The Issue Whether Respondent, a professional engineer, committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a professional engineer in the State of Florida, holding license number 0857461. The two types of fire sprinkler systems involved in this matter are a tree type system and a loop system. In a tree type system, water travels to the sprinkler head from the main pipe and through the pipes that branch off from the main line to the head so that the sprinkler heads are served by one pipe. A looped system is more sophisticated and makes more efficient use of the principles of hydraulics. In a looped system, as the name suggests, the main line is looped so that sprinkler heads in the remote areas are served by more than one pipe. The internal diameter of the pipes to be used for a tree system can be determined through either the "pipe sizing method" or through the use of hydraulic calculations. The pipe sizing method essentially determines the internal diameter of the pipe by counting the number of sprinkler heads to be served by the various pipes and by making reference to a sizing schedule. The internal diameter of the pipes to be used for a looped system can be determined only through the use of hydraulic calculations. Hydraulic calculations employ the use of formulas which may be calculated manually or by computer. The vast majority of hydraulic calculations are performed by computer. Among the data that must be inputted in performing hydraulic calculations are the correct lengths of the pipes. Plans for fire sprinkler systems are required to be signed and sealed by a professional engineer. No special training or experience is required for a professional engineer to be qualified to sign and seal such plans. THE BLUFF SQUARE PROJECT The Bluff Square project is a commercial center located in the Town of Jupiter, Florida. Pertinent to this proceeding, a portion of that commercial center was to be remodeled so that a restaurant could occupy the demised premises. Wiggington Fire Sprinklers, Inc. (Wiggington), a contracting firm specializing in the sale and installation of fire sprinkler systems, contracted to install the fire sprinkler system for the new restaurant. On November 15, 1988, Jerry Morris, a sales representative for Wiggington drew a set of plans for a fire sprinkler system for the area of the Bluff Square project that was to be occupied by the restaurant. Mr. Morris had approximately ten years of experience in designing fire sprinkler systems, but he could not sign and seal the plans because he was not a professional engineer. Wiggington hired Respondent as a consulting engineer to review the plans and to sign and seal them. Respondent, whose office was six miles from Wiggington's office, did not directly assist or supervise Mr. Morris during the time Mr. Morris was drafting the fire sprinkler system for the Bluff Square project. After Mr. Morris completed the plans, he submitted the plans to Respondent for his review and for any changes that Respondent deemed appropriate. Mr. Morris considered that his work was subject to Respondent's ultimate direction and supervision, and he would have made any changes recommended by Respondent. Mr. Morris followed Wiggington's standard procedure in preparing and completing the plans and thereafter securing the review of the plans by a professional engineer prior to the professional engineer signing and sealing the plans. There was no persuasive showing in this case that acceptable engineering practices required that Respondent provide over the shoulder supervision while Mr. Morris was preparing drafts of the sprinkler system. These plans were described as being a relative simple tree type system layout by Henry Gaggstatter, a witness for Petitioner who was accepted as an expert witness in the field of professional engineering as it pertains to fire sprinkler systems. Although Mr. Gaggstatter was of the opinion that such over the shoulder supervision is required, this opinion is rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. There was no evidence as to the amount of time Respondent expended in the review of these plans, other than that Respondent signed and sealed the plans on November 15, 1988, the day that the plans had been submitted to him by Mr. Morris. Respondent signed and sealed the plans that had been submitted to him by Mr. Morris without making any substantial changes. Mr. Gaggstatter was unaware of the steps Respondent followed in his review, and it is clear that his testimony was based, in part, on projects of considerable more complexity than that involved in the Bluff Square Project. After the plans for the Bluff Square project were signed and sealed by Respondent, they were submitted for review to the Town of Jupiter, Florida, on November 15, 1988. The Town of Jupiter did not have a fire inspector and had contracted with the Palm Beach County Fire Department (PBCFD) to review these type plans. On December 2, 1988, a reviewer for the PBCFD reviewed and approved the plans. Thereafter, a fire inspector for PBCFD inspected the premises where the sprinkler system was to be installed and observed that the contractor had dropped soffits as part of the remodeling of the premises for the restaurant that was to take occupancy. These soffits were not reflected on the plans that Respondent had signed and sealed. Thereafter, Michael Manning, a reviewer for PBCFD visited the premises and determined that the soffits would obstruct the discharge of water from the sprinkler heads in proximity to the soffits, resulting in the impairment of the system. After this determination was made, the plans signed and sealed by Respondent on November 15, 1988, were rejected by the Town of Jupiter. Mr. Manning contacted Mr. Morris and advised that he would require the submission of revised plans. The revisions required by Mr. Manning included the addition of sprinkler heads in the walk-in cooler, the addition of sprinkler heads in the areas obstructed by the soffits, and the submission of hydraulic calculations, to include hydraulic reference points, to verify that the designed system could accommodate the additional sprinkler heads. Jeff Gant, a designer at Wiggington, revised the plans to comply with the requests made by Mr. Manning. The revised plans were signed and sealed by Robert Weinstein, another professional engineer employed by Wiggington, and approved by PBCFD on December 13, 1988. The plans signed and sealed by Respondent for the Buff Square were acceptable except for the problem caused by the addition of the soffits. There was no evidence that Respondent knew, or should have known, that soffits had been added during the remodeling of that portion of the Bluff Square project. The addition of the sprinkler heads in the walk-in cooler was required by Mr. Manning and incorporated in the revised plan without question by Wiggington. The record does not establish, however, that Respondent was negligent in failing to include the sprinkler heads in the walk-in cooler on the initial plan since sprinkler heads in a walk-in cooler are required by some plan reviewers, but not others. THE OLDHAM PROJECT Farmer & Irwin Corporation, a mechanical contracting firm that has a division devoted to fire sprinkler systems, contracted to design and construct a fire sprinkler system for a project located in the Town of Jupiter, Florida, referred to as the Oldham project. Frank Harper is the Fire Protection Project Manager at Farmer & Irwin, and has held this position for the past ten years. Mr. Harper has an associate degree in structural design, has two years of formal training in architectural design, and has completed various courses in fire sprinkler design and product calculations. Mr. Harper prepared the plans and did the computer generated calculations for the Oldham project fire sprinkler system without the assistance of Respondent. Respondent has worked for Farmer & Irwin for approximately fifteen years as a consulting