recommended Order.) COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Christy L. Hessler, Esquire 7522 North Fortieth Street Tampa, Florida 33604 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Fred Seely, Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact On June 17, 1994, Petitioner, City of Stuart (City), filed an application with the Department of Environmental Regulation, predecessor to the Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (Department), for a permit to maintenance dredge Krueger Creek between the East Ocean Boulevard bridge and Tenth Street. The City proposed to suction dredge 7,500 cubic yards of sediment or spoil material to be placed on nearby retention sites for dewatering. The retention sites were vacant lots in a residential neighborhood. Some 2,500 cubic yards were to remain on the dewatering sites, and the remainder to be taken elsewhere. On June 20, 1994, the Department sent a completeness letter to the City, requesting additional information. On October 4, 1994, the Department received and approved a complete sediment characterization plan. By memorandum dated January 27, 1995, Ligia Mora-Applegate, an employee of the Department, sent out interim soil cleanup goals which were to be used by waste program administrators in determining final cleanup goals. The memorandum listed chemicals and the appropriate health-based goal for each chemical. For arsenic, the cleanup goal for an aggregate residential setting was .711 mg/kg. These goals had been developed by Dr. Stephen Roberts, a toxicologist employed by the University of Florida, under contract with the Department. On February 2, 1995, the Department received additional information from the City, including sediment analysis results, responses to hydrographic questions, a description of operational methods, and revised spoil retention locations. The Department reviewed the analyses submitted by the City. By memorandum dated February 27, 1995, Paul Wierzbicki, a Waste Cleanup Supervisor of the Department, advised Bruce Jerner, the Department employee who was reviewing the City's permit application, that Based on the analyses submitted it does not appear that the sediments will meet the guidance concentration of 0.7mg/kg as the cleanup criteria for soils. An alternative management plan should be proposed for the sediments. On February 28, 1995, the Department advised the City that arsenic concentrations did not meet the Department's guidance criteria for metals at the proposed spoil disposal sites. The Department recommended alternatives for disposal of the spoil material or the performance of a site specific risk assessment for the spoil sites. By letter dated March 14, 1995, Joseph Capra, the applicant's Project Engineer, advised the Department that the City disagreed with the Department's position that the arsenic levels exceeded the state standards based on Rule 17- 775, Florida Administrative Code which allows a maximum concentration of 10mg/kg of arsenic for the cleanup of petroleum contaminated soil at a soil thermal treatment facility. Mr. Capra asked the Department to reconsider its position and consider the application complete. Staff from the Department's waste cleanup section reviewed Mr. Capra's letter and forwarded the following response to Mr. Jerner by memorandum dated March 29, 1995: The allowable maximum concentration of 10mg/kg for Arsenic referred to in the letter applies to petroleum contaminated soils and since this has not been identified as a petroleum contamination site would not necessarily be appropriate in this situation. Site specific risk assessments have always been an alternative when maximum contaminate levels are not otherwise specified. This level for Arsenic may have been used in the past for non-petroleum contaminated sites in lieu of a risk assessment since it is some- what risk based, is established in rule for specific sites, and based on the lack of any other updated risk information; however, the Department has obtained updated risk inform- ation for arsenic which is currently being incorporated into 62-770, F.A.C., the Petr- oleum Cleanup Rule first, with a 62-775 F.A.C., update to follow. The difference in the exposure to aquatic organisms through sediments and direct human exposure by disposal of the dredged material on land has been explained to Mr. Capra along with some of the alternatives, to disposal in a residential area which may allow direct exposure, which may be accept- able to the Department based on further evaluation. The goal is not to jeopardize funding for the project but to provide reasonable assurance the disposal of the dredged material will not present a potential for harm to human health or the environment based on the latest technological information. Recommend Mr. Capra continue evaluating some of the disposal alternatives discussed, assuming Arsenic is the only contaminant of concern, such as: Evaluating background conditions at the original site or an alternate site. Using the material, within acceptable levels (<0.7mg/kg As), at the original site with disposal of the remainder at a lined landfill. Using material, with acceptable levels (<3.1 mg/kg As), at an industrial site with disposal of the remainder at a lined landfill. Using the material on the original site in such a manner as to prevent human exposure as long as ground water contamination is not an issue. Disposal at a lined landfill with approval from the operator. On April 5, 1995 the interim soil cleanup goals were revised and transmitted to the waste program administrators by memorandum from Ms. Mora- Applegate. The goal for soil cleanup with arsenic in a residential setting was 0.7 mg/kg (ppm). By letter dated April 24, 1995, the Department advised Mr. Capra: The data you submitted on February 2, 1995 was reviewed by the DEP Waste Cleanup Section using the 'Updated Interim Soil Cleanup Goals' which were faxed to you on April 7, 1995. These guidance concentrations are in fact the levels which will be used to evaluate the dredged material and its ultimate destination. The Department also advised that the spoil material could be placed at a residential site if the average background arsenic levels at the spoil site met or exceeded the average of the creek sediment samples. The City declined to provide additional information concerning the application. On August 15, 1995, the Department issued a Notice of Permit Denial denying the application for the following reasons: Pursuant to Section 403.918(2), F.S., a permit may not be issued under Sections 403.91-403.929 unless the applicant provides the Department with reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest. In determining whether or not the project is contrary to the public interest, the Department shall consider and balance the seven (7) criteria listed in Section 403.918(2)(a), F.S. This project is contrary to the public interest pursuant to Section 403.918(23)(a), F.S. because the project will: adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Specifically, the proposed disposal of dredged material with arsenic levels of greater than 0.7 mg/kg on two residential lots presents a potential for human harm based on the Departments (sic) health-based levels. