The Issue The issues are whether Respondent has violated the standards of practice in septic tank contracting, Florida Administrative Code rule 64E-6.022, and, if so, the penalty. (All references to Respondent are to Arlender Miller. All references to Ms. Rooter are to Ms. Rooter, Inc.)
Findings Of Fact At the times of the alleged jobs, Respondent was registered as a septic tank contractor and served as the qualifying agent for Ms. Rooter. At the time of all three jobs, Respondent had apparent authority to serve as the agent of Ms. Rooter in contracting for and performing the septic tank contracting work described below. However, nothing in the record establishes any relationship between Respondent and Ms. Rooter at the time of the issuance of the Administrative Complaint, so as to justify treating the notice of this proceeding, when served upon Respondent, as notice to Ms. Rooter. Hans Seffer, who testified, is the son of the woman who owns the apartment complex located at 14950 North Miami Avenue, Miami. Mr. Seffer found Ms. Rooter on the internet and spoke with Carolyn Futch, operations manager of Ms. Rooter, about septic tank contracting services needed at the apartment complex. Respondent later met with Mr. Seffer at the property. Initially, Mr. Seffer believed that the existing septic tank needed only to be pumped out. However, upon inspection, Respondent determined that the system also required a new drainfield, pump, and dosing tank. Accordingly, on February 20, 2008, Respondent, as "technician," and either Mr. Seffer or his mother signed a one-page contract on a form identifying the contractor as Ms. Rooter, license number SA0071430. The contract describes the following work: Install 1,000 sq. ft. drainfield with 300 gallon dosing tank including immediate (2/21/08) tank pump out. Additionally if tank requires pumpout prior to securing all necessary permits, Ms. Rooter will perform pumpout at no additional cost. Manhole cover included. Respondent and either Mr. or Mrs. Seffer initialed this section of the contract. The contract states that the total due for this work is $10,500. Ms. Seffer paid $5,000 by check on February 21, 2008, leaving a $5,500 balance due. On March 1, 2008, Respondent, as agent for Ms. Rooter and on behalf of the property owner, submitted to Petitioner an application for a construction permit for an onsite sewage disposal system. The application describes the property improvements as a multifamily complex with ten bedrooms and 5,284 square feet of building space. The site plan attached to the application states: "Replace drainfield only." On April 2, 2008, Ms. Futch emailed Mr. Seffer to confirm an earlier discussion between them. The discussion addressed a requirement of Petitioner that Ms. Rooter install a second tank. The email states that the property owner will pay $5,600 for the installation of a "2nd tank (1,050-gal)," so the new total contract price is $11,100. This email restates the scope of the work as the installation of a 1,000-square-foot drainfield and 300-gallon dosing tank. By return email two days later, Mr. Seffer agreed to the additional work. On April 11, 2008, Petitioner issued to the property owner a construction permit that specifies a 2,575-gallon septic tank and a 1,000 square-foot drainfield. The permit states: "The licensed contractor installing the system is responsible for installing the minimum category of tank in accordance with sec. 64E-6.013(3)(f), F.A.C." This rule does not refer to tank capacities. On April 23, 2008, Petitioner issued a "construction inspection and final approval" form that shows the installation of two 1,200-gallon septic tanks and a 1,005-square-foot drainfield. The form states that items bearing an "X" are "not in compliance with statute or rule and must be corrected." The construction and final system are approved by Petitioner's inspector. During the course of the work, Respondent told Mr. Seffer that the existing tank was damaged and needed to be replaced, at an additional cost of $5,000, so the remaining balance rose to $16,100. Mr. Seffer agreed to this change. By email dated April 30, 2008, to Mr. Seffer, Ms. Futch confirmed the additional cost of $5,000 for the second septic tank and expressed "hope [that] Ms. Rooter has met your expectations." The email acknowledges, however, that "we must complete the electrical portion of the job." On May 2, 2008, Mr. Seffer sent Ms. Rooter two checks totaling $15,000, leaving a balance of $1,100. On the same date, Mr. Seffer sent Ms. Futch an email that, pursuant to their agreement, he would retain this amount for the "electric and final raking work." By email dated May 27, 2008, to Ms. Futch, Mr. Seffer noted that the manhole that Ms. Rooter had installed in the middle of the lawn was not level and was sunken, presenting a tripping hazard; the final grading was incomplete, leaving low spots and holes; a large rock remained near the palm tree and needed to be removed. Mr. Seffer sent Ms. Futch a reminder email on June 4, 2008, that resent the May 27 email. Mr. Seffer sent another email to Ms. Futch on June 21, 2008. In it, he notes that a Ms. Rooter employee worked on digging an electrical trench on June 13, but left mid-day, and no work had been performed since that day. In the meantime, recent rains had revealed a lack of compaction in the backfilling done by Ms. Rooter, as the fill had settled and undermined a sidewalk. After failing to obtain a response, on July 26, 2008, Mr. Seffer sent a final email to Ms. Futch warning her that he would file complaints with governmental agencies and advising that the unconnected pump was not pumping sewage throughout the entire system. The record does not contain the contracts for the septic tank contracting services involved in the second and third jobs alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Also, Petitioner did not present the testimony of the property owners involved in these jobs. The record for these jobs is limited to the permitting documentation. On September 26, 2008, as agent of Ms. Rooter and on behalf of the property owner, Shoreview Properties, Respondent submitted an application for a construction permit for an onsite sewage disposal system for 9999 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Miami Shores. This application describes the property as commercial with a 47,771 square-foot building. On October 1, 2008, Petitioner's inspector inspected the property. The inspector found an opened drainfield area with contaminated material and other conditions capable of hosting various disease vectors. He also found a backhoe and worker, who claimed that someone else had excavated the drainfield. The inspector immediately posted an ONASN, pursuant to the authority of chapter 386, Florida Statutes, that required the immediate abatement of the listed insanitary conditions. The inspector also determined that the existing onsite sewage disposal system exceeded Petitioner's jurisdictional threshold of 5,000 gallons per day. On September 10, 2008, as agent of Ms. Rooter and on behalf of the property owner, Lisa Mullin, Respondent submitted to Petitioner an application for a construction permit for an onsite sewage disposal system for 101 Northeast 195th Street, Miami. This application describes the property as 0.19 acres, on which is situated a single family residence comprising 1,663 square feet and three bedrooms. On September 22, 2008, an agent of the property owner called Petitioner and complained that Ms. Rooter had commenced the work without having first obtained a permit. Petitioner's inspector visited the site on the same day and found "very recent" earthwork. The owner informed the inspector that the contractor had installed three drainlines, cut an old water line, and installed a new water line over the drainfield. However, the record fails to establish the amount of time that elapsed between the work claimed to have been performed by Ms. Rooter and the report by the property owner. Respondent has paid numerous fines imposed by Petitioner for improper septic tank contracting. In 1999, Respondent paid a fine in an unspecified amount for performing an unpermitted drainfield repair and making the repair without the required filter sand. On January 27, 2000, Respondent paid a fine of $250 for performing unpermitted system repairs. On February 4, 2000, Respondent was assessed a fine of $1,000 for performing unpermitted and uninspected system repairs and failing to honor a warranty. On January 8, 2004, Respondent received a cease and desist order for qualifying more than one septic tank contracting business. In 2007, Respondent paid separate fines of $1,500 and $1,000 for illegal septic tank contracting work in Dade and Monroe counties, respectively.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the three violations identified in paragraphs 26, 27, and 29 above, dismissing the remaining charges against him, dismissing any charges against Ms. Rooter, and revoking Respondent's septic tank contracting registration. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Arlender Miller 640 Northwest 129th Street Miami, Florida 33168 Jenea Reed, Esquire Miami Dade County Health Department 8323 Northwest 12th Street, Suite 214 Miami, Florida 33126 R.S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 E. Renee Alsobrook, Acting General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Shairi Turner, Deputy Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Kim Berfield, Deputy Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), should fine the Respondent, William Loiacano, d/b/a Gulf Coast Food Distributors, Inc., for maintaining a sanitary nuisance.2/