engineer. Among Respondent's duties was the review of fire sprinkler plans prepared by the staff of Farmer & Irwin to determine that the plans comport with pertinent codes and engineering principles. Respondent does not typically do the initial design work or the initial calculations for a system. The proposed final draft of the plans and the calculations are typically prepared by the staff of Farmer & Irwin and submitted to Respondent's review either at Respondent's office or at the Farmer & Irwin offices. Consistent with the usual practice, Mr. Harper submitted the Oldham project plans, including the supporting calculations, to Respondent for his review. Respondent signed and sealed the Oldham project plans on March 27, 1989, without making any revisions in either the plans or the calculations. There was no persuasive showing in this case that acceptable engineering practices required that Respondent provide over the shoulder supervision while Mr. Harper was preparing drafts of the sprinkler system. These plans were described as being a relative simple loop system layout by Mr. Gaggstatter. Although Mr. Gaggstatter was of the opinion that such over the shoulder supervision is required, this opinion is rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. There was no evidence as to the amount of time Respondent expended in the review of these plans. Mr. Gaggstatter was unaware of the steps Respondent followed in his review, and it is clear that his testimony was based, in part, on projects of considerable more complexity than that involved in the Oldham Project. The Oldham project plans were submitted to the Town of Jupiter for review on March 29, 1989, and were subsequently reviewed by Michael Manning. Mr. Manning discovered in his review that a significant error had been made in the hydraulic calculations. The hydraulic calculations were based on erroneous data, which occurred either as the result of an error made by Mr. Harper while inputting data or as a result of an error made by the computer in processing the data. The hydraulic calculations were performed based on the erroneous data that the distance between node points 27 and 28 (pipe No. 27) was 3.3 feet and on the erroneous data that the distance between node points 25 and 30 (pipe No. 30) was 3.3 feet. The correct distance between node points 27 and 28 was approximately 330 feet and, consequently, the length of the pipe No. 27 was required to be approximately 330 feet in length instead of 3.3 feet in length. Additionally the correct distance between node points 25 and 30 was approximately 330 feet and the length of pipe No. 30 was required to be approximately 330 feet in length instead of 3.3 feet in length. The distances between these node points and the lengths of these pipes were accurately reflected by the plans. The computation, using the erroneous data, resulted in the design of the system using pipe with an internal diameter of two and one half inches. The computation, using the correct length for pipes No. 27 and 30 revealed that the system required the use of pipe with an internal diameter of three inches. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether Respondent was negligent in failing to detect the error that was contained in the hydraulic calculations. For the reasons discussed in the Conclusions of Law portion of this Recommended Order, it is concluded that it is unnecessary to resolve this conflict. 1/ After detecting the error, Mr. Manning talked by telephone with Mr. Harper about the error. The initial plans were revised by Mr. Harper using three inch pipe instead of 2 1/2 inch pipe. On April 3, 1989, Respondent reviewed the revised plans and signed and sealed them. The revised plans were thereafter submitted to the Town of Jupiter and approved. The system would not have performed to its capability had 2 1/2 inch pipe been used. The allegations pertinent to Respondent's negligence relating to the Oldham project are found in Count Two, paragraphs 7 - 9, of the Administrative Complaint as follows: On or about March 27, 1989 and April 3, 1989, Respondent signed and sealed a set of fire sprinkler plans for a project known as Oldham located at Commerce Lane, Pennock Park. Said plans were negligent in that they contained pipe lengths which were insufficient. Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, by displaying negligence in the practice of engineering. The pipe lengths reflected on the plans for the Oldham project were appropriate. However, the internal diameter of the pipes were undersized because the lengths of two of the pipes were erroneously inputted in computing the hydraulic requirements for the system. Mr. Gaggstatter was of the opinion, based on his review of the project plans for the Bluff Square project and of the Oldham project, that Respondent does not have sufficient experience or education to design a fire sprinkler system. No special training or experienced is required for a professional engineer to review, sign, and seal fire sprinkler systems. Respondent, as a professional engineer, possesses the necessary license to perform such work and he has done such work for at least fifteen years. The opinion of Mr. Gaggstatter is, in this regard, rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. On July 16, 1990, a Final Order was entered in Petitioner's Case Nos. 0077912 & 007892 which placed Respondent on probation for a period of one year pursuant to the terms and conditions of a Settlement Stipulation entered into by the parties in settlement of those two cases. There is no allegation that the acts alleged in this proceeding would constitute a violation of the terms of that probation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which dismisses all counts of the Administrative Complaint that was filed against Respondent in this proceeding. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of August, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 22nd day of August, 1991.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Petitioner, Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, (Board), was the Pinellas County agency responsible for the certification and regulation of construction specialties. Respondent was certified by the Board as an irrigation systems specialty contractor under license C-5997 in force at the time. Respondent was the qualifying contractor for Sun City Lawn Irrigation. On or about May 17, 1994, Respondent contracted with William J. Schneider, who resided at 5661 25th Avenue North in St. Petersburg, to install a lawn irrigation system in Mr. Schneider's front lawn. The automatic system was to incorporate 2 zones and was, according to the contract and the testimony of Mr. Schneider, to be connected to Schneider's then existing 1/2 horsepower electric pump which drew water from several wells on his property. Mr. Schneider claims there are four wells. No evidence was introduced to contradict that. On the day the system was installed, Mr. Schneider was not at home. Respondent's employees performed a test of the water capacity on Mr. Schneider's property. At first, the wells produced 10 gpm, which was adequate for the system, but after a few minutes of drawdown, they found that the wells were producing only 4 gpm, along with some air. At that time Mr. Freestone, Respondent's sales manager, spoke with Mrs. Schneider about the situation, advising her there were two options open. One was to install a larger pump and the second was to connect the system to the city water supply. Mrs. Schneider returned to the house, presumably to call Mr. Schneider to get his decision on the matter. He claims she did not reach him. Respondent claims that she thereafter returned with directions to install a water line for connection to the city system. This is completely contrary to what Mr. Schneider had wanted and to what is included in the contract. Mr. Schneider claims he did not want to connect to city water because of the added