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that site specific backgrounds are greater than or equal to the levels of arsenic in the dredged materials. The Department received a letter of objection on April 21, 1995 from an adjacent property owner requesting denial of the permit unless additional sediment testing is done and a suitable method of disposal is proposed. Therefore, the applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that the project to maintenance dredge is not contrary to or clearly in the public interest pursuant to Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. In drafting the notice of denial, Mr. Jerner relied on Ms. Mora-Applegate's memoranda dated January 27 and April 5, 1995, the memorandum from Mr. Wierzbicki dated February 27, 1995, and the memorandum from the waste cleanup section dated March 29, 1995. By memorandum dated September 29, 1995, John M. Ruddell, Director of the Division of Waste Management, sent the District Directors and Waste Program Administrators a list of the soil cleanup goals for Florida. The residential health-based cleanup goal for residential sites for arsenic was 0.7 mg/kg (ppm). In October, 1995, the Department took samples of the creek sediment. Based on the sampling by the City and by the Department, the average arsenic concentration was 1.8 ppm. On January 19, 1996, Mr. Ruddell sent the District Directors and Waste Program Administrators a memorandum concerning the use of the soil cleanup goals set out in the September 29, 1995 memorandum. Mr. Ruddell stated: The Soil Cleanup Goals are intended to be used only as 'goals' for cleanup decisions in corrective actions and should not be used by the agency as rule, standards or to deny or approve permits. The FDEP has found that most business/site owners do not normally have the money or the expertise to establish Site-specific Rehabilitation Levels (SRLs) as allowed by our cleanup Consent Order condi- tions. The soil cleanup goals are intended to be used for site screening purposes, for source removal evaluations, and as guidance during evaluation of remediation alternatives and design considerations for development of Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for a site. The soil cleanup goals can and should be used for cleanup decisions if the default assumptions fit the site-specific situation. * * * The evaluation process should take into consideration the following criteria: the site-specific background levels, the Method Detection Limits (MDLs), the soil cleanup goals, and the site contaminate levels. The site contaminant levels (criterion 4) for each Chemical of Concern (COC) would be compared to the highest value of the first three criteria. If the site contaminant levels are below the highest value, then no remediation is required for that contaminant. If the site contaminant levels are higher than the highest value, then remediation alternatives should be evaluated taking into consideration the specific nature of the site and the responsible party's ability to effectively manage the risk of a particular site contaminant level. FDEP may consider site-specific risk management alternatives that may further modify the guidance levels for the contaminant. These health-based soil goals are evaluated based on the nature and intended use of the site (e.g., residential or industrial) and usually only apply to the upper two feet of soil. If the contaminated soil can be permanently covered with more than two feet of clean soil or otherwise have the exposure pathways restricted, the site may not need further remediation if the contaminated soil is not a source of ground- water contamination. * * * The soil values may be used for other purposes (other media) if indeed the particular application fits the situation (e.g., sediments that upon dredging will be used as soil). Again, an analysis of the specific situation must be performed (i.e., ascertain land use, exposure duration, leachability concerns, background consideration, etc.). The January 29 memorandum also advised that the soil cleanup goal for arsenic on residential sites was changed to 0.8 mg/kg. This is not a significant change from the goal set out in Ms. Mora-Applegate's January 27, 1995 memorandum. The health-based soil cleanup goals for arsenic have not been adopted as rules, and the Department does not presently intend to adopt them by rule. The health-based goals for arsenic are used to define appropriate concentrations for arsenic regarding protecting public health. The levels are default numbers which an applicant may chose to accept by default. Alternatively, the applicant may elect to provide additional information in the form of a site-specific evaluation or of management strategies that would satisfy the Department. A site specific evaluation could result in a change from the default number to a greater or lesser number. Unless the applicant provides site-specific information, the Department will apply the health-based goals for arsenic.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER, or the Department) should grant the request of Medico Environmental Services, Inc. (Medico) for a one-year extension of the expiration date for air construction permit AC52-184546 for a biological waste incinerator located at 13200-58th Street North, Clearwater, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Prior and Related Proceedings.-- Medico holds an air construction permit issued by the DER on March 8, 1991, for the construction of a biological waste incinerator in Pinellas County, Florida. The permit contains general and special conditions, including prohibitions against the incineration of non-exempt amounts of radioactive and hazardous wastes, a requirement that all operators be trained in a DER-approved training program, and a requirement that the facility undergo compliance testing after it is constructed to assure that its operation complies with emission standards established by DER rule. Several weeks after the grant of the air construction permit, on March 29, 1991, the DER changed the equipment model number on the permit, but the change in model number represented no change in the actual equipment described in the application. Local government building and construction permit procedures, and negotiations with potential investors, delayed construction of the facility. By letter dated November 14, 1991, Medico requested an extension of the expiration date of the permit from January 7, 1992, to January 7, 1993. No other change in the permit was sought. On or about December 6, 1991, the Department issued a second air construction permit for a biological waste incinerator in Pinellas County to Bayfront Medical Center (Bayfront). Bayfront has since requested two extensionns on the expiration date of its permit. The second request is currently pending challenge in Division of Administrative Hearings Case Nos. 92- 6879 and 92-6880. The Applicant and Principals.