Findings Of Fact In 1990,6/ the Respondent, William Loiacano, d/b/a Gulf Coast Food Distributors, Inc., purchased property at 8402 Lemon Road, Port Richey, Florida, for purposes of relocating his on-going food distributing business. The prior owner operated a carpet business, with approximately five employees, at the location. The Respondent had about 45-50 employees. Shortly after the Respondent started doing business at the new location, he began to have problems with the existing septic tank system. The problem seemed to relate to the increased use of the toilets in the building by the added number of the Respondent's employees. In September, 1990, an HRS environmental health specialist inspected the premises and observed evidence of raw sewage bubbling to the surface from the septic system's drain field and flowing into a stormwater retention pond on the property.7/ The Respondent was directed to abate the nuisance, and a discussion of the Respondent's alternatives ensued. The Respondent rejected the first proposed alternative of connecting to a central public sewer. The nearest connection was over 1000 feet away and would entail significant cost to the Respondent. (The cost would have been even higher if gravity flow was not possible, and it became necessary to pump to the connection point.) The Respondent chose, with HRS' permission, the next alternative of trying to solve the problem by installing a second septic tank system on the property. The second septic tank system for which the Respondent applied, and which he had built, was designed for domestic use by 15 employees. In addition, after installation of the second septic tank system, the Respondent began processing a relish pack and a salad mix on the premises. The processing method for these products required the use of a great deal of water. On or about February 7, 1991, another HRS environmental health specialist inspected the premises and again found evidence of raw sewage bubbling to the surface, this time from the new septic system's drain field, and flowing into the stormwater retention pond. The amount of water flowing into the drainfields, from a combination of the use of the toilets in the building, together with the new processing operations taking place in the building, had overtaxed the double septic tank system, and the system failed. Given the quantities of water needed to process the new products, the Respondent should have anticipated, and probably was aware of, the system failure. The Respondent was directed to fix the problem within a week or stop the processing the new products on the premises. The Respondent tried several water conservation methods in an attempt to address the problem without having to either stop processing the new products or incur the cost of connecting to the central public sewer system. He knew, or should have known, that his efforts were futile, given the quantities of water needed to process the relish pack and salad mix. HRS also referred the matter to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. DER inspected on or about February 18, 1991, and told the Respondent that he could not dispose of the industrial waste from the operation of his business in the on-premises septic system without an industrial waste disposal permit. In connection with this, DER apparently advised the Respondent that he would be required to test the water in the stormwater retention pond for certain contaminants. The Respondent was unable to understand what he needed to test for, and how, and sought assistance from DER and HRS. Although there is evidence that HRS tried to help the Respondent by referring him to certain individuals employed by the DER for answers, the Respondent did not follow HRS' guidance. In any case, the efforts would have been futile, as the Respondent did not have enough property to dispose of the industrial wastes from the operation of his business on-site using a septic tank system. On or about June 19, 1991, a neighbor complained to the Respondent about the smell of raw sewage coming from the Respondent's septic system. The Respondent did not receive his neighbor's observations kindly. The neighbor complained to HRS and the Pasco County Sheriff's office. An HRS inspection on June 20, 1991, confirmed the existence of a sanitary nuisance on the premises. Again, raw sewage was bubbling to the surface from the new septic system's drain field and was flowing into the stormwater retention pond. HRS arranged for another meeting with the Respondent on June 27, 1991. At the June 27, 1991, meeting, HRS required that the Respondent stop processing the relish pack and the salad mix until he could hook up to the central public sewer. It was felt that the septic tank systems might be adequate pending connection to the central public sewer if the quantities of water required for processing those products on the premises were eliminated and if other preventive measures were taken. From June 27, 1991, forward to the date of the hearing, the Respondent purchased relish pack and salad mix from other suppliers rather than process them on the premises at 8402 Lemon Road. In addition, the Respondent continued to attempt to conserve water, had the septic tanks pumped out as frequently as required (sometimes practically daily), and had his employees utilize portable toilets in an attempt to avoid additional septic tank failures. After learning that excessive water use at the premises was partially a result of plumbing leaks, the Respondent also had the plumbing fixed. The Respondent also immediately initiated the long process of connecting to the central public sewer. He had a meeting with the assistant county administrator for utilities service for Pasco County on July 3, 1991. They discussed alternatives for connecting the Respondent's business. Initially, the County wanted the Respondent to pay to run a sewer line over 1000 feet to the south of his property to enable the County to efficiently connect other businesses and property owners in that area. But this option would have been costly to the Respondent, and there was no guarantee that gravity flow was possible between the Respondent's property and the connection point. If not, the Respondent also would have to pay the cost of pumping to the connection point. The Respondent hired an engineer to design an alternative that would be less costly. He also sought the cooperation of his neighbors, who would be required to connect to central sewer when the Respondent did. The engineer also worked with those neighbors in designing an alternate connection. On or about September 9, 1991, another meeting was held among the Respondent and his engineer and the county's utilites construction team. As a result of this meeting, the County agreed to modify the connection route in accordance with the Respondent's proposal. The Respondent's engineer continued his work on the design of the connection. HRS inspections on or about September 11 and 25, 1991, revealed that the Respondent's septic system was failing again and that raw sewage again was bubbling to the surface from the new septic system's drain field and flowing into the stormwater retention pond. HRS arranged to meet with the Respondent again on October 4, 1991, along with a Pasco County deputy sheriff and a DER industrial wastewater compliance inspector. At this meeting, the Respondent felt that the deputy sheriff was threatening to arrest him for violation of the law, and he angrily terminated the meeting and asked all of them to leave the premises. In December, 1991, the Respondent arranged a meeting with the County and his neighbors to discuss sharing the cost of the connection route the Respondent was proposing to build. The neighbors, realizing the Respondent's weak bargaining position, refused to share the Respondent's costs. At this point, the County conceded to pay the approximate $9,000 to jack and bore under the road, but the Respondent was required to pay to run a sewer line approximately 300 feet to the south and to construct a manhole on his neighbors' side of the road, as well as on his side of the road. (The second manhole would be used by the neighbors to connect their properties to the line the Respondent was building when the County required them to connect.) The total cost to the Respondent for his part of the construction of the connection to the public sewer will be approximately $24,000. On January 17, 1992, the Respondent paid a $3,428 impact fee for connecting to the central public sewer, based on projected water use. On January 23, 1992, the Respondent applied for a force main interconnect permit. At the time of the final hearing, the jack and bore and the construction of the new sewer line connecting the Respondent's property to the central sewer were about to begin. The evidence indicates that, once HRS made it clear to the Respondent on or about June 27, 1991, that connection to the central public sewer was the Respondent's only remaining option, the Respondent moved with reasonable dispatch. The time it took to arrange to be connected to the public sewer was within normal ranges, and there is no evidence that the Respondent did anything to cause unnecessary delays. (Delays, if any, were caused by the need for the Respondent's engineer to work with and get cooperation from the Respondent's neighbors, who were not as anxious as the Respondent to have the new sewer line built.) There also is no evidence that the Respondent processed relish pack or salad mix on the premises after June 27, 1991. In addition, the Respondent continued to attempt to conserve water, had the septic tanks pumped out frequently (sometimes practically daily), and had his employees utilize portable toilets in an attempt to avoid additional septic tank failures. The evidence also indicates that, after June 27, 1991, all concerned were hopeful that the measures the Respondent was taking would prevent, or at least minimize, septic system failures pending connection to the public sewer. After June 27, 1991, HRS presented direct evidence of septic tank system failures only on two occasions in September, 1991. The evidence is that, after becoming aware of the system failures in September, 1991, HRS sought the imposition of a fine against the Respondent. The evidence suggests two other important motivating reasons for HRS' action: first, not being aware of the actions the Respondent took between June 27 and September, 1991, to connect to the central sewer, HRS mistakenly believed that the Respondent was ignoring its instructions; and, second, HRS mistook the Respondent's angry outburst at the meeting at the Respondent's place of business in September, 1991, when he felt he was being threatened with arrest for violation of the law, as being evidence that the Respondent was not genuine in his apparent concern and efforts to respond to HRS' guidance and instruction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) enter a final order fining the Respondent, William Loiacano, d/b/a Gulf Coast Food Distributors, Inc., in the amount of $5,000. RECOMMENDED this 29 day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of April, 1992.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Virgil Cardin, d/b/a Virgil Cardin Septic Tank Service (Respondent or Cardin), committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint for Imposition of Administrative Fines and Revocation of Septic Tank Contractor License and Business Authorization, dated December 28, 2012, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering the Standards for Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems (SOSTDS). The installation, repair, and/or alteration of any septic tank system fall within the purview of Petitioner's authority. Public health concerns mandate that all septic tank systems be operated according to governing laws and rules. Respondent is a resident of the State of Florida and is registered by Petitioner to provide septic tank contracting services within the state. Respondent's registration number is SR0890865. Respondent owns and operates Virgil Cardin Septic Tank Service located in Lakeland, Florida, and the company is authorized to provide septic tank contracting services. The company's authorization number is SE093690. Septic tank contracting services are governed by SOSTDS. The Controversy It is undisputed that a permit must be obtained prior to performing repairs to a septic tank system. In Polk County (where all actions complained of occurred), a septic tank service company is required to apply for a permit before work is performed, obtain an inspection by appropriate authorities before beginning work, and complete all work in accordance with designated standards. A septic tank pump-out does not require a permit. Any work that would involve the exposure of the drain fields and/or the refitting of portions of the septic system would require a permit. The controversy in this case stems from Respondent's failure to obtain a permit before