expense of doing so, and he claims he made this very clear to Respondent's employees at the beginning and at all times thereafter. In any case, the system was installed and was, somehow, connected to the city water system near the place where the water line enters the house. In addition, no backflow preventer was installed to insure against contamination getting into the water system as is required by the building code. Most, if not all, the work on this project was completed by Respondent's son and employee, Scott, who was not present at the hearing. Respondent attempted to introduce an unsworn written statement by Scott Bosworth, but it was not accepted. Scott advised Mr. Schneider, when he returned from work that day, that they had been unable to use his pump and wells. Nonetheless, Mr. Schneider paid Respondent in full for the work for which he had contracted, except for a supplemental charge in the amount of $190.95 for the tie in to the city water and the valves and other items connected therewith. Mr. Schneider claims that he made several calls to Respondent's office in an effort to correct the situation but was unable to reach anyone who could give him satisfaction. However, the evidence indicates that on at least one occasion, Mr. Schneider got through and was called back by Mr. Freestone with whom he discussed the situation and the additional charges. He was subsequently advised by counsel that he did not have to pay the additional sum and did not do so. Some time thereafter, Mr. Schneider was advised by the city that he would be fined because of the illegal installation. He then contacted another irrigation company, run by Mr. Williams, who examined the system and determined that the irrigation system installed by Respondent had been connected to the city water system and that no backflow preventer had been installed. A check with the city's building department revealed that no permit had been procured for this installation. Respondent's license to install irrigation systems does not include authority to connect that system with the public water system. That procedure must be done by a licensed plumber. Respondent and Mr. Freestone, the only individuals in the company who had the authority to arrange with a plumber to make the actual hook up to the city system, both deny that any arrangement was made by them to have the system connected to the city water system. Mr. Schneider arrived home on the day in question to find only Respondent's son, Scott, at work on the project. Scott indicated it would be necessary to move two bushes near the house to facilitate connection of the system with the water supply. Mr. Schneider contracted with Scott to move the bushes and remove them from the premises. Scott moved them but failed to remove them. In light of the fact that Scott was working on the system at the time Mr. Schneider arrived home, and the system was found to be connected to the city system thereafter without anyone else touching it, it must be concluded that the connection was made him. Respondent admits he did not come to the property in question while the system was being installed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued by the Board suspending the license of the Respondent for a period of six months with provision for withholding execution of the suspension for a period of one year conditioned upon such criteria as may be deemed appropriate by the Board. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road Largo, Florida 34643-5116 Larry J. Bosworth 8901 14th Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33716
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 64E-6.022(1)(b)2, 64E-6.022(1)(d), and 64E-6.022(1)(p) by making repairs to an on-site sewage disposal system without a permit, and by missing required inspections of the system, as outlined in the citation issued by the Respondent Agency dated August 29, 2005.
Findings Of Fact The State of Florida, Department of Health and Duval County Health Department (Department) is an Agency of the State of Florida, charged with enforcing the statutory and regulatory provisions regarding septic tank and drain field installations and repairs, in Florida, in accordance with Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 64E-6. The Petitioner is the qualifying registered septic tank contractor for All Florida Septic Tank Service, Inc. (All Florida). He holds registration number SR00011389. He has 15 years of experience in the field of septic tank system construction and repair. All repairs of on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems (septic systems), are required to be performed under the supervision and control of a registered septic tank contractor. Mr. David Adeeb is president of United Properties of North Florida, Inc. He owned property (a residence) at 375 North Cahoon Road, in Duval County Florida. He was informed by his tenants at that residence that the septic tank and drain field were malfunctioning and needed to be repaired or replaced, sometime in April 2004. He therefore contacted All Florida, asking them to inspect the septic system at that residence and advise what repairs might be needed. He was advised by some representative of All Florida that the drain field needed to be replaced and was quoted a price of $2,000.00. All Florida requested that payment be made before the work was performed. Since Mr. Adeeb was out-of-town at the time he asked his tenant to temporarily pay All Florida for the cost of the repairs and/or installation, which they agreed to do. All Florida then issued a contract/proposal to United Properties on April 12, 2004. It was signed by a representative of All Florida, Michael Carver. Mr. Carver was an employee of All Florida. The contract/proposal indicated that a 360 square foot drain field would be installed at 375 Cahoon Road, for a price of $2,000.00, to be paid in cash. The contract/proposal was on All Florida letterhead and included a warranty. Mr. Adeeb was told by his tenant that the Petitioner, who is personally known to that tenant, was on the property while the work was being performed. No one applied for a permit to make any repairs to the septic system and the work was completed without a permit being obtained. Some five months later the system began leaking sewage from the new drain field. It had malfunctioned. Mr. Adeeb therefore again called All Florida to demand that they repair any malfunctions pursuant to the warranty. All Florida informed Mr. Adeeb that a new drain field with a mounded system and pump was needed. When Mr. Adeeb told a representative of All Florida that they had just replaced the drain field in April of that year, he was told that another $2,000.00 would be required to correct the drain field problem. Mr. Adeeb had just recently entered into a contract to sell the property at 375 Cahoon Road so, time being of the essence in closing the sale of the property, he felt he had no choice but to ask All Florida to go ahead with the repair work on the system which All Florida had been asked by him to repair five months previously in April of 2004. After the new system was installed Mr. Adeeb found that a permit had never been obtained for the first drain field work which he had requested from All Florida and that All Florida had done the work incorrectly. Mr. Adeeb objected to paying another $2,000.00 for the second repair job, performed in approximately September of 2004 and after much discussion with All Florida's representatives agreed to pay $1,000.00 dollars for the second stint of repair work. He made the payment and he received a warranty from All Florida for one year, good through September 22, 2005. The warranty was signed by Mr. Wayne Joyner, operations manager for All Florida. Mr. Joyner is also the qualifying registered septic tank contractor for AA Septic Tank Service, Inc., apparently a second corporation domiciled at the same facility and address as All Florida Septic Service, Inc. In