-- Medico is a corporation consisting of two fifty percent shareholders: Gerald Hubbell; and Robert Sheehan. Hubbel operates a funeral home and Bay Area Crematory, Inc., in Pinellas County; he has less than 50 percent ownership of those businesses. Previously, Sheehan co-founded a medical waste incineration facility in New York known as Medi-Waste, Limited, of which he was one-third owner. In 1986, he sold the company, and it merged with Medi-Gen, Medical Generation Associates, a wholly owned subsidiary of a company known as Legeis Resources (Legeis). Sheehan held two percent of the shares of Legeis and served as an officer of Medi-Gen until he resigned in 1989. Sheehan does not own more than 50 percent of Medico, and he has not had any interest in any other air construction or air operation permit in the State of Florida. Since March, 1991, he has not held an interest in any other entity involved in medical waste incineration. Air Quality. Medico will be capable of incinerating 2,350 pounds of medical waste per hour, which is about ten percent of Flrodia's medical waste. Pinellas County generates about 75,000 pounds of such waste per day but currently has the capacity to burn only 480 pounds per hour. A computer-generated air dispersion model was run on the theoretical maximum impact of Medico, of Bayfront, and of both facilities, on the ambient air in the affected parts of Pinellas County. The model used was the EPA's Industrial Source Complex, Short Term, Version 2, March, 1992. This model is recommended by the DER and preferred by the EPA. It follows the DER's Guideline on Air Quality Models. Average background ambient air was calculated using monitoring data collected by Pinellas County for the EPA criteria pollutants (sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, lead, and particulate matter) and for hydrochloric acid in accordance with the requirements of title 40, part 58, of the Code of Federal Regulations, as reported in the DER's 1991 ALLSUM. (According to EPA publications, hydrochloric acid is the only toxic pollutant on the DER's air toxics list for which medical waste incinerators like Medico's are considered to be a source.) The theoretical maximum impacts of Medico and Bayfront were based on the AP42 emission standards for those kinds of facilities. Meteorological data was taken from the nearest national weather service station (at the Tampa International Airport). The air model shows that none of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for any of the criteria pollutants would be exceeded by adding either the impact of the Medico facility, or the impact of the Bayfront facility, or both combined, to the average ambient air in the affected parts of Pinellas County. (Both Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) and the newer PM10 category of particulates less than ten microns in size cases, which is more relevant to public health concerns, were considered for particulate matter levels.) Testimony indicates that the National Ambient Air Quality Standards would not be exceeded for any of the criteria pollutants by adding either the impact of the Medico facility, or the impact of the Bayfront facility, or both combined, to the maximum ambient air in the affected parts of Pinellas County. Also, even assuming a "worst case" weather scenario, no problematic toxic pollutants are expected, based on a Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Air Quality Division, screening computer model. Lead and hydrochloric acid would be under the EPA's "no threat level" (NTL). (As for the original application, these determinations are based on the scrubber manufacturer's hydrochloric acid efficiency claim of 99.9% and, in the case of lead, on its particulate efficiency claim.) As previously stated, according to EPA publications, there are no other toxic pollutants on the DER's air toxics list for which medical waste incinerators like Medico's are considered to be a source. The theoretical emissions for the Medico facility are below 100 tons per year, and the facility does not have the potential to emit more than ten tons per year of any hazardous air pollutant, as defined by the EPA. Past Conduct and Reliablily of the Principals.-- On or about March 5, 1991, the temperature in the secondary chamber of the biohazardous waste incinerator then operated by Hubbell dropped below 1800o at the end of a burn, and there was still a small amount of waste in the primary chamber and some small amount of flame still visible in the primary chamber. This violation, however, did not result in visible emissions, which would be an indication that there was a combustion or related problem in the incinerator. On or about March 4, 1991, one of the crematory units operated by Hubbell had visible emissions of 44% opacity. Identical warning letters regarding the March 4 and March 5 violations were sent on March 20 and March 27, 1991. Hubbell respondent by telephone on April 1, and in writing on April 5, 1991. There have been no other violation of Florida Statutes or DER rules since the original construction permit issued. Taking these violations into consideration, the compliance history of Hubbell's facilities does not undermine Medico's ability to give the necessary reasonable assurances. Between October, 1981, and October, 1991, Hubbell's facilities have been guilty of only the following violations: On or about March 25, 1987, Hubbell began to incinerate biohazardous medical waste before he was aware that a special permit for incinerating medical waste, in addition to his permit to operate the crematory, was required by law. On or about August 19, 1988, Hubbell's facility was notified that the Pinellas County Division of Air Quality had received a written complaint about smoke, and that a county permit would be required for the infectious waste incinerator along with retrofitting some controls. On or about October 4, 1989, Hubbell's facility apparently had a visible emissions violation. Three annual operating reports for Hubbell's facilities--for 1981, 1985, and 1989--would be considered late under current policy. There was no evidence whether they were late under the policy in effect at the time the reports were filed. Over the course of those ten years, there is no suggestion in the evidence that any of the other annual operating reports may have been late, and there are no other violations recorded in the Pinellas County compliance contact logs. To the contrary, the records indicate that no violations were found on 15 inspections. Hubbell voluntarily has shut down the old, smaller and less sophisticated medical waste incinerator where some of the recorded violations occurred, pending the construction of the Medico facility. Sheehan has not had an interest in any biohazardous waste incinerators in the State of Florida, other than the Medico application, and has not had a controlling interest in, or operational role in, any entity operating a medical or biohazardous waste facility in any state since June, 1989. Although, under the prehearing rulings, it would not even be relevant to this proceeding, the only evidence of any violations by any entity in which Sheehan had a controlling interest in, or operational role in, that operated a medical or biohazardous waste facility in any state, at any time, was evidence of two New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ash container violations and one failure to close up the back of the building housing an incinerator in October, 1988.