beginning repairs to a septic tank system located at 4931 Rolling Meadows Drive, Lakeland, Florida. It is undisputed that Respondent did not, in advance of starting work at the home, obtain a permit. The Arguments The Digans own a home located at 4931 Rolling Meadows Drive, Lakeland, Florida. For several years, the Digans have experienced problems with their septic tank system to the point that waste from the septic system has backed up into their home. Previously, Respondent addressed the Digans' septic tank system problems by pumping the waste from the tank, thereby eliminating pressure on the overwrought system. On or about August 24, 2012, Respondent went to the Digans' home and pumped out the septic tank. A permit for the work done that date was not required. Given the history of the problems with the Digans' system, it became apparent to the owners and Respondent that comprehensive repairs to the system were necessary. As there was no way to predict when another pump-out might be required, it was not surprising that approximately one week later Respondent returned to the Digans' property for additional work. On that date, September 1, 2012, Respondent could not pump out the Digans' tank, because his truck was already full. Instead, Respondent took a backhoe to the Digans' property and began to dig trenches for the drain field. Respondent's employee began to construct a septic drain line header pipe with drain field chamber end plates attached. Respondent exposed the Digans' septic system as if he were going to make repairs to the system. When confronted by two environmental supervisors who observed Respondent's actions, Respondent readily admitted he did not have a permit for the work. At first, Respondent stated that the homeowners could not afford permits. Later, Respondent maintained that the work he performed on September 1, 2012, did not require a permit. Petitioner maintains that Respondent went to the Digans' home on September 1, 2012, to make repairs to the septic tank system without prior inspection or a required permit. The Analysis Prior to September 1, 2012, Respondent knew or should have known that the Digans' septic tank system needed extensive repairs. Respondent had pumped out the tank several times and should have known that the system was not functioning as intended. Prior to September 1, 2012, Respondent knew or should have known that repairs to any septic tank system require an inspection and permit. On September 4, 2012, after being caught the prior Saturday on the Digans' property, Respondent applied for a permit for the repairs to the Digans' septic tank system. On September 5, 2012, a repair permit was issued for the Digans' property. On September 7, 2012, the repairs to the Digans' system were inspected and approved. There was no emergency on September 1, 2012, that necessitated repairs to the Digans' septic tank system on that date. Pumping out the Digans' tank on that date would have addressed any immediate concern. On-site inspections before septic tank systems are repaired are critical to public health because they assure that groundwater contamination is avoided, that the existing tank is sound and will function as intended, and that setbacks to other properties, wells, or systems are adequate. Respondent knew or should have known that performing any work before an inspection negates the safeguards to public health concerns. Respondent knew or should have known that the materials needed to adequately repair the Digans' septic tank system exceeded the chambers he took to the site on September 1, 2012. Digging up the Digans' system on September 1, 2012, created a sanitary nuisance. Respondent's History In the event a violation is found in this case, Respondent's disciplinary history would be relevant in considering what penalty, if any, should be imposed. To that end the following findings are made: Respondent has previously been found in violation of failing to call for a required inspection; and Respondent has previously been found in violation of practicing fraud or deceit, making misleading or untrue misrepresentations, or misconduct that causes no monetary harm to a customer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's authorizations to perform septic tank services be suspended for a period not less than 90 days. Additionally, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be required to pay an administrative fine in an amount not less than $2,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: John H. Armstrong, M.D., F.A.C.S. State Surgeon General Department of Health Bin A00 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Jennifer A. Tschetter, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Althea Gaines, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Tony C. Dodds, Esquire Law Office of Tony C. Dodds 904 South Missouri Avenue Lakeland, Florida 33803-1034 Roland Reis, Esquire Polk County Health Department 1290 Golfview Avenue, Fourth Floor Bartow, Florida 33830-6740
The Issue Whether Petitioner should take disciplinary action against Respondents for the reasons alleged in the Administrative Complaint?
Findings Of Fact On behalf of his brother, Mr. Howell Parish, who lives in Orange Park, Florida, Mr. James A. Parish contracted with Respondents to restore efficient of operation the septic tank system at 5469 Soundside Drive in Santa Rosa County, premises owned by Howell Parish. Respondents agreed to make the restoration by providing a fiberglass approved tank with a fiberglass lid, install a new drain field and haul in dirt to build up a low area of the existing drain field. Respondents undertook repair activities but without a permit. Respondents did not obtain an inspection of their work after they had finished. On June 10, 1992, after the repairs were supposed to have been done, James Parish paid Respondent Harmon for the job with a personal check in the amount of $1,498.48. On the same date, Respondent Harmon signed a receipt for payment. The receipt shows as work performed, "Demucking and Installing one 1050 Gal Tank & 200 Sq.' Drain Field." Ms. Jo Ann Parish, spouse of Howell Parish, reimbursed James Parish for the work done on Soundside Drive. Shortly thereafter, the septic tank "caved in and the waste was boiling to the surface." (Tr. 16.) Howell Parish met with Larry W. Thomas, Environmental Health Supervisor for the Santa Rosa County Health Department, to discuss the situation. Following the meeting, Mr. Parish called Respondent Harmon and told that him that the problem needed to be straightened out and that he should contact Mr. Thomas promptly because his license could be in danger. Respondent promised to correct the problem and to reimburse Mr. Parish for the job but he did neither. He did not contact Mr. Thomas either. Mr. Thomas, on behalf of the County, investigated the site of the septic tank repair. He found that Respondents had installed a broken fiber glass tank when fiberglass tanks are not allowed at all in Santa Rosa County because of their structural inadequacy. In addition to the tank being cracked, it had a cracked lid. Another hole in the tank that should have been covered with a lid was covered with a piece of plywood. The plywood was kept in place by dirt fill. The drain field did not meet the minimum standards required by the County. Most significantly, it was installed beneath the water table. There was a laundry discharge pipe which was not connected to the tank as required. The site of the septic tank repair by Respondents was a sanitary nuisance. The broken condition of the tank allowed raw sewage to overflow. The drain field was emptying raw sewage directly into ground water. The laundry discharge was discharging into the ground rather than being hooked up to the septic tank. Mr. Parish was forced to hire another septic tank service to restore the system to good working order. The work, performed by Bettis Septic Tank Service, was billed to Mr. Parish at a cost of $6400.00.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED, that Respondents' certificates of registration be revoked and that the Department impose on Respondents a fine of $2000.00. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of October, 1994 in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank C. Bozeman, III Asst. District Legal Counsel D H R S 160 Governmental Center Pensacola, FL 32501 Kenneth P. Walsh Attorney at Law P. O. Box 1208 Shalimar, FL 32505-0420 Robert L. Powell, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Kim Tucker General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 DAVID M. MALONEY 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 October, 1994.
The Issue Whether Respondent’s license as a septic tank contractor should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is registered with Petitioner as a septic tank contractor and authorized to provide septic tank contracting services, holding Registration No. SR0890264 and Authorization No. SA0900453. David B. Grimes is employed by Bay County Health Department as an inspector responsible for the inspection of on- site sewage systems. On August 22, 2007, Mr. Grimes inspected an on-site sewage treatment disposal system (OSTDS) being constructed by Respondent at 5431 John Pitts Road, Panama City, Florida. The OSTDS failed to meet the minimum rule requirements due to a defective tank and improperly installed drainfield. The tank was defective because its dimensions were smaller than the dimensions required to enable the tank to have sufficient liquid capacity for the system being installed. Mr. Grimes told Respondent that he could not approve the system. Upon learning that the system would not be approved, Respondent, who is a large man and larger than the inspector, threatened to do bodily harm to Mr. Grimes and stated, “I am going to whip your ass”. He also used other profanity in a threatening and serious voice. The inspector began to put his tools into the tool container on the back of his truck. When the inspector attempted to close the container’s lid and leave, Respondent blocked the path of the inspector and would not let him close the truck-bed lid. Respondent insisted the system be inspected and approved so he could finish the job. Other than blocking his path, Respondent did not take any other physical action towards harming Mr. Grimes. Other than with his hands, the evidence did not show that Respondent had the means to cause serious harm to Mr. Grimes. However, Mr. Grimes felt some fear for his safety and was very uncomfortable. He refused to approve the system and left the premises. He called his supervisor to report the incident and request a second inspection by his supervisor. Later that day, Mr. Grimes and his supervisor inspected the OSTDS. Respondent was not present. The inspector concurred with Mr. Grimes’ findings and the system was not approved. On August 23, 2007, Mr. Grimes made a second visit to the property to continue the inspection of the OSTDS. The drainfield was corrected and a new and larger tank was installed. The dimensions of the tank were again smaller than required to meet the liquid capacity of the tank. Additionally, the tank had a gap in the seal around the intake feed line. It was, therefore, defective and could not be approved. Mr. Grimes told Respondent that he could not