May of 2005 Mr. Adeeb was again contacted by the now former tenant who had purchased the property from Mr. Adeeb. He was thus informed that the system had failed again and sewage was leaking onto the surface of the property from the drain field. Mr. Adeeb again contacted All Florida on May 23, 2005. A representative of All Florida informed him that he should fax a copy of the paid receipt and the warranty to them and that they would take care of the problem. On June 20, 2005, the home owner again contacted Mr. Adeeb and told him that no one from All Florida had repaired the drain field as yet. A faxed copy of the paid receipt and warranty was requested once again by All Florida. After numerous phone calls with representatives of All Florida, Mr. Adeeb was told that the problem was not due to All Florida's repair work and that Mr. Adeeb would need to get someone else to repair the system. The Petitioner, James L. Smith, the registered qualifying septic tank contractor for All Florida, testified that Michael Carver had performed the initial repair job in April of 2004 for Mr. Adeeb without the knowledge of the Petitioner or All Florida. He claims that Michael Carver never worked for All Florida. He introduced into evidence a letter purported to be from Michael Carver which was dated September 30, 2005, but signed on October 5, 2005. That letter states that Mr. Carver performed the first drain field repair job without the knowledge of All Florida and that he had created the receipt form which was apparently given to either the tenants at the residence in question, or to Mr. Adeeb, on All Florida letterhead without the knowledge of any officer, employee, or representative of All Florida. That letter, however, was not authenticated because Mr. Carver was not present at the hearing and could not be examined concerning it, or the details of Mr. Carver's involvement with the initial repair project. Moreover, the Petitioner was unable to explain how Mr. Carver would have known about the job at all if he had never worked for All Florida. This is because Mr. Adeeb established that in obtaining all of the repair work during 2004-2005 he had only contacted representatives of All Florida. He had never had contact with Mr. Carver. The Petitioner denied ever telling counsel for the Department in a telephone conversation that Michael Carver had worked for him during the week (i.e. All Florida) but that he let Mr. Carver do "side jobs" on his own on weekends. He claimed that Mr. Carver did the job in question in April of 2004 because the tenants knew him personally and arranged for him to do the work. The testimony of Mr. Adeeb and the Department's evidence in the form of its composite exhibit, is accepted as more credible than the self-serving testimony of the Petitioner, and it is found that All Florida and the Petitioner were responsible for the repair jobs at issue in this case because Mr. Adeeb contracted with All Florida for the work in question. Even if the initial job was performed by Mr. Carver, it is determined that he did so as employee or agent of All Florida and the Petitioner. Under the authority cited herein the Petitioner was responsible, as the qualifying, registered septic system contractor for All Florida, with performance and supervision of the work in question.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Respondent Department finding that the violations charged have been established and that a fine of $2,500.00 dollars be imposed for the violations. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: James L. Smith 8300 West Beaver Street Jacksonville, Florida 32220 Catherine R. Berry, Esquire Department of Health 515 West Sixth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32206-4311 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Timothy M. Cerio, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a special tax district created by special act of the Florida Legislature. Chapter 71-822, Laws of Florida. The district covers approximately seventy-two square miles in northern Palm Beach County and southern Martin County, Florida. Petitioner's purpose is to provide water, sewer, drainage and solid waste services within the district. In conformity with its powers, the Petitioner operates an advanced waste water treatment plant on property which it owns in northern Palm Beach County. Petitioner has secured appropriate permits from DER in order to construct and operate the treatment plant. The treatment plant is among the most advanced in southeastern Florida. It has a four million gallon daily capacity, which could be increased to an eight million gallon capacity. In treating waste water the plant utilizes filtration, disinfection, retention in a holding pond, and discharge into a remote off-site area. The present discharge system is to pump effluent from the retaining pond through a canal or drainage system to a recharge or discharge lake which is located approximately three miles north and west of the treatment plant. This is known as the western discharge system, and was installed at a cost of approximately one million dollars. Due to the large amounts of pumping activity, it is an expensive system to utilize. Through its instant application, the Petitioner is seeking a permit allowing it to discharge effluent on-site. Effluent would flow into percolation ponds that have already been constructed. Effluent would settle in the ponds, and eventually would percolate through the soil. This system would he less expensive to operate than the western discharge system. Petitioner is interested in experimenting with the amount of waste water treatment that can be obtained through action of vegetation in the percolation ponds upon the effluent. Such a natural system, if it operated effectively, could save the Petitioner additional money in treating waste water by reducing the need for chemical treatment. Petitioner's waste water treatment presently results in a discharge of effluent which within some parameters meets even drinking water standards. The Petitioner's system very effectively treats bio-chemical oxygen demand ("bod"), suspended solids, nitrogen, and phosphorus in the effluent. Reports have been submitted by the Petitioner to DER which indicate that the system does not meet DER's standards for advanced waste water treatment. Samples upon which these reports were based were taken at a point in the system before the effluent was subjected to the action of the retention pond and the subsequent bumping into the western discharge system. Samples taken beyond the retention pond indicate that DER's standards are met for "bed", suspended solids, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus. The Intervenor owns property adjacent to the Petitioner's waste water treatment plant. The Intervenor operates a well field and drinking water treatment plant on the property, and provides drinking water to residents of the Town of Jupiter and surrounding communities from the well field. The Intervenor acquired its treatment plant, and surrounding well fields from a private utility company. The Petitioner was aware of the well field when it purchased the property upon which it presently operates its waste water treatment plant. While the Petitioner's plant adequately treats waste water in terms of "bod", suspended solids, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus it does not treat the waste water for heavy metals, pesticides, or viruses. These are common elements found in waste water effluent in the south Florida area. The Petitioner's proposal is to discharge its effluent into on-site ponds. The effluent would then percolate into the ground. The retention ponds are located at a distance from 1200 to 1600 feet from the nearest of the Intervenor's wells. Water which percolates from these ponds would flow directly toward the wells, and would eventually find its way into the wells. The flow from the retention ponds to the wells would be increased