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order extending the expiration date for air construction permit AC52-184546 for one year from the entry of the final order, subject to a DER determination that construction did not begin by March 20, 1992, and that the Chapter 92-31 moratorium applies. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of January, 1993, 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 6th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-0851 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1991), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact. I.1.-3. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, accepted and incorporated. Second sentence, argument and subordinate. Accepted and incorporated. First four sentences, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Fifth sentence, rejected as not supported by the evidence and as contrary to facts found. Fifth sentence, accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found. First four sentences, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Fifth sentence, accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found. (He raised questions but had no answers; other witnesses satisfactorily answered the question.) Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and to the facts found. First sentence, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Second sentence, irrelevant to the extension the expiration date of an air construction permit, and unnecessary. Also, state law and regulations govern some aspects of the handling of these wastes. First two sentences, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Third and fourth sentences, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and to facts found. (Reasonable assumptions can be made, in accordance with EPA publications, based on the nature of the facility.) Also, irrelevant to the extension the expiration date of an air construction permit, and unnecessary. Finally, res judicata. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and to facts found. Also, irrelevant to the extension the expiration date of an air construction permit, and unnecessary. Finally, res judicata. First sentence, accepted but accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found, and unnecessary. Second sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and to facts found. Also, irrelevant to the extension the expiration date of an air construction permit, and unnecessary. Finally, res judicata. First two sentences, accepted and incorporated in part (another reason was that the application passed a screening model both initially and on the extension request and that most of the toxics would not be expected to be generated from this source), but res judicata, and unnecessary. Third sentence, accepted and incorporated. Fourth and fifth sentences, accepted but res judicata, subordinate to facts contrary to those found, and unnecessary. II.9.-10. Rejected as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. III.1.-2. Rejected as being conclusions of law. Medico's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-3. Accepted and incorporated. 4. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 5.-7. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Irrelevant and unnecessary. 11.-23. Generally accepted but largely subordinate. Incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Generally accepted, but largely res judicata, irrelevant, subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. 30.-31 Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Generally, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rest, accepted but subodinate and unnecessary. 34.-35. Generally, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 38.-43. Accepted and incorporated. 44.-45. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but largely subordinate and unnecessary. Some, irrelevant. 48.-49. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 50. Accepted but irrelevant, subordinate and unnecessary. DER's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-9. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 10. The law was signed on March 20, 1992. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 11.-15. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Adrien W. Helm, Esquire 925 Fourteenth Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33705 Sandra P. Stockwell, Esquire Douglas L. Stowell, Esquire Post Office Box 11059 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Dept. of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the above-named Respondents applied pesticide chemicals to a pre-construction application site for pre-treatment for termites and wood-destroying organisms, which was contrary to label instructions, by not applying the specific amount (volume) and concentration designated by the label in alleged violation of Section 482.051(5), Florida Statutes, and Rule 5E-14.106(6), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Respondents are certified operators and applicators employed by pest control companies in the Panama City area. Stephen W. Daniels holds License No. 43026. Earl G. Pettijohn holds License No. 92006. Mr. Pettijohn is an applicator at Killingsworth Environmental, Inc., and Mr. Daniels is a certified operator for Environmental Security of Panama City. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the licensure, operations, and practices of pest control operators, applicators, and licensed pest control businesses in the State of Florida. The pre-construction termite treatment in question occurred on October 16, 2001. The treatment or job site was at the new construction of the Northwest Florida Community Hospital at 1360 Brickyard Road, in Chipley, Florida. Two trucks were used on the October 16, 2001, job: one was a truck marked "Killingsworth Environmental," driven by Mr. Pettijohn; the other truck was marked "Atlas" and was driven by Mr. Daniels. The chemical used in the pre-treatment for termites at the job site was a soil pesticide known as "Cyren-TC." The label for Cyren-TC indicates a requirement of 0.50 percent to 1.0 percent concentration, with an aqueous emulsion used for pre-treatment for termites. The laboratory report and analysis of the pesticide sample taken from Mr. Daniels' truck tank, at the hose end, was found to contain 0.38 percent chlorphyrifos (active ingredient), which represents a 24 percent deficiency from the minimal required rate of 0.50 percent per the Cyren-TC label. The Respondents, Mr. Daniels and Mr. Pettijohn, were called by the contractor of the job in Chipley on the evening of October 15, 2001, with his request that they perform a pre-treatment termite treatment the next morning for a monolithic slab described as being of an area of 12,000 square feet. The Respondents, therefore, filled their trucks, mixing