approve the system. Respondent again grew angry when he was told the new tank was also defective and would not be approved. Respondent stated that Mr. Grimes was the worst inspector in the area and made other derogatory remarks towards him. Respondent also threatened to make trouble with the inspector’s employment and/or “get him fired” unless the system was passed. The evidence did not show that Respondent made any physical moves toward Respondent or otherwise impeded his inspection. The inspector was again fearful for his personal safety although the evidence did not demonstrate a reasonable basis for such fear. The OSTDS was not approved and Mr. Grimes left the work site. There was no evidence that Respondent followed through with interfering with Mr. Grimes’ employment. At best, the evidence showed that Respondent’s threat to interfere with the inspector’s employment was mere hyperbole. Such comments are common. While silly and rude, the mere threat of an employment action does not rise to the level of being unlawful and does not demonstrate misconduct sufficient to impose discipline on Respondent’s license. On the other hand, the actions of Respondent towards the inspector when he threatened to do bodily harm to the inspector, and blocking his attempts to leave unless he approved the system, did constitute gross misconduct on the part of Respondent. Even though Respondent’s actions were unsuccessful, Respondent’s words coupled with his conduct go beyond mere hyperbole and constitute an unlawful threat towards a public official to influence the official’s actions. Respondent’s actions did not cause physical or monetary harm to any person. In the past, Respondent was disciplined by letter of warning in Case Number SC0478 in 2000, for covering a new installation in violation of the system construction standards and by citation in Case Number SC0591 in 2001, for creation of a sanitary nuisance, negligence, misconduct, and falsification of inspection report. The instant violation is a second violation for misconduct and a repeat violation of the rules of the Department.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license be disciplined for violations of the Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.022 and that his Septic Tank Contractor License No. SR0890264 and Authorization No. SA0900453 be fined in the amount of $500.00 and suspended for 90 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney M. Johnson, Esquire Department of Health Northwest Law Office 1295 West Fairfield Drive Pensacola, Florida 32501 G. D. Yon, Jr. Yon Septic Tank Co. 2988 Hwy 71 Marianna, Florida 32446 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Ana M. Viamonte-Ros, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Josefina M. Tamayó, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue At issue in DOAH Case No. 04-4333 is whether Respondent committed the two violations of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.022 alleged in the citation issued on September 29, 2004, and, if so, whether the imposition of a $1,000.00 fine was properly imposed. At issue in DOAH Case No. 05-0695 is whether Respondent committed the three violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint issued on February 21, 2005, and, if so, whether his septic tank contractor registration should be revoked or some lesser penalty imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing the statutory provisions pertaining to the practice of septic tank contracting in Florida pursuant to Chapter 489, Part III, and Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes (2004). At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent Matt Beebe, was a registered septic tank contractor, having been issued registration number SR0971283, and was the qualifying contractor for his business, Southern Sanitation, Inc. ("Southern Sanitation"), having been issued registration number SA0970864. On June 7, 2001, Mr. Beebe was cited for installing a septic system without a permit, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.022, and paid a fine of $500.00 without contest. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Beebe also operated a septage disposal service business under the Southern Sanitation name, having been issued operating permit number 11-QN-0054. Improper Septage Disposal and Sanitary Nuisance On September 29, 2004, Kenneth Rech, the Department's environmental health and engineering director for Collier County, received a telephone complaint that a Southern Sanitation septage hauling truck had been seen emptying its contents onto a vacant lot at 295 Brandy Lane in Naples. Mr. Rech and his assistant, James Miller, drove out to the location to investigate the complaint. When he arrived at the location, Mr. Rech first spoke to the complainant, who lived across the street from the vacant lot. The complainant estimated that the Southern Sanitation truck left the lot about 20 minutes before Mr. Rech arrived. Mr. Rech and Mr. Miller investigated the site. Mr. Rech described the area containing the dumped contents of the truck as a low-lying wetland. The property was about ten acres in size. The owner kept horses on the lot. Mr. Rech testified that there was a strong smell of septage, though the dumped contents were light gray in color. Raw septage is generally black. Based on the smell, Mr. Rech concluded that the dumped contents included septage mixed with some other material. Mr. Rech telephoned Erin Kurbec to meet him at the dump site. Ms. Kurbec is a Department employee responsible for oversight of septage hauling and disposal businesses. Ms. Kurbec in turn phoned Mr. Beebe and asked him to come to the site. Mr. Rech testified that Mr. Beebe was "very agitated" when he arrived at the dump site, calling Ms. Kurbec a "liar," and protesting that the Department did not have the right to ask for his company's hauling logs. Because of Mr. Beebe's aggressive behavior, Mr. Rech phoned to request a Sheriff's deputy to come to the site. Mr. Beebe conceded that he was somewhat agitated because Ms. Kubec asked him to come to the site, but would not tell him why she wanted to see his truck. She would only say that it was a "spot check," which Mr. Beebe did not believe. By the time the Sheriff's deputy arrived, the situation had calmed down. Mr. Beebe told Mr. Rech that he had dumped approximately 3,000 gallons of "drillers' mud" on the site. Drillers' mud, or bentonite clay, is a colloidal clay sold under various trade names that forms a slick slurry, or gel, when water is added. The appearance of the material dumped at the site was consistent with that of drillers' mud. Mr. Beebe testified that the owner of the vacant lot asked him to dump the drillers' mud to fill in a low-lying, hard to reach area of the property. The liquid-like consistency of the drillers' mud made it ideal for filling this difficult portion of the property. Mr. Beebe's testimony as to having permission to dump materials on the property is credited. Mr. Rech took two samples of the dumped material from a pooled area about six inches deep. He used sterile sample equipment and containers. Because Mr. Beebe had alerted him to the possibility that there could be horse manure under the dumped material, Mr. Rech was careful to scoop the contents from the top of the dumped material. Mr. Rech provided one of the samples to Mr. Beebe to allow Mr. Beebe to have a laboratory of his choice analyze the material. Mr. Rech sent the other sample to the Department's Tampa laboratory, which found the sample to contain a fecal coliform count of 4,800 colonies per gram. The laboratory's report was stamped with the disclosure stating, "Sample does not meet the following NELAC requirements: 1) exceeds 6 hr. hold time; 2) this matrix is not certified under NELAC." NELAC is the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference, a voluntary association of state and federal agencies, the purpose of which is to establish and promote mutually acceptable performance standards for the operation of environmental laboratories. NELAC certifies environmental laboratories such as the Department's Tampa facility, which was not certified for solid matrices such as the sample provided by Mr. Rech. Dr. Philip Amuso is the director of the Department's Tampa laboratory. Dr. Amuso testified as to the testing procedures and the disclosure statement included on the laboratory report. He concluded that neither of the disclosures affected the validity of the fecal coliform count found in the sample. Dr. Amuso testified that the applicable testing standard calls for a sample to be analyzed for fecal coliform within six hours of the sample collection time. The sample in question was not tested within six hours. However, Dr. Amuso testified that the longer a sample is held, the lower the fecal coliform count will be, because the fecal coliform colonies tend to die off over time. Thus, Dr. Amuso testified that the fecal coliform count in the sample was likely understated, due to the failure to analyze the sample within six hours. Dr. Amuso testified that his laboratory chose to classify the sample as solid. The Tampa laboratory was required to note on its report that it is not NELAC-certified for solid matrices. However, Dr. Amuso testified that the classification of the sample had no impact on the analysis performed or the validity of the result. He explained that the laboratory could have classified the sample as a non-potable liquid, a matrix for which the Tampa laboratory is NELAC-certified, and the same analysis would have been performed and would have yielded the same result. Mr. Beebe forwarded his sample of the dumped material to Sanders Laboratories, Inc. ("Sanders"), a private environmental testing service. The Sanders laboratory classified the sample as a non-potable liquid and performed its analysis within six hours of the sample's collection. The Sanders laboratory report dated September 30, 2004, found the fecal coliform count to be 1,600,000 colonies per 100 milliliters. Placed in comparable terms to the Tampa laboratory's report, this sample showed a fecal coliform count of 16,000 colonies per gram, or about three times higher than the Tampa laboratory's sample. Dr. Amuso attributed this higher reading to the fact that Sanders ran its test within six hours of collection. Dr. Amuso testified that the fecal coliform count of 4,800 colonies per gram found in the Tampa laboratory's sample constituted "pretty significant" contamination. Mr. Rech testified that a count of 4,800 colonies per gram is about one-half of the count found in raw, untreated septage from a septic tank, and that such a count is "bad" in terms of public health significance. Mr. Rech testified that the fecal coliform count in the Sanders sample was "in the range" for raw untreated septage. Mr. Rech stated that the laboratory analyses led to the conclusion that there was a substantial amount of untreated septage mixed with the drillers' mud in the dumped materials. He concluded there was more septage than could reasonably be attributed to residue from a previous dump of septage in Mr. Beebe's truck. He added that it would be impossible to clean the tank of a septage disposal truck sufficiently to prevent fecal contamination of a subsequent non-septage load. Mr. Beebe conceded