due to the draw-down effect that the wells have on the surrounding water table. As water is drawn from the wells, the adjoining water table becomes depressed in the area of the wells, and water from the surrounding area flows more rapidly into the area of the wells. Heavy metals will not be filtered out as a result of retention or percolation. Heavy metals in the effluent would eventually find their way into the Intervenor's well fields. Estimates as to the amount of time that it would take for water from the percolation ponds to reach the wells varied from four months to six years. The longer estimate appears the more reasonable; however, the evidence is conclusive that eventually waters from the percolation ponds would reach the wells, and that heavy metals in the water would not be filtered out. The Petitioner proposes to obviate any problems with heavy metals reaching the well fields by operating testing wells between the percolation ponds and the well fields. If any heavy metals were detected in the ground water, Petitioner would again use the western discharge system rather than the percolation ponds. While this would prevent increased contamination of the wells, contamination that had already reached the test wells would reach the Intervenor's wells. It was suggested that the percolation ponds could be drawn down in order to reverse the flow of ground water back into the percolation ponds, thence to be pumped through the western discharge system. In order to accomplish this, however, the percolation ponds would have to be more than forty feet deep, which they are not. The effect of heavy metals intruding into the Intervenor's water supply could be to increase the cost of treatment, or to render the wells unfit for use. Uncontaminated drinking water supplies are rare in the northern Palm Beach County area, and the expense of finding a new water supply is difficult to calculate.
The Issue Whether Respondent Sarasota County Public Utilities Department (Sarasota County) has provided reasonable assurances pursuant to Rule 17- 555.530(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, that its proposed water treatment plant will comply with each applicable water quality standard contained in Part III, Chapter 17-550, Florida Administrative Code. Whether Respondent Sarasota County has provided reasonable assurance pursuant to Rule 17-555.530(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, that its proposed water treatment plant meets adequate engineering design complying with the applicable engineering principles established in Rules 17-555.310 through 17-555.160, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: STIPULATED FACTS Sarasota County Utilities Department is a department established by Sarasota County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida and operates a public utility department which is charged with meeting, among other things, potable water needs of the residents of Sarasota County. At all times pertinent to the issues herein, HRS was responsible for receiving applications and issuing permits for the construction of water treatment plants and the accompanying well field. Petitioner, Charles P. Page, is a resident of Sarasota County and resides at 259 Glen Oak Road, Venice, Florida. Sarasota County filed an Application for a Water Treatment Plant Construction Permit with HRS seeking to construct a well water collection system and a 12 mgd - electrodialysis treatment plant having an auxiliary power system to provide power for the well field and water treatment plant. Sarasota County has previously obtained a water use permit from the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) #208836.00, restricting Sarasota County to feed water for the water treatment plant to 7,303,000.00 gallons average daily withdrawal and 9,625,000.00 gallons peak monthly withdrawal. Sarasota County has received permits for the eleven (11) production wells from HRS. It was the duty of HRS to review the plans and specifications and all supporting documentation to assure that they address and meet every requirement listed in Rule 17-555, Florida Administrative Code, for the issuance of a construction permit.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered issuing permit No. PATS No. 204307 & WC No. 1591-91-036 to Respondent Sarasota County, as set forth in the Notice of Intent To Issue dated February 20, 1992, provided that the grant of the subject permit shall include the general and specific conditions in the Intent To Issue with the further recommendation that the third required specific condition found on page 1 of the Specific Conditions be modified as follows: Construction of the electrodialysis reversal water treatment plant covered by this permit shall not begin prior to the issuance of a permit as required by State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation for the EDR concentrate discharge facility. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of October, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 21st day of October, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-2002 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statute, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1. The following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 1(1); 22(47); 23(48); 24(19-20) 29(49); 38(5); 39(19); 42-43(19,20); and 51(49). 2. Proposed finding(s) of fact 2,3,5,6,7,11,14,15,16,18, 19,20,21,25,26,30,31,35,40,45,46,47,49,and 50 are neither material nor relevant to this proceeding or the conclusion reached in the Recommended Order. Proposed finding(s) of fact 4,8,9,10,12,13,17,27,28,and 41 are rejected as not being supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Proposed finding(s) of fact 32,33,34,36,37, and 48 are unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 44 is rejected as not being the "opinion" of the Hearing Officer. The transcript will show that the Hearing Officer was only restating the testimony of Judith Richtar. But see Finding of Fact 49. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Sarasota County The following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified if the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 1 - 20(1) - 20, respectively); 21(27); 22 - 26(22 - 26, respectively); 27(28); 28(29); 29(31); and 30 - 44(32 - 46, respectively). For proposed findings of fact 45 through 65 see Findings of Fact 51 and 52. Proposed findings of fact 66 through 68 are unnecessary. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation The Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation adopted Sarasota County's proposed findings of fact 1 through 44, 63 and 64, and 66 with modification. Therefore, the rulings on the Department's proposed findings of fact would be the same as the previous rulings on Sarasota County's proposed findings of fact adopted by the Department. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce Wheeler Pitzer, Esquire 546 47th Street Sarasota, FL 34234 William A. Dooley, Esquire Nelson, Hesse, Cyril, et al. 2070 Ringling Blvd. Sarasota, FL 33237 Joseph W. Landers, Esquire Landers & Parsons 310 W. College Avenue, 3rd Floor Tallahassee, FL 32301 W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issues determined in this proceeding are whether Respondent engaged in construction contracting without a license as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of construction contracting pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has jurisdiction over the unlicensed practice of construction contracting pursuant to sections 455.227, 455.228, and 489.13. At all times material to this matter, Respondent was the owner of Advanced Connections, LLC. Neither he nor his company is licensed, registered, or certified to perform construction contracting services in Florida. Respondent holds only certification to perform backflow preventer testing. At the heart of this case is whether Respondent may perform backflow preventer repair without a license, certification, or registration. Facts Related to Work Performed It is undisputed that Respondent performed repair of backflow preventers for customers in Tallahassee, Florida. On July 25, 2014, Respondent performed a backflow prevention assembly test on two existing backflow preventers at Old Enrichment Center located at 2344 Lake Bradford Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. Respondent provided an invoice to Old Enrichment Center following the backflow test, which described the work performed as follows: “I was able to repair both units and they are Functioning [sic] properly. I had to replace one additional part on, AS #10896, the #2 check cage was cracked. Thank you For [sic] your business. Don’t forget to cover the backflows.” The invoice reflected that Respondent was compensated $343.00 for the worked performed and materials. On August 20, 2014, Respondent performed a backflow test on an existing backflow preventer for Li-Ping Zhang at a property located at 2765 West Hannon Hill Drive, Tallahassee, Florida 32309. Respondent provided an invoice to the customer describing the outcome of the test, and he provided an estimate for repair as follows: Invoice: Thank For this opportunity to serve you. The unit is failing. The #1 check valve is leaking across it. That means it is not holding pressure. The Manufacture of flowmatic no longer makes parts for your unit. But my supplier does have a repair kit available. Due to the Fact are no longer made for your device it may be better to have the unit replaced with a Wilkins 975-XL. Please See Quote * * * Quote for repair: Part: Complete Rubber Kit-$30.00 Labor: This unit may not be repairable due to the fact that there is a limited supply of parts. If there is damage to the #1 Check. I will not be able to repair the unit. If that happens I can return the parts but a labor charge would still remain. Please call with any questions. Thank you. (Quoted text from invoice without correction of grammar.) Respondent ultimately performed the repair on August 25, 2014. The invoice issued to Li-Ping Zhang reflected service provided as “[t]he repair was a success. The unit is Passing [sic]. Paid Cash $115.00 8.25.14 — signed Ian.” Both invoices include the Respondent’s company name, Advanced Connections, LLC. There was no evidence presented of financial or property harm caused by Respondent’s actions. On or about February 2, 2015, Petitioner received a complaint from City of Tallahassee filed against Respondent for his repair of backflow preventers in Tallahassee, Florida. Petitioner commenced an investigation into Respondent’s actions through its unlicensed activity investigation unit. At the conclusion of the investigation, Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint alleging Respondent engaged in construction contracting without a license. Respondent disagrees with Petitioner and argues that he is eligible for an exemption under section 489.103(9), commonly known as the “handyman” exemption. Life-Safety Matter Respondent’s eligibility for the exemption hinges upon whether repair of a backflow preventer is considered a life- safety matter. The Florida Building Code provides minimum standards for building construction to “safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare.” See § 101.3, Florida Building Code, Building. The Florida Building Code, Plumbing, applies to “the installation, alteration, repair and replacement of plumbing systems, including fixtures, fittings and appurtenances where connected to a water or sewage system . . . .” See § 101.4.3, Florida Building Code, Building. The plumbing chapter of the Florida Building Code defines a backflow preventer as a device or means to prevent backflow of water from flowing from one system into the potable water system.2/ A potable water supply system shall be maintained in such a manner so as to prevent contamination from non-potable liquids, solids, or gases being introduced into the potable water supply through cross-connections or any other piping connections to the system. § 608.1 Building Code, Plumbing. To further explain the purpose of backflow preventers, Petitioner offered Frank Hagen as a plumbing expert. Mr. Hagen, who has 42 years of plumbing experience, has been licensed in Florida since 1981 and is also licensed in Georgia. He holds a certification in backflow preventer testing (issued by the University of Florida TREEO Center) and backflow preventer repair. Mr. Hagen has regularly conducted on-the-job plumbing training for 36 years. Mr. Hagen was accepted as a plumbing expert. Mr. Hagen testified that a backflow preventer is a life-safety device. He explained that this reference is accepted throughout the plumbing industry because the backflow preventer protects water systems by preventing chemicals and poisons from entering the public water system. Mr. Hagen provided examples of potential outcomes if a backflow preventer fails (e.g., three children died as a result of drinking water from a water hose where poison in the sprinkler system contaminated the water). Mr. Hagen also testified that only a licensed plumber is authorized to perform backflow repairs. Mr. Hagen’s testimony is credible. John Sowerby, P.E., a licensed professional engineer for 35 years, who previously worked in the Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) Source of Drinking and Water Program, also testified regarding the nature of backflow preventers. He testified that backflow preventers protect public health because they prevent contamination of potable water systems (i.e., water that is satisfactory for human consumption). Mr. Sowerby’s testimony is also found to be credible. Respondent’s testimony that a backflow preventer is not a life-safety fixture, is not supported by the evidence. Respondent testified that backflow preventers are “plumbing fixtures” that are installed between the public water supply line and the private water supply line. Respondent also testified that if a backflow preventer fails, it could cause contamination of the public water supply and public health would be at risk. More importantly, the applicable building codes and the testimony of Mr. Hagen and Mr. Sowerby establish that backflow preventers prevent contamination of public water supply and protect public health. Given that backflow preventers safeguard public health by protecting the public water supply, they involve life-safety matters. The Department has incurred investigative costs in the amount of $415.95 related to this matter. Ultimate Findings of Fact Respondent’s repair of a backflow preventer on a water service line is a life-safety matter and as a result, Respondent is not eligible for an exemption under section 489.103(9). The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent’s repair of a backflow preventer at the two properties referenced herein constituted the practice of construction contracting without a license. As a result, Respondent is guilty of unlicensed contracting, as charged in Counts I and II of the Amended Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation issue a final order that: Finds Respondent guilty of unlicensed contracting in violation of section 489.13(1), as alleged in Counts I and II of the Amended Administrative Complaint; Imposes an administrative fine of $6,000 ($3,000 for each count); and Requires Mr. Tuttle to pay the Department’s investigative costs of $415.95. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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 26th day of October, 2016.