the pesticide, based upon that measurement on the evening of October 15, 2001. They arrived at the job site the following morning at 7:15 a.m. They did not use the two trucks to treat any other sites between the filling of the trucks and their arrival on the job site in question on the morning of October 16, 2001. Upon inspecting the job site, Mr. Daniels measured the slab and determined the actual square footage to be approximately 9,300 square feet. That figure is not disputed. The truck Mr. Daniels was driving had a tank and spray capacity of 700 gallons. The 700 gallons was represented by a 500-gallon tank and by an additional 200-gallon tank. The truck was completely filled when it arrived on the job site. The truck Mr. Pettijohn was driving contained a capacity of 600 gallons in two tanks of 300 gallons each. It was completely full when it arrived at the job site. Mr. Owens, the Department's field inspector who testified in support of the Administrative Complaint, did not inspect either truck to determine or estimate their total capacities. He was not aware of how much either truck employed on the job in question actually held in total volume. He also did not observe how much chemical was left over still in the tanks in each truck when the first treatment application effort had concluded, on or shortly before 9:00 a.m., on October 16, 2001. The Respondents applied an aqueous emulsion of Cyren-TC to the 9,300 square foot monolithic slab by spraying a volume from each truck. Mr. Daniels' truck pumped five to seven gallons per minute, and Mr. Pettijohn's truck pumped seven to nine gallons per minute. Both trucks were fitted with gravity-fed pumps. The pumps on each truck would pump a higher volume, closer to seven gallons per minute or nine gallons per minute respectively, as to Mr. Daniels' and Mr. Pettijohn's trucks when the tanks were more nearly full because of the higher pressure feeding the gravity-fed pump. The volume per minute pumping rate would gradually decrease as the level in the tank became lower. Both Mr. Daniels and Mr. Pettijohn started pumping at essentially the same time or within one minute of each other. Mr. Daniels testified that he and Mr. Pettijohn applied the pesticide for 73 minutes measured by the digital clock on his radio. Mr. Daniels determined the amount of time necessary to pump the pesticide on the site from both trucks by taking an average of the output volume of the pumps on each truck. He began timing the application when he pulled the hose to the far end of the slab and turned it on. When the treatment application was complete, Mr. Daniels had approximately 50 gallons of chemical remaining in the 500-gallon tank on his truck. He had not yet used any of the 200-gallon tank on his truck. Mr. Pettijohn had approximately 55 to 60 gallons of chemical left from the two tanks totaling 600 gallons on his truck when he started the application. The testimony as to the amount of chemicals left in the tanks after this first application is unrefuted and is accepted. Mr. Daniels established that, although when the tanks were approaching empty (when the calibration was made by Mr. Owens), at which time Mr. Daniels' tank would only pump at a rate of five gallons per minute, that the pumps would pump at a higher rate, approaching seven gallons per minute as to Mr. Daniels' truck and nine gallons per minute as to Mr. Pettijohn's truck, when the tanks were full. Consequently, if one takes an average of the output volume for each truck of slightly over six gallons per minute for Mr. Daniels' truck and slightly over seven gallons per minute for Mr. Pettijohn's truck, one arrives at an application volume for Mr. Daniels' truck of 438 to 450 gallons of chemical applied. One also arrives at a volume applied for Mr. Pettijohn's truck of approximately 547 gallons if one uses an average application rate of 7.5 gallons per minute. Since the testimony as to the remaining product in the tanks is unrefuted because Mr. Owens did not observe the amount of product left in the tanks on the two trucks, and if one uses an average application rate of 7.5 gallons per minute for Mr. Pettijohn's truck and six gallons per minute or slightly more for Mr. Daniels' truck, one arrives at a figure of between 50 and 60 gallons of product remaining in Mr. Pettijohn's truck, and approximately 50 to 60 gallons remaining in Mr. Daniels' truck if one uses Mr. Daniels' factor of 73 minutes to multiply times that average application per minute rate. Thus, the approximate amount of product remaining in the tanks of both trucks being unrefuted, it is thus established that Mr. Daniels' figure of 73 minutes as the application time is most nearly correct. While the pre-treatment application was being performed, Investigator Owens was parked at a nearby parking area observing the application procedure and timing it with a stopwatch. Mr. Owens determined that Mr. Daniels had pumped for 45 minutes and 30 seconds and Mr. Pettijohn pumped for 45 minutes. Using Mr. Owens' figure of seven gallons per minute for Mr. Pettijohn's truck and five gallons per minute for Mr. Daniels' truck (the lowest pumping rates) for the entire pumping operation (which for the reasons found above is not accurate), Mr. Owens came up with an approximate application volume for Mr. Daniels' truck of 228 gallons and approximately 315 gallons for Mr. Pettijohn's truck. This figure is not realistic when one considers the amount of product left in the tanks of the two trucks at the end of the first application operation. There certainly was not an excess of 250 gallons of product left in the 500-gallon tank of Mr. Daniels' truck and 285 gallons of product left in the tank of Mr. Pettijohn's truck at the end of that first pumping operation on or before 9:00 a.m., on October 16, 2001. It cannot be determined from the testimony and evidence why there is such a great disparity in the time period Mr. Owens postulated for the treatment operation he observed, versus the most accurate 73-minute period established from Mr. Daniels' testimony. After confirming that the Respondents had completed their application effort, Mr. Owens conducted an inspection with regard to both trucks, obtaining information, and filling out necessary paperwork. Mr. Owens then took a sample from Mr. Daniels' truck only when he completed the calibrations of the trucks. That calibration, as found above, noted an application rate of five gallons per minute for Mr. Daniels' truck at a point when there was only approximately 50 gallons of product left in the 500-gallon tank to feed the gravity-supplied pump on Mr. Daniels' truck. Mr. Owens took a sample of the pesticide from the hose-end of the pump on Mr. Daniels' truck and placed it in a 32-ounce jar covered with a lid. The jar was not pre-labeled with a sample number. Mr. Owens taped the lid of the jar, and initialed it, so that the tape seal could not be broken without disturbing his initials and put the jar in the trunk of his car in an ice chest with ice. As a matter of practice, Mr. Owens does not offer a duplicate sample to an operator unless he asked for one and he did not ask