that Mr. Rech told him that he should not use a septage hauling truck for any other kind of load, especially where that load would be dumped on the ground. Before leaving the dump site on September 29, 2004, Mr. Rech and Ms. Kurbec handed Mr. Beebe the citation for failure to properly treat or dispose of septage and the creation or maintenance of a sanitary nuisance. The citation directed Mr. Beebe to pay a fine of $500.00 for each of the two violations. Mr. Rech testified that he and Ms. Kurbec were able to conclude from their on-site observations that Mr. Beebe had improperly disposed of septage and had created a sanitary nuisance. Mr. Rech stated that the subsequent laboratory analysis served to confirm those conclusions. Mr. Rech testified that untreated septage consists of human waste containing high levels of fecal coliform and viruses, bacteria, and parasites that cause a wide range of gastrointestinal and neurological conditions in humans. Mr. Rech stated that untreated septage dumped anywhere other than at a properly regulated disposal site constitutes a public health nuisance. He noted that the materials were dumped by Mr. Beebe within roughly 100 feet of residential drinking water wells. Mr. Beebe admitted that he dumped the contents of his disposal truck on the vacant lot, though he denied that it contained septage. He theorized that the high fecal coliform counts in the laboratory analyses were caused by animal manure beneath the drillers' mud that he dumped on the property. Dr. Amuso conceded that no testing had been performed to establish the ambient level of coliform on the property, and further conceded that the laboratory tests do not distinguish human from animal feces in measuring the coliform count. However, as noted above, Mr. Rech knew that there were animals on the property and carefully took his sample from the top of the dumped material. Mr. Rech testified that the strong smell of septage, and the high coliform count found by the subsequent laboratory analyses left no doubt that untreated human waste had been dumped on the property by Mr. Beebe. The Department established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mr. Beebe dumped a mixture of drillers' mud and untreated septage on the lot at 295 Brandy Lane in Naples. Holding Tank On or before January 6, 2005, Mr. Beebe placed a 900-gallon domestic wastewater holding tank into a pre-dug hole at the newly built residence of Edward Ehlen at 616 Crescent Street on Marco Island. Mr. Beebe did not dig the hole, nor did he connect the holding tank to Mr. Ehlen's house. Mr. Ehlen testified that he contracted with the City of Marco Island in July 2004 to connect his new residence, an $800,000 house, to the city sewer system. The connection was to be completed no later than November 2004, when Mr. Ehlen and his family expected to take occupancy of the house. The city did not complete the connection and, therefore, allowed Mr. Ehlen to install a holding tank to be used until the sewer connection was completed. After the holding tank was installed, the city inspected the tank and gave Mr. Ehlen a temporary certificate of occupancy. On January 6, 2005, after Mr. Ehlen and his family had moved into their house, the Department discovered that the Ehlen home was using a holding tank to collect its wastewater. On January 7, 2005, the Department issued to Mr. Ehlen an "Official Notice to Correct and Abate a Sanitary Nuisance," finding that Mr. Ehlen was in violation of "Florida Statutes Chapters 381 and 386" because "plumbing discharge from your home is connected to a sewage holding tank which has not been permitted or inspected by this department." The Notice also provided, in relevant part: You are hereby directed to correct this condition by complying with all the conditions listed below. Apply for a "temporary" Holding Tank permit by close of business on Monday, January 10, 2005. [This permit will be valid for a maximum of 120 days, Permit fee is $185.00] Apply for an abandonment permit for the temporary holding tank by close of business Monday, January 10, 2005. [This permit will be valid for a maximum of 120 days. Complete tank removal will be required within 10 days of hook up to public sewer. Permit fee is $40.00] Have a licensed septic contractor excavate the holding tank for inspection of all connections and seals by this department by Wednesday, January 12, 2005. Sign and maintain a pump-out agreement with a licensed septage hauler until the temporary holding tank is properly abandoned and inspected by this department. Provide a copy of this agreement to the department by Wednesday, January 12, 2005. [Minimum required pump-out frequency to be every other day]. Complete hookup to Marco Island Utilities sewer system within 120 days of receipt of this notice. Failure to comply may result in administrative and/or civil enforcement action, including administrative fines of up to $500 per day per violation of law. On January 12, 2005, the Department issued a 120-day temporary permit to Mr. Ehlen for his holding tank. Also on January 12, 2005, Mr. Ehlen signed a contract with Southern Sanitation pursuant to which Mr. Beebe's company agreed to pump out the holding tank three times per week. Mr. Beebe conceded that he did not obtain a permit from the Health Department before he placed the holding tank in the hole on Mr. Ehlen's property. Mr. Beebe relied on Mr. Ehlen's statement that the City of Marco Island had approved the installation of the holding tank. Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.0101(7) provides that a construction permit must be obtained before the placement or installation of any holding tank. The Department established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mr. Beebe placed a 900-gallon domestic wastewater holding tank into a pre-dug hole at the Ehlen's residence without obtaining a Department permit. Mr. Beebe's good faith belief that Mr. Ehlen had obtained approval for the placement of the tank is noted as a mitigating factor, but cannot operate as a defense for a registered septic tank contractor's admitted failure to confirm the status of any permit with the Department prior to commencing work on the project. Collection and Hauling Log Mr. Beebe's annual operating permit from the Department authorizes him to pump septage from septic tanks and holding tanks and haul it to an approved treatment site for disposal and treatment. Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.010(7)(e) requires a septage hauler to maintain a collection and hauling log "at the treatment site or at the main business location" and to retain that log for a period of five years. The rule lists the following items for inclusion in the log: Date of septage or water collection; Address of collection; Indicate whether the point of collection is a residence or business and if a business, the type of business; Estimated volume, in gallons, of septage or water transported; Receipts for lime or other materials used for treatment; Location of the approved treatment facility; Date and time of discharge to the treatment facility; and Acknowledgement from treatment facility of receipt of septage or waste. On September 29, 2004, the date on which the Department investigated Mr. Beebe's dumping of drillers' mud and sewage on the lot at 295 Brandy Lane in Naples, the Department requested that Mr. Beebe provide his septage collection and hauling log. On September 30, 2004, Mr. Beebe faxed to the Department a single-page, typed document titled, "RE: Southern Sanitation, Inc. Truck Log for Trucks 1 and 2." The document stated that on September 29, 2004, "Truck #1" transported 3,000 gallons of "Well Drillers Mud" from Southern Well Drillers Services drilling site and disposed of it at 295 Brandy Lane. The document stated that "Truck #2" did not haul materials on September 29, 2004. Mr. Rech testified that this document did not satisfy the rule criteria for collection and hauling logs. He noted that this was not a log kept by the drivers of the trucks, but merely a statement from Mr. Beebe attesting to what the trucks had hauled on a single day. Mr. Rech also pointed out that the Department had inspected and authorized Mr. Beebe to haul septage in two trucks identified by their vehicle identification numbers, but that Mr. Beebe's single-page "log" provided no information specifically identifying the trucks in question. On February 3, 2005, the Department sent a letter to Mr. Beebe requesting that he produce, among other documentation, "your original collection and hauling logs for all domestic sewage and food establishment sludge and/or septage you collected and disposed of from January 1, 2004 through February 2, 2005." On February 11, 2005, Mr. Beebe responded to the Department's request, providing copies of "Septic Receiving Logs" maintained by the North County Water Reclamation Facility ("NCWRF"), the Collier County wastewater facility at which Mr. Beebe disposed of his loads. There were log pages for January through June 2004, and October through December 2004. The logs included the dates of disposal, the number of gallons and type of waste in the load (septic or grease), and the signature of the Southern Sanitation driver who dropped off the load. On March 8, 2005, Mr. Beebe submitted to the Department supplemental information covering January 2005. It includes a typed "Pump Job List" for January 2005, prepared on March 3, 2005. The list contains dates, addresses, and approximate gallons collected, including eight entries for pumping out Mr. Ehlen's holding tank. Individual trucks were not identified on this list. The supplemental information also included an NCWRF Septic Receiving Log for January 2005. Mr. Beebe testified that the Department had never asked him for an accounting during the eight years he has operated his business and that the Department did so in this case only after he contested the allegations in the Brandy Lane dumping case. Mr. Beebe appeared to believe that the Department was acting punitively in requesting documents that Mr. Beebe, as the owner of a permitted septage disposal business, was required to keep. Mr. Beebe did not contest the apparent fact that he did not keep collection and hauling logs for his trucks in the normal course of business. Such documentation as he provided was insufficiently detailed to meet the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.010(7)(e), and in some instances was cobbled together well after the fact in order to provide the Department with some documentation of Southern Sanitation's activities. Mr. Rech testified that the Department requires accurate logs of collections and disposals to allow it to monitor compliance and investigate complaints. An accurate, detailed, and contemporaneously-created log would have allowed the Department to discover what Mr. Beebe's truck had collected and dumped prior to the Brandy Lane dumping incident and would have allowed the Department to reconcile the amounts of septage collected by Mr. Beebe from January 2004 through February 2005, with the amounts of septage Mr. Beebe properly disposed of during the same period. The Department established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mr. Beebe did not maintain a septage collection and hauling log as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.010(7)(e). Improper