The Issue The legal issue in this case is whether Respondent, as prime engineer of record for the owner, was negligent in the practice of engineering because he drafted performance specifications for a specialty contractor to hire an experienced wet sprinkler fire system engineer, who would, as the delegated engineer to the prime engineer, design, sign and seal a wet sprinkler fire system to be submitted to the prime engineer for his final approval.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received in evidence, the parties' stipulations of facts, and the entire record complied herein, the following relevant and material facts are found: Petitioner is charged with regulating the practice of engineering. See Chapters 455 and 471, Florida Statutes. Petitioner, in this case, is also charged with providing administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services to the Board. See Section 471.038(3), Florida Statutes. Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida. He was first licensed in Florida in 1984, and his license number is 35071. His areas of engineering discipline include mechanical, electrical, and chemical engineering. Based upon his qualification and knowledge in the discipline of chemical engineering, Mr. Newton routinely designed dry fire systems which are traditionally used in construction of school projects. Mr. Newton is also licensed in Georgia, South Carolina, Texas, and Louisiana. In the 18 years Mr. Newton has been licensed as a professional engineer, this proceeding is the only disciplinary action taken against his license. Mr. Newton's professional affiliations include American Arbitration Association, where he acts as an arbitrator involving construction disputes. Mr. Newton provides engineering and related services as principal engineer and president through Engineering Matrix, a St. Petersburg-based engineering company he formed in 1985. Engineering Matrix regularly employs approximately 30 persons, consisting of engineers and technical support staff. The number of employees may increase up to 35 or more persons when business demands additional services. Approximately 40 percent of Engineering Matrix's past and present work is education-related and/or school projects from elementary and middle schools up to and including the university level. At the time of this proceeding, Engineering Matrix had at least 10 to 15 school projects on their boards, about half of which are new schools, all located within the area of Sarasota, Manatee, and Pinellas Counties. The Manatee County School Board (Owner) let for bid two elementary school construction projects. The Owner selected a Design Team consisting of architects, Allen Architects, Inc. (Allen Architects); a prime engineer, Engineering Matrix, Inc. (Engineering Matrix); and two construction managers, Creative Contractors for Ballard Elementary School and Willis A. Smith Construction, Inc., for Samoset Elementary School. Engineering Matrix, as the project's prime professional engineer, was responsible for all matters relating to electrical, mechanical, and fire protection engineering issues. At some undetermined point in time during finalization of the design phase of the projects, the Owner changed from the original proposed dry fire system to a wet sprinkler fire system. The Owner's design change resulted in Respondent's proposal that Engineering Matrix, his company, could accommodate the change for additional compensation over and above the contract price. The Owner rejected Respondent's proposal. As the prime engineer for the projects, Mr. Newton prepared performance specifications for a non-engineering specialty contractor to hire an experienced wet sprinkler fire system engineer. At the time Mr. Newton prepared the performance specifications, the identification of the wet sprinkler fire system engineer was not known. The performance specifications directed the wet sprinkler fire system engineer to design the wet sprinkler fire system documents. He would sign and seal the design documents and submit them to Mr. Newton for review and ultimate approval. Two fire protection specialty contractors were hired. James Curtis, P.E., was hired and designed the system for the Ballard Elementary School project. Frank B. Williams, P.E., was hired and designed the system for the Samoset Elementary School project. Each engineer signed, sealed, and submitted his respective designs to Mr. Newton for his review and approval. Both approved wet sprinkler fire systems were permitted by Manatee County's building department, approved by the county's fire marshal's office, installed and thereafter passed inspection. There is no evidence of record that a complaint was made regarding the wet sprinkler fire systems installed on these two projects. During or near the completion of the school wet sprinkler fire system construction, a disappointed bidder filed a complaint with the Board. As a result of the complaint, the Board mailed to Mr. Newton a letter of inquiry to which Mr. Newton made a written reply. Mr. Newton and Mr. Allen have worked together professionally on construction projects for over 15 years beginning in 1985. As a consequence, they have developed a comfortable and confident professional working relationship. Based upon their long relationship and their past successes, they will often seek the other's availability when projects are posted for bidding. Allen Architects, by and through Mr. Allen, was in direct contract privy with the Owner, so also were the construction managers, Creative Contractors of Clearwater, Florida, for Ballard Elementary School and Willis A. Smith Construction, Inc., for Samoset Elementary School. The Owner determined that a wet sprinkler fire system would be more economical than a dry fire system and directed Allen Architects to incorporate a design change. The original design plans included a dry fire system which Mr. Newton expected he would design as he had on other school projects.2 At this point in the design process, as the prime engineer and engineer of record for mechanical and electrical matters, Mr. Newton prepared performance specifications requirements for approval of a wet sprinkler fire system engineer. This 12-page document included requirements that the system conform to Sections 13 and 14 of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards.3 Mr. Newton's testimony reflects his sincere and professional efforts to comply with the design change and with his understanding, past experience, and interpretation of the spirit of his professional obligations as prime engineer for the project. Mr. Newton's performance specifications required that the specialty contractor provide a complete, approved wet sprinkler fire system, designed by a contractor who currently possessed five years of continuous experience, and that shop drawings, hydraulic calculations, etc., be signed and sealed by a Florida registered engineer and submitted to Mr. Newton for his final approval before construction. In Section B of his performance specifications document, Mr. Newton included the following: "Pursuant to FS 471.033(2) and Rules 61G15-30 and 32, the Fire Protection Contractor shall be required to provide detailed fire protection construct drawings to be signed and sealed by a Florida Registered Fire Protection System Design Engineer acting as the delegated Engineer to the Prime Engineer as part of this scope." This section of the performance specifications is the subject of the Board's Administrative Complaint. In accordance with Mr. Newton's performance specifications, signed and sealed wet sprinkler fire system designs were prepared. One system was prepared by Creative Construction and one system was prepared by Willis A. Smith Construction, Inc. Both systems were submitted to Engineering Matrix, approved, and installed in Ballard and Samoset Elementary Schools. Mr. Curtis and Mr. Williams, experienced professional engineers in wet sprinkler fire systems, testified without contradiction, that the language employed by Mr. Newton in Section B herein above regarding the wet sprinkler fire system specifications is common in the industry regarding construction and engineering practices in the local Manatee-Sarasota areas. Neither Mr. Curtis nor Mr. Williams experienced difficulty or confusion in understanding his engineering