Mr. Daniels to sign the tape on the jar. Mr. Owens did not take a chemical sample from Mr. Pettijohn's truck and there is no evidence as to what concentration of pesticide was in the tank on Mr. Pettijohn's truck. In the two pesticide applications on the morning of October 16, 2001, Mr. Pettijohn's truck pumped a total of 600 gallons of product on the site. It is not possible to make a factual determination as to the chemical concentration of the volume of product in Mr. Pettijohn's truck. The water used to mix the chemical for application at the job site was obtained from the water plant in Panama City. It had been, at some point, chemically treated with chlorine. There is no evidence as to any chlorine content in the water, which is chemically treated with chlorine, at least in the potable water stage and possibly in the waste water treatment stage. The sample was collected, as noted above, on October 16, 2001, but was not delivered to the laboratory to be analyzed as to the pesticide concentration until October 26, 2001. There is no indication on the laboratory report of the actual date of processing by the lab, but the final report was issued on November 14, 2001. There was at least a lapse of ten days from collection to analyzation by the laboratory. Testimony was presented concerning a study done by a Clemson University scientist which indicated that chlorine in municipal tap water was enough to degrade pesticides like that involved in this case by a factor of 32 percent in three hours. It has not been established that that occurred here, although logically some chlorine content may have been in the water that was used to mix the chemical. It is also well-known in the pesticide industry that an appropriate reaction and safeguard for a chemical spill of Chlorpyrofos is the application of bleach or chlorine to neutralize or degrade the chemical. It is not clear whether the deficient concentration pumped from the Daniels'-operated truck resulted from only chlorine content in the mix water or by the lapse of time caused by mixing the chemical the evening before it was to be used the following morning (in the interest of arriving at the job site early that morning per the instructions of the contractor). It may have been simply operator error in the proportions of water to chemical which were mixed when the tanks were filled or a combination of these three factors. Moreover, it cannot be determined precisely what concentration was actually deposited on the surface at the job site because Mr. Pettijohn's truck pumped approximately 600 gallons of total volume on the site in two applications and Mr. Daniels' truck pumped approximately 438 to 450 gallons in the first application and approximately 220 gallons in the second application, and the concentration of the chemicals pumped from Mr. Pettijohn's truck is unknown in so far as the evidential record in the case is concerned. Thus, it cannot be definitively determined what concentration of chemical actually was deposited on the surface of the job site. In any event, after Mr. Owens had calibrated the pump on Mr. Daniels' truck and taken his sample, both Mr. Daniels and Mr. Pettijohn rolled up their hoses, got in their trucks, and left the job site. After they left the job site, Mr. Owens notified the builder that the pre-treatment had been inadequate in terms of the volume of pesticide applied and so the builder requested that Mr. Daniels and Mr. Pettijohn return and apply more chemical. They arrived at the job site some 15 to 20 minutes after they had initially left and began spraying the additional chemical in the second application that morning. When Mr. Daniels and Mr. Pettijohn returned to the site, Mr. Daniels told Mr. Owens that he disagreed with Mr. Owens' volume calculations. In any event, Mr. Owens directed both Mr. Daniels and Mr. Pettijohn to pump additional volume onto the site. Thus, at Mr. Owens' direction, they pumped the volumes remaining in their trucks onto the site (with the exception of approximately 30 gallons, which was finally remaining in Mr. Daniels' truck), for a total of approximately 1,280 to 1,300 gallons being pumped on the job site. Thus, in light of the above calculations and findings, the site actually received approximately 280 to 300 gallons more than the prescribed labeled rate.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered assessing a fine against Respondent Stephen W. Daniels in the amount of $350.00, and it is further recommended that the Administrative Complaint as to Respondents Earl G. Pettijohn and Environmental Security of Panama City be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 2003, 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 3rd day of January, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert O. Beasley, Esquire Litvak & Beasley, LLP 220 West Garden Street, Suite 205 Post Office Box 13503 Pensacola, Florida 32591-3503 Jack W. Crooks, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street Room 520, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Charles H. Bronson Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda D. Hyatt, Bureau Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street Mail Stop 38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
The Issue Whether the Department of Transportation's proposed action, the award of the contract in question to WRS Infrastructure and Environment, Inc., is contrary to its governing statutes, its rules or policies, or the proposal specifications.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: In March 1999, the Department issued a request for proposals, RFP-DOT-99/2000-6026DS ("RFP"), requesting that experienced firms submit proposals "for the purpose of providing district-wide contamination assessment and remediation services" in the Department's District VI, which consists of Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties. The RFP solicited proposals for an indefinite quantity contract, with a term of three years and a maximum value of $5 million. The proposals were to be presented in two separate, sealed packages, one containing the proposer's Technical Proposal and the other containing the proposer's Price Proposal. Pursuant to Section 1.16 of the RFP, the Technical Proposal were to be opened and evaluated before the Price Proposals were opened. Section 1.8.2 of the RFP is entitled "Responsiveness of Proposals" and provides: All Proposals must be in writing. A responsive Proposal is an offer to perform the Scope of Services in accordance with all the requirements of this Request for Proposal and receiving a score of seventy (70) points or more on the Technical Proposal. Proposals found to be non- responsive shall not be considered. Proposals may be rejected if found to be irregular or not in conformance with the requirements and instructions herein contained. A Proposal may be found to be irregular or non-responsive by reasons that include, but are not limited to, failure to utilize or complete prescribed forms, conditional Proposals, incomplete Proposals, indefinite or ambiguous Proposals, and improper or undated signatures. (Emphasis in