disposal of septage The terms of Mr. Beebe's septage disposal service permit required him to dispose of his collected septage at the NCWRF. Dale Waller, the plant manager of the NCWRF, testified as to the procedures followed by sewage haulers at the facility. Mr. Waller testified that the facility has a computer capable of generating reports as to the quantity of disposals made by haulers, but that the computer system often does not operate correctly. Therefore, the facility's chief means of monitoring disposals is the "Septic Receiving Logs" discussed above. The Septic Receiving Log requires the hauler to record the date of disposal, whether the disposal consisted of septage or grease, the amount of disposed material in gallons, and the driver's signature and printed name. The number of gallons disposed is shown on a calibrated gauge when the waste is pumped out of the truck. Mr. Waller testified that this gauge is accurate within five per cent of the actual amount pumped. The county sends invoices each month to the hauler, based on the number of gallons and the type of waste disposed of at the facility. The Septic Receiving Log is maintained in the foyer of the NCWRF building, with a monthly sheet for each hauling company that uses the facility. No NCWRF employee monitors the haulers as they make their log entries. Mr. Waller testified that it is essentially an honor system for the haulers. Due to computer problems, the NCWRF had no computer records of disposals for the month of January 2005. The Septic Receiving Log for Southern Sanitation for that month showed six entries totaling 11,908 gallons of septage and grease, plus two early January 2005 entries of 3,450 gallons that were placed on the December 2004 log, for a total of 15,358 gallons. Mr. Waller testified that in March 2005, Mr. Beebe submitted a revised Septic Receiving Log for Southern Sanitation for the month of January 2005. Mr. Beebe also provided this revised log to the Department as part of his March 8, 2005, supplemental information for the month of January 2005. This revised log listed three additional disposals of septage in the month of January 2005: 2,550 gallons on January 17; 2,000 gallons on January 24; and 1,700 gallons on January 28. These additional 6,250 gallons brought the reported total disposals of septage and grease for January 2005 to 21,608 gallons. The NCWRF declined to accept the revised Septic Receiving Log as an official record of Southern Sanitation's disposals at the facility for the month of January 2005, because the NCWRF could not verify the additional disposals. Mr. Beebe was billed only for those disposals documented on the original Septic Receiving Log kept at the facility. As part of the March 8, 2005, submission of supplemental information, Mr. Beebe provided to the Department a "pump job list" for January 1 through 28, 2005. This list indicated that Southern Sanitation collected between 21,000 and 22,600 gallons of wastewater during the period specified, a number that roughly corresponds to the total number of gallons reported by Mr. Beebe in his revised Septic Receiving Log for the month of January 2005. At the hearing, the Department contended that because Mr. Beebe reported collecting between 21,000 and 22,600 gallons of waste, but could only verify the proper disposal of 15,358 gallons of waste, Mr. Beebe must have improperly disposed of at least 5,600 gallons and as much as 7,200 gallons of waste. In a similar fashion, the Department examined the amounts that Mr. Beebe reported pumping from Mr. Ehlen's holding tank, compared those amounts to the Ehlen household's water usage for the month of January 2005, and concluded that Mr. Beebe further underreported the amount of waste collected that month and, therefore, must have improperly disposed of even more than 5,600 to 7,200 gallons of waste. Mr. Beebe was forthright regarding the issues in these cases, even when his testimony was against his own interests. In light of his overall credibility, Mr. Beebe's denial that he made any improper disposals of waste is credited. No evidence was presented to show that Mr. Beebe actually made these improper disposals. The Department's contention was a surmise derived from discrepancies in Mr. Beebe's reports of collections and disposals. Based on all the evidence, the undersigned finds that the discrepancies in the reports were more likely due to Mr. Beebe's poor record-keeping and his after-the-fact efforts to create records complying with Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.010(7)(e), rather than any illegal dumping of waste. The Department failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Beebe improperly disposed of septage during the month of January 2005.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, the Department of Health, enter a final order imposing a $1000.00 fine for the violations described above, relating to DOAH Case No. 04-4333, and imposing a fine of $1,500.00 and a 90-day suspension of Respondent's septage disposal operating permit for the violations described above, relating to DOAH Case No. 05-0695. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of July, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael F. Kayusa, Esquire Post Office Box 6096 Fort Myers, Florida 33911 Susan Mastin Scott, Esquire Department of Health 2295 Victoria Avenue, Room 206 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 R.S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Timothy M. Cerio, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should approve Petitioner's application for a septic tank contractor registration, pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent granted Petitioner a septic tank contracting registration on or about January 8, 1990. On August 23, 1993, Respondent's predecessor served Petitioner with an Administrative Complaint. Said complaint alleged that Petitioner was guilty of committing the following violations: (a) violating Rule 10D-6.075(4)(m), Florida Administrative Code, by pumping a septic tank without a valid operating permit, after receiving notice that his company's operating permit had expired; and (b) violating Rule 10D-6.075(4)(n), Florida Administrative Code, by improperly disposing of septage. The complaint proposed a $1000 fine and revocation Petitioner septic tank contractor registration and authorization. The complaint advised Petitioner of his right to request an administrative hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Petitioner did not request a hearing. On November 18, 1993, Respondent's predecessor entered a final order, case number 93-0038S, revoking Petitioner's registration and authorization to provide septic tank contracting services and imposing a fine in the amount of $1,000. Petitioner made the last payment on his administrative fine on February 10, 1995. On February 22, 1996, Petitioner submitted the instant application for septic tank contractor registration. Respondent denied Petitioner's application by letter dated March 13, 1996. The basis of Respondent's denial was Petitioner's failure to meet the minimum registration eligibility requirements as set forth in Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code. The letter cited Rule 10D-6.072(3)(d), Florida Administrative Code, which prohibits a person from being eligible to take the registration examination if he or she has had a septic tank contractor registration revoked by Respondent within the last five years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for septic tank contractor registration. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: David A. West, Esquire Department of Health 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue, Box 3 Gainesville, Florida 32601 Wayne Carroll, Esquire 4010 Newberry Road, Suite A Gainesville, Florida 32607 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Pete Peterson, Esquire Department of Health Building 6, Room 102-E 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Dr. James Howell, Secretary Department of Health Building 6, Room 306 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of creating, keeping, or maintaining a nuisance injurious to health in violation of Section 386.041(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Citation for Violation, dated August 19, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Health, the successor agency to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, is the state agency charged with the responsibility of investigating and correcting sanitary nuisances in this state. The Respondent, Hyacinth D. Wynter, now known as Hyacinth D. Wallace, has owned a private residence and kennels located at 2323 Tuscawilla Road, Winter Springs, Florida, from 1996 to the present. On or about June 19, 1996, the Seminole County Public Health Unit received a complaint of a possible sanitary nuisance existing on the Respondent’s property. On June 21, 1996, an inspection of Respondent’s property revealed that the property contained a large home with a septic tank and drain field in the front yard and another in the back yard. A kennel for small animals and an apartment was also located in the rear of the property. The septic tank and drain field in the rear of the property was located in a low spot which was subject to the accumulation of surface water runoff from the kennel and during periods of above-average rainfall. Observation revealed standing water in the back yard. The water showed discoloration and had a pungent odor. However, no solid waste was visible. Subsequent tests for sewage contamination was inconclusive. This observation indicated the drain field had failed. Respondent was given a Sanitary Nuisance form letter which recommended that the septic tank be pumped, the ground disinfected and the drainfield be repaired within ten days. Respondent contacted two septic tank companies in late June and received estimates on pumping the septic tank and on the repair and improvement of the septic system. Respondent retained one of the companies to pump the septic tank. The septic tank company was unable to complete the job prior to Petitioner’s reinspection on July 2, 1997, because of above normal rainfall and the inability to get its truck into the Respondent’s back yard. Petitioner reinspected Respondent’s property on July 2, 1997 and observed the same conditions as was observed on June 21, 1997. A three day extension was granted to Respondent, in order for the tank to be pumped. On July 3, 1997, Orlando Septic Tank Service, Inc. pumped the septic tank and disinfected the area. It also advised Respondent that the drainfield had failed and would need to be replaced. On July 8, 1997, Respondent inspected the area again and observed the same conditions as on the prior inspections. An Official Notice to Abate a Sanitary Nuisance and a Notice of Intended Action was issued by Respondent on July 11, 1997. It was served on Respondent, by posting and by certified mail, on July 12, 1997. Respondent was directed to abate the nuisance within 7 days of the notice or an administrative fine would be imposed. Respondent began to disinfect the area with lime on a daily basis, until the drainfield was repaired. The low area with the standing water was bordered off with visible construction