original.) Eight firms submitted proposals in response to the RFP, including WRS, OHM, and Metcalf & Eddy. A three-member Technical Review Committee was assembled, and the Technical Proposals were submitted to the Technical Review Committee for evaluation; all eight Technical Proposals received a score of 70 points or more. The Price Proposals were then opened and evaluated in accordance with the criteria set forth in the RFP. The Department posted a Notice of Intent to Award on August 26, 1999, in which it stated its intention to award the District VI contract to OHM. OHM was the highest-ranked proposer with a total score of 125.879 points; WRS was the second-highest-ranked proposer with a total score of 125.675 points; and, Metcalf & Eddy was the third-highest-ranked proposer with a total score of 118.569 points. It was noted in the Notice of Intent to Award that all eight proposals were accepted as responsive. On August 31, 1999, WRS filed a notice of its intent to protest the intended award of the District VI contract to OHM, and it filed its Formal Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing on September 10, 1999. Metcalf & Eddy did not file a protest with regard to the August 26, 1999, Notice of Intent to Award. As a result of information obtained by the Department subsequent to the filing of WRS's protest, OHM's proposal was re-evaluated, and, on October 20, 1999, the Department posted a Notice of Intent to Award (Revised), in which it stated its intention to award the District VI contract to WRS. The scores of WRS and Metcalf & Eddy remained unchanged as a result of the re-evaluation of OHM's proposal, but OHM's score decreased to 124.212 points. As a result, WRS became the highest-ranked proposer, OHM became the second-highest-ranked proposer, and Metcalf & Eddy remained the third-highest-ranked proposer. On October 25, 1999, Metcalf & Eddy filed its Notice of Intent to Protest with the Department, and it filed the Formal Protest of Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., on November 4, 1999. A settlement conference was conducted on November 17, 1999, but the Department and Metcalf & Eddy were unable to resolve the issues raised in Metcalf & Eddy's protest. As a result, the Formal Protest of Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 28, 1999, and initiated this proceeding. On December 9, 1999, the Department's Awards Committee met to re-consider its decision of October 15, 1999, to award the District VI contract to WRS in light of the issues raised in the protests filed by OHM and Metcalf & Eddy. The Awards Committee decided not to disturb the decision reflected in the October 20, 1999, Notice of Intent to Award (Revised). SPURS Number Section 1 of the RFP provides that the "State of Florida Department of Transportation Request for Proposal Contractual Services Acknowledgement (Pur #7033) . . . will be handed out at the mandatory pre-proposal meeting." The form itself is entitled "State of Florida Request for Proposal, Contractual Services Bidder Acknowledgement" ("Bidder Acknowledgement form"). A box that appears near the top of the Bidder Acknowledgement form is labeled "STATE PURCHASING SUBSYSTEM (SPURS) VENDOR NUMBER."3 The Bidder Acknowledgement form also includes a statement of General Conditions, which provides in pertinent part: Execution of Proposal: Proposal must contain a manual signature of authorized representative in the space provided above. Proposal must be typed or printed in ink. Use of erasable ink is not permitted. All corrections made by proposer to his proposal price must be initialed. The company name and SPURS vendor number shall appear on each page of the bid as required. . . . WRS, OHM, and Metcalf & Eddy included an executed copy of the Bidder Acknowledgement form at the beginning of their proposals. The Bidder Acknowledgement form is not a part of either the Technical Proposal or the Price Proposal. Metcalf & Eddy inserted "042428218-003" in the box reserved for the SPURS number; WRS inserted "P13202"; and OHM inserted "#94-1259053." "042428218-003" is a SPURS number assigned by the Department of Management Services, and Metcalf & Eddy is a vendor registered with that department. "P13202" is not a SPURS number. "#94-1259053" is OHM's federal identification number, and is the number that they commonly use as their SPURS number in the proposals they submit to the Department. Both WRS and OHM are registered as interested vendors with the Department of Management Services, pursuant to Section 287.042(4), Florida Statutes.4 Metcalf & Eddy included its name and its SPURS number on each page of the proposal it submitted in response to the District VI RFP. Neither WRS nor OHM included the name of the company and the SPURS number on each page of their proposals. There is no requirement in the District VI RFP that the name of the company and the SPURS number be included on each page of the proposal. Section 1.8.6 of the RFP is entitled "Waivers" and provides: The Department may waive minor informalities or irregularities in Proposals received where such is merely a matter of form and not substance, and the correction or waiver of which is not prejudicial to other Proposers. Minor irregularities are defined as those that will not have an adverse effect on the Department's interest and will not affect the price of the Proposal by giving a Proposer an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other Proposers. Paragraph 6 of the General Conditions set forth on the Bidder Acknowledgement form provides in pertinent part: "AWARDS: As the best interest of the State may require, the right is reserved to reject any and all proposals or waive any minor irregularity or technicality in proposals received. " Nancy Lyons is the Contractual Services Unit Administrator for District VI. Ms. Lyons reviews the proposals to determine if they are responsive and to determine if an irregularity or omission is minor and can be waived under the terms of the RFP. It is Ms. Lyons practice to waive as a minor irregularity the omission of a SPURS number or the inclusion of an incorrect SPURS number to be a minor irregularity because, if a vendor is registered with the Department of Management Services, the SPURS number is readily available to the Department. In addition, the SPURS number does not effect either the technical content of the proposal or the price in the proposal. The WRS and OHM proposals were not rejected by the Department's District VI Contractual Services Unit even though WRS and OHM failed to include their SPURS numbers on the Bidder Acknowledgement form and failed to include the company name and SPURS number on each page of their proposals. Disparate treatment. In 1998, Metcalf & Eddy submitted a proposal in response to a Request for Proposals issued by the Department's District IV. In its Price Proposal, Metcalf & Eddy failed to include a price or a zero in three blanks reserved for the daily rate, weekly rate, and monthly rate for an X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Spectrum Analyzer; Metcalf & Eddy included as the "Total" for this item "$0.00." Metcalf & Eddy's