type ribbon and visitors coming to the premises were advised to stay clear of the area. Respondent authorized Orlando Septic Tank Service to submit a permit application to replace the drainfield in accordance with the specifications approved by the Petitioner. The application was submitted on July 17, 1996. The permit was issued on July 24, 1996. On July 25, 1997, Respondent received a proposal from Orlando Septic Service to install an elevated drainfield on the site for the sum of $4,288.50. Respondent was not able to financially afford to authorize this work without obtaining financing for the project. When financing was obtained, Respondent accepted the proposal and then authorized the work on August 8, 1996. Due to other obligations, Orlando Septic was not able to give a proposed starting date for the project until August 26, 1996. On August 13, 1996, Petitioner inspected the Respondent’s property again and observed the same conditions as on previous inspections. Petitioner was informed of the projected starting date for repair of the drainfield, however, a Citation for Violation was issued on August 16, 1996 calling for corrective actions to abate the condition by 4:00 p.m. August 19, 1996. On August 27, 1996, the septic tank was pumped again. Orlando Septic Service was scheduled to begin work on the repair of the drainfield on August 26, 1996. On that same date, the company called Respondent and informed her that they were delayed on another job and could not begin repair of Respondent’s drainfield until sometime in September. Respondent immediately called another company and gave them the contract. The repair was completed on September 10, 1996. The evidence was insufficient to establish that a sanitary nuisance existed on Respondent’s property on August 16, 1996.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED as follows: The Respondent, Hyacinth D. Wynter, be found not guilty of violations Sections 386.041(b), Florida Statutes. The Notice of Intended Action be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Sonia Nieves Burton, Esquire Department of Health 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Michael D. Jones, Esquire Atrium II Building 301 West State Road 434, Suite 317 Winter Springs, Florida 32708 Catherine H. Berry Legal Office Duval County Health Department 515 West 6th Street Jacksonville, Florida 32206-4397 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children & Families Building 2 Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Pete Peterson, Esquire 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6 Room 102-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Petitioner may be granted a variance from Rule 64E-6.001(4), Florida Administrative Code, pursuant to Section 381.0065(4)(h)1., Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Tony and Alma Moreno are owners of the building and premises located at 8250 Scenic Highway, Pensacola. They own the real property at that location all the way to road frontage right-of-way at Scenic Highway. The building had been in continuous existence in the same location for twenty or more years before Petitioner became connected with it. During that period of time, except for short hiatuses, either the Morenos or their lessees operated it as a licensed bar, most often under the name, "The Lighthouse Tavern." Sewage lines exist in the right-of-way at Scenic Highway, within 400 feet of the premises. The tavern is equipped with a septic tank. There has never been any history of septic problems on the tavern premises. The Lighthouse Tavern has always been a neighborhood bar of limited success. Martin MacAndrews has been putting amusement games in the tavern since 1978. He testified that during those twenty-two years, the average number of patrons has been eight to 14. Jim McDaniel has sold paper products to successive lessees since the 1970's. He has seen an average of 10 patrons during the day and up to 20 patrons at night. Charles Barcia, a more recent patron, has observed a maximum of nine patrons in the tavern. Denise Powell (nee´ Williams) leased the premises from August 7, 1998, until approximately September 28, 1998, during which time she operated the Lighthouse Tavern. She had approximately ten customers per day, used plastic barware, and had no septic problems. During the month or so she operated the tavern, she did not have the septic tank pumped. Ms. Powell's lease with the Morenos was not due to expire until July 31, 1999. However, on or about September 28, 1998, Hurricane Georges damaged the Lighthouse Tavern and wreaked destruction on Pensacola and much of the Florida Panhandle. The area was declared both a state and federal "disaster area." Ms. Powell immediately notified the Morenos, and they cancelled the lease by mutual agreement, because the premises were uninhabitable due to substantial water damage. Ms. Powell testified that but for Hurricane Georges, she would have continuously operated the Lighthouse Tavern under the terms of her lease from the Morenos. As it was, she abandoned the lease and the property. The Morenos made no repairs to the building. No commercial activity, as a tavern or otherwise, occurred on the subject property from September 28, 1998, through May 1, 2000, approximately a year-and-a-half. City water service to the property was terminated from October 12, 1998 until April 7, 2000. On April 5, 2000, Petitioner, a widowed mother, applied to Escambia County for an occupational license to run a tavern at that location. On or about April 7, 2000, Petitioner negotiated a new lease with the Morenos. It involved rate and terms favorable to Petitioner in exchange for her substantial investment (approximately $35,000, as of the date of hearing) in renovating the Lighthouse Tavern. Among other renovations to the property, Petitioner has replaced the tavern's back wall and outside deck, added two pool tables, coolers, two complete bathrooms, a three compartment sink, and a handwash sink. Very few of the fixtures, etc. are removable, let alone subject to resale. A five-year lease, Exhibit P-2, was executed on May 1, 2000. It limits Petitioner's use of the property to use as a tavern, so she cannot get her renovation money back by converting to another business. Paragraph 21 of the lease, purporting to be a lease/purchase option, has not been filled- out, so Petitioner's option to purchase the property is potentially unenforceable. Current Florida Administrative Code rules require septic tanks to have a minimum capacity of 1050 gallons, a filter, and a baffle. A baffle is a device to keep water and waste from going into the drainfields. On May 15, 2000, Ensley Septic Tank Service, operated by Agnes and Joe Nelson, pumped, inspected, and certified the existing septic tank as structurally sound. However, the existing septic tank is twenty years old and provides only 750 gallons. It is not baffled and does not have a filter. Its two drainfields are 75 feet and 69 feet, respectively, from the waterfront, whereas by Escambia County Ordinance, the current setback requirement is 100 feet. On May 25, 2000, the Department denied Petitioner a permit to utilize the existing septic tank, based on the contents of her application, which stated that the tavern occupancy would be 75 seats. Departmental analysis showed that 75 patrons would result in 1,000 gallons per day usage. The existing septic tank does not have that capacity. Before the execution of the lease, Petitioner made no inquiries of Respondent Agency. Likewise, no one told her before the execution of the lease that she would not be able to utilize the existing septic tank or use the premises for a tavern. Rather, Petitioner relied on her own interpretation of an Escambia County Ordinance providing additional time to meet County regulations for reopening a business (or nonconforming use) after closing the business due to Acts of God, and on the fact that Denise Powell's lease, by its terms, did not expire until July 31, 1999. When she was denied a permit to use the existing system, Petitioner applied for a variance for 75 patrons. Petitioner also filed a second application for variance and requested 24 patron occupancy. Petitioner went before the Department's Variance Review Board, which recommended granting the variance with the provisos offered by Petitioner. However, on July 18, 2000, the Department denied the requested variance, stating that the information provided by Petitioner failed to show that no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of the sewage or that the discharge from the septic tank will not significantly degrade the groundwater or surface waters. The Department offered to permit the tavern to operate either with a connection to the existing sewer system or with a septic tank that meets the current requirements of the Florida Administrative Code. At hearing, Petitioner established that the tavern's water bills from 1996 to 1998 show a use of only 430 to 588 gallons of water per month. This amount reflects the low number of 10-20 patrons per day during that period of time (See Finding of Fact 4), but it also is only approximately three- quarters of the capacity of the existing septic tank. At hearing, Petitioner offered the following cumulative provisos to reduce water flow to the system: limit tavern hours to 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. (15 hours) daily; use plastic or paper cups; not serve food or mixed drinks; restrict beverages to beer and wine; and limit occupancy to 24 patrons. She offered to pump the existing septic tank more frequently and provide "port-a-potties," as needed. Petitioner anticipates using 24 seats inside, plus picnic tables on the deck. She offered to eliminate the outside seating. The deck constitutes one-quarter of the 900 square feet of the establishment. She will upgrade the septic system as her income from operating the tavern recoups her investment. She will close-up and terminate her lease if she cannot bring the premises "up to Code," that is, to meet the current Florida Administrative Code requirements for septic tanks and/or sewer connections, in one year's time. She has no objection to such provisos being attached to a variance, if one is granted. At hearing, certified septic tank engineers, Agnes Nelson and Joe Nelson, testified that the existing 750-gallon septic tank should handle 24 patrons and the water use would be further limited by using plastic or paper drink containers. In Mr. Nelson's opinion, since he found no salt water from the Bay or water table inversion in the tank when he inspected it, and since the drainfield slopes away from the building, the only way salt water would enter the existing septic tank is if it got above ground. Agnes Nelson conceded that high tide could fill the tank up. If, for any reason, the drainfields were not working, then the current septic tank would not work. However, because the building is between the beach and the drainfields; because, in her opinion, 24 patrons probably could not fit inside the building; and because there was so little solid waste in the tank when it was pumped, Ms. Nelson doubted that the tide and the drainfields would create a problem, even in ordinary rainy weather. Unfortunately, in rendering her opinion, Ms. Nelson did not consider the seating capacity of the tavern's deck or the effect on the surface waters of Escambia Bay of operating the tavern with the existing system. As of the date of hearing, the Morenos were in agreement with all of Petitioner's efforts to obtain a variance. They also will allow her to bring the premises "up to Code," if she can. The Department's current opposition to granting a variance with the provisos offered by Petitioner is based in part on immaterial disputes between the parties over who signed the original application for variance and who filled in the number of seats as 75. The Department also is mistrustful of Petitioner because her second variance application stated the building constituted 1,200 square feet. Because the Department and Petitioner now agree that the premises comprise 900 square feet, the error in the second application is also irrelevant. The Department's current opposition to granting the variance with the foregoing provisos volunteered by Petitioner is at least in part due to the on-site audit, wherein Departmental staff determined that the premises, including the outside deck, actually could accommodate 60-75 living, but not necessarily seated, patrons. The Department sees this as an impediment to occupancy being limited to 24 patrons, in practice. Human nature is such that if a bar has a large, outside deck in a tropical climate, it will probably have more patrons then those sitting in the 24 "seats" provided. While this concern might be speculative in other realms, in dealing with possible contaminants to groundwater or to the surface waters of Escambia Bay, it is a legitimate, if uncodified, concern. Joseph Scott Hale, Environmental Health Supervisor I, made the following suggestions which do not require a variance. Petitioner could connect her premises to the existing sewer at the 75-person occupancy limit; or could install a septic tank or tanks and drainfield(s) in accordance with Departmental rules for a 47-person occupancy limit; or could install a much more modest tank and drainfield system for a 24-person occupancy limit. Petitioner has received written bids to accomplish such alternatives in the following ranges. (1) Installation of the necessary plumbing and pumps to connect to an accessible sewer line is available at a cost of $27,628 to $28,450, although these costs could be inflated to more than $40,000 by adding a grinder station and by charges from CSX railroad for access across its right-of-way to the existing sewer lines; and (2) Installation of one or more septic tanks and drainfield systems in accordance with current rules and in a size for an occupancy capacity of 47 is available for a price ranging from $28,032 to $29,465. Neither of these options is currently feasible for Petitioner, because she has spent her savings on the completed renovations and has only $1,000 +/-, on deposit at this time. She has no current income. Without a contract to purchase the tavern property, she does not believe she can obtain financing. She is not eligible for an upgrade grant from the State because the tavern is commercial property. Petitioner feels that it would be necessary for her to run the tavern at a profit for a year at a minimum capacity of 24 seats in order to be able to pay for either of the foregoing possibilities. She cannot get an alcoholic beverage license without the variance. Petitioner is satisfied that if she cannot make a go of the tavern within one year, she can rescind the lease. The Morenos were silent on this issue. It is not necessary to interpret the lease on this score in order to resolve this case. Respondent construes part of Mr. and Mrs. Nelson's testimony as providing a third, cost-effective, and reasonable alternative for Petitioner in the form of a septic tank and drainfield which could be installed according to current Code with an occupancy capacity of 24 patrons at an approximate cost of $3,600 to $4,000. This oral estimate was testified to by Mrs. Nelson, who, although a certified septic tank inspector, does not actually do installing of septic tanks. She conceded that dollar figure was purely a guess and based on one elevated tank of 1050 gallons with a baffle. Mr. Nelson, who does the actual installing, estimated that more than one tank, a mount system, and a pump or two might be necessary, at additional cost. His thinking is in line with the components of the other written estimates Petitioner has received. Accordingly, it is found that the estimate that Ensley Septic Tank Service can bring the existing system up to Code at a cost of $3,600 to $4,000 to Petitioner is speculative and not a reasonable alternative. As is common, expert opinions were mixed on the danger, if any, to the groundwater and surface waters which would be occasioned by Petitioner operating the tavern under her foregoing proposed provisos without upgrading the current septic system. Petitioner's expert in civil engineering and degradation of groundwater did soil borings on the premises and hit no groundwater at 15 inches, even after two weeks of significant rain. However, his experience with soil analysis from "mottling" was limited, and accordingly, his opinion that water in the ground will never or rarely rise above 15 inches, so as to endanger groundwater or surface waters was not persuasive. Instead, I accept the greater weight of the evidence as a whole in order to make the following findings of fact. The top of the drainfields are located 12 to 22 inches below grade and occupy a one foot area, 24-34 inches below grade. The seasonal high water table is 15 inches below grade. The drainfields operate within the groundwater table. Current rules require drainfields to have a separation from the bottom of the drainfield to the top of the seasonal high water table so as to provide space for aerobic biological action. When a drainfield operates within the water table, no opportunity exists for aerobic biological action. Anaerobic biological action is not effective in killing viruses and other pathogens. Viruses can travel in soil from a drainfield to surface water at a rate of 100 feet in eight hours. Mr. Hale, (see Finding of Fact 30), who was accepted as an expert in groundwater table determination, has an impressive list of credentials, and among other qualifications, is State-certified in OSTDSs. He has personally witnessed water rising to the level of the leechfield in this location. Mr. Hale also took borings, but not in the leechfield. Even though standing water was not found until 32 inches below grade, the soil was saturated at 15 inches, which is the seasonal high water table and mean high water mark of Escambia Bay at Petitioner's waterfront. The usual groundwater high water table in this location is 24 inches below natural grade, and the temporary water table rises and falls, as affected by Escambia Bay tides and by rainfall. Another concern is that the leechfields average only 15 inches below grade, and soil "capillary action" or water "wicking" through the soil can result in contamination of the groundwater if they become saturated. The close proximity of the property to Escambia Bay presents the potential for pollution of surface waters. Mr. Hale reported that the tavern location is not subject to frequent flooding. However, it can, and probably will, flood, as before, during a hurricane. Mr. Hale testified further that but for the length of the cessation of business as a result of the hurricane (more than one year), the tavern could have continued to operate with eight seats and no danger to the groundwater. In his opinion, the existing system, unaltered, can handle waste disposal for only eight patrons. A 47-seat occupancy is the maximum allowable for a 1,000 gallon flow. Even though 24 seats would not be expected to exceed 1,000 gallons a day, 24 seats would not be accommodated by the existing system's 750 gallon tank, drainfields, leechfields, and insufficient set back footage. Mr. Hale reluctantly conceded that 22 seats might be "feasible," with all proposed provisos in place, plus the substitution of low flow toilets, but that solution would not be his best recommendation nor acceptable to the Department. According to Dr. Malcomb Shields, who was accepted as an expert microbiologist in the field of migration of pollutants from drainfields to surface waters, Escambia Bay is already above its threshold in dangerous nutrients. Dr. Shields further opined, with impressive scientific detail, that narrowing the zone in the drainfield, as on the Lighthouse Tavern property, makes the drainfields susceptible to more pathogens. In his opinion, the offered provisos would have absolutely no effect on the existing septic tank and system efficiency except to limit water and waste into the septic tank itself. Dr. Shields conceded that a variance granted upon the terms requested would not, by itself, cause significant degradation of water quality. However, he felt that perpetual use of the variance, even with the foregoing provisos, would, combined with all other factors present, contribute to surface water degradation, which is the test under the rule. Dr. Shields did not feel that a variance absolutely limited to one year's duration would have the same effect.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health enter a final order which: Permits Petitioner to operate her tavern either with a connection to the existing sewer system or with installation of a septic tank and drainfield system in accordance with the current Florida Administrative Code rules for an occupancy capacity of 24 patrons; and alternatively Grants Petitioner a 12-month variance to utilize the existing tank and drainfield system upon the following terms: Petitioner shall obtain and maintain an annual OSTDS operating permit allowing inspection at will by the Department; Petitioner shall maintain an annual contract with a licensed septic tank contractor to inspect and service the existing OSTDS at least once per month, or more frequently as necessary; Upon notification by the septic tank contractor of any problem with the OSTDS, Petitioner shall provide port-a- potties sufficient for 22 patrons; During the 12 months the variance is in place, Petitioner shall provide a port-a-potty on any occasion of rain over eight hours' duration. Petitioner shall not open for business until low- flow toilets are substituted; Petitioner shall operate the premises as a tavern for no more than 12 months, during which 12 months Petitioner shall take all necessary steps to bring the system up to Code or to connect to the sewer line; During the 12 months the variance is in place, Petitioner shall limit hours of operation to 15 hours daily; eliminate all deck seating; provide no more than 22 seats inside; use only paper or plastic ware; serve no food or mixed drinks; and actively limit occupancy to 22 patrons at any one time; and At the end of the 12 months, the system shall be in compliance or the tavern shall be closed and remain closed until compliance is achieved. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 12th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven E. Melei, Esquire 3603 Mobile Highway Pensacola, Florida 32505 Rodney Johnson, Esquire Department of Health 1295 West Fairfield Drive Pensacola, Florida 32501 Theodore M. Henderson, Esquire Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