District IV proposal was rejected as non-responsive as a result of these omissions. Metcalf & Eddy filed a Formal Written Protest and Request for Formal Administrative Hearing and challenged the decision to reject its proposal as non-responsive. After informal efforts to resolve the issue raised in the protest were unsuccessful, Metcalf & Eddy withdrew its protest; the Department entered a Final Order on August 11, 1998, dismissing the protest. Summary The evidence presented by Metcalf & Eddy is not sufficient to establish that the Department's decision to accept the WRS and OHM proposals as responsive is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. The omission of the SPURS number on the Bidder Acknowledgement form is a minor irregularity that did not give WRS or OHM a substantial advantage over Metcalf & Eddy and was of no consequence to the Department because it has ready access to the SPURS numbers included in the database of interested vendors maintained by the Department of Management Services. Furthermore, WRS and OHM were not required to include their company name and SPURS number on each page of the proposal because this requirement was not included in the specifications in the RFP. Finally, Metcalf & Eddy has failed to present evidence to establish that it is the victim of disparate treatment by the Department; the decision of the Department to reject the proposal it submitted to District IV in 1998 is irrelevant to the issues raised in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation issue a final order dismissing the Formal Protest of Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 30th day of July, 2001.
The Issue Should Respondent be fined $500.00 for initiating repairs to an on-site sewage treatment and disposal system before obtaining a permit?
Findings Of Fact Respondent is engaged in the septic tank contracting business as a contractor licensed under Chapter 489, Part III, Florida Statutes. He does business as "Alpha." In association with his business Respondent provided services to residents at 224 North Orange Avenue, Orange City, Florida. This was related to a failed on-site sewage treatment and disposal system at that residence. To assist in providing repair service to the residence in Orange City, Florida, Respondent engaged Andy Trapp. Mr. Trapp's business is to assist septic tank contractors in obtaining necessary permits to perform septic tank contracting services. Mr. Trapp's occupation includes field work involving soil testing, measurements, and completion of necessary paperwork to assist the septic tank contractor in obtaining necessary permits. As permitting agency, usually Petitioner would accept applications submitted by Mr. Trapp in relation to the application for a permit to repair on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems, in that Mr. Trapp is recognized by Petitioner as being sufficiently qualified to submit information in support of an application for permit. On March 27, 1998, Mr. Trapp submitted an application for a permit to repair the on-site sewage treatment and disposal system at the Orange City, Florida, address, to include supporting information concerning the results of soil testing. That application was accompanied by the necessary fee to obtain a permit. The application was delivered to Petitioner's Daytona Beach, Florida, office as a matter of convenience to Mr. Trapp. Mr. Trapp realized that the actual processing of the permit application would be conducted by Petitioner's Deland, Florida, office. In that connection, Mr. Trapp realized that the application that he had submitted to the Daytona Beach office would be forwarded by interoffice transmittal to the Deland office, which would cause a delay in the processing of the application. In his experience Mr. Trapp has filed applications with the Daytona Beach office to be subsequently transmitted to the New Smyrna Beach office of the Petitioner, which ordinarily can be done late on the same day that the application was presented or by the next day. James McRae is an environmental supervisor for the Volusia Health Department, Environmental Health Office in Deland, Florida. It is his office that had ultimate responsibility for considering, and if appropriate, issuing a permit allowing Respondent to conduct necessary repairs of the failed on-site sewage treatment and disposal system at the Orange City, Florida address. Mr. McRae confirmed that the permit application, as submitted by Mr. Trapp for the repairs, had been received by the Deland office on March 30, 1998. In addition, the accompanying $57.00 fee had been transferred from the Daytona Beach office to the Deland office, as was customary, the custom being that the funds in support of an application would ultimately be received in the office from which the application would be processed and a permit number assigned, as applicable. Upon receipt of the application in the Deland office, a receipt was generated. Information concerning the permit application was placed in the computer. Assessment of the application was assigned to William Vander Lugt, Environmental Specialists II, who is part of the field staff for the Petitioner's Deland office. Beyond Mr. Vander Lugt's assignment to consider the application for the permit for the Orange City, Florida project, it was expected that he would do any necessary field work involving an inspection and any necessary soil analysis. If satisfied that the site was appropriate to effect repairs to the failed on-site sewage treatment and disposal system, Mr. Vander Lugt would issue a permit subject to approval by Mr. McRae. Mr. McRae identified that the usual turn around time for issuing permits is two to three days, assuming that the permit was applied for at Petitioner's office which would be responsible for assessing the application. In this instance the permit had been applied for at another office which delayed consideration of the permit application by the Deland office. The permit was approved on April 2, 1998, within three days of its receipt by the Deland office. Before the permit was issued, Respondent, through his employees, had commenced the repairs at the Orange City, Florida, address. The commencement of repairs was verified by an on-site inspection performed by Mr. Vander Lugt, on March 31, 1998. Although the supporting information presented by Mr. Trapp was in order and the fee had been paid, and there was no indication that any other problems existed which would prohibit the repairs from being conducted, Respondent was premature in commencing the work before the permit issued, and was unjustified in that choice.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be issued which imposes a $500.00 fine against Respondent for initiating a repair of an on-site sewage treatment and disposal system without first obtaining a permit to do the work. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Charlene Petersen, Esquire Department of Health 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Michael J. Jedware Post Office Box 390073 Deltona, Florida 32739-0073 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