tasks. The Board's expert, Mr. Galvez, found no deficiency in the wet sprinkler fire system engineering for either the Ballard Elementary School project or the Samoset Elementary School project. This fact confirms the reasonable assumption that two experienced engineers understood the written communication from Mr. Newton without the benefit of face-to-face communication with him prior to their designing the wet sprinkler fire system for these two projects. All witnesses agreed that there are three traditional and accepted industry methods engineers have used on projects: the design approach in which the engineer of record prepares the plans and specifications, provides those documents to a contractor who prepares shop drawings that are then sent back to the engineer of record for compliance specification review and approval, and if approved, documents are provided to the construction engineer for installation; (2) the performance approach in which the engineer of record prepares a set of complete, clear and sufficient criteria and provides those criteria to a contractor who prepares shop drawings that are returned to the engineer of record for compliance specifications review and approval, and if approved, then returned for construction installation; and (3) the design-build approach in which a company, possessing a certification of authorization to provide engineering services via a contracted professional engineer, its employees/consultants, provides both design and installation of engineering projects for the company. The witnesses further agree that none of the three approaches, however, are mandated by Florida Statutes or by administrative rule. Significant is the fact that the parties agree there are no reported cases that have held that an engineer of record cannot delegate fire protection engineering design entirely to a fire protection engineer or fire protection engineering company. Equally as significant is the fact that the parties agree that no reported case has held that an engineer of record cannot delegate any entire subset of a project to another engineer licensed in the delegated subset area of engineering. The effect of this significance is that it compels the Board to establish an accepted, recognized, and enforceable industry standard and prove that Mr. Newton's conduct violated that standard. Mr. Newton chose not to use the traditional design approach, the performance approach, or the design-build approach. He required the specialty contractor to seek and hire only a registered engineer, with specific experience in the engineering discipline of wet sprinkler fire systems. The selected engineer was required to design a wet sprinkler fire system. Mr. Newton's method of delegating the engineering responsibility to design a wet sprinkler fire system for his approval as the prime engineer resulted in a wet sprinkler fire system that was completed, installed, inspected, and found without fault at both the Ballard and the Samoset Elementary School projects. From design to completion, Mr. Newton was the prime engineer for the projects. In that capacity, Mr. Newton had responsible charge for the wet sprinkler fire system from its design to its installation. First, the design was required to be drafted only by an experienced wet sprinkler fire system engineer who would sign and seal his professional work product. Mr. Newton retained sole authority to review, suggest change, and, finally, approve the work product of the engineer of record prior to construction. The evidence of record reflects that at no time during the design to approval and construction process of these two projects was Mr. Newton not in responsible charge for the wet sprinkler fire system by maintaining final engineering authority. Petitioner's expert, Mr. Galvez, a licensed engineer since 1983, has extensive experience in fire protection as an employee of a professional engineering company, Schirmer Engineering, in Miami, Florida, and his professional industry experience has been restricted to the South Florida area. He is a member of the National Fire Protection Association; the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning; Society of Fire Protection Engineers; and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Mr. Galvez, however, is not certified by examination in the sub-discipline of fire protection engineering. He has never delegated a wet sprinkler fire system to another engineer, but has had the discipline continuously delegated to him by his employer. In Mr. Galvez's opinion, Mr. Newton's written performance criteria to the specialty contractor to hire an experienced wet sprinkler fire system engineer to design, sign and seal plans did not provide enough direction in the field of delegated engineering because it was an improper delegation of engineering obligation and responsibility. Mr. Galvez opined that Mr. Newton improperly delegated the design responsibility to a non-engineering contractor. Second, in writing the performance specifications, Mr. Newton made himself the "single point of contact," a standard established by the National Society of Professional Engineers. According to Mr. Galvez, following Mr. Newton's "single point of contact" position as a result of writing the performance specifications, the moment Mr. Newton inserted the non-engineering specialty contractor between himself and the design engineer in the performance specifications, he violated the National Society of Professional Engineers' "single point of contact" standard. Mr. Galvez's opinion, however, is nullified by his acknowledgment and admission that the "single point of contact" standard enacted by the National Society of Professional Engineers does not govern Mr. Newton's professional engineering conduct in Florida. Mr. Galvez's second opinion of a "delusional standard"4 violated by Mr. Newton suffers a similar fate as his first "single point of contact" opinion standard. Mr. Galvez further opined that the method employed by Mr. Newton, delegation from himself to (1) a contractor, (2) who would hire an engineer to design, sign and seal, and (3) return to the contractor to (4) return to Newton for his review and approval, was a "delusional" delegation of the "single point of contact" engineering responsibility of the prime engineer of record for these projects. Again, Mr. Galvez's standard of "delusional" delegation is not found in the Florida Statutes nor in the Florida Administrative Code nor has it been accepted, adopted, and reported as an engineering standard by a Florida court. The record contains no evidence of any recognized professional engineering organization in Florida that recognized a standard of "delusional" delegation by a professional engineer. There was no evidence presented at the hearing which would suggest Mr. Newton acted on a false belief, in spite of invalidating evidence to the contrary in drafting the performance specifications. Viewed most favorably, the Board, by the presentation of the opinion testimony of Mr. Galvez regarding "standards" for the delegation of engineering design responsibilities from one engineer to another engineer, has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Newton was guilty of negligence as alleged by the Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order finding Respondent, Stanley P. Newton, P.E., not guilty of negligence in the practice of engineering as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 2002.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, James A. Tipton ("Tipton"), has been a registered professional engineer in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 0018147, which expires on January 31, 1987. Tipton employed the services of Robert Corno as a field man for taking samples to establish soil profiles, site characteristics and existing water tables for septic tank applications prepared and filed by Tipton. Corno had actual authority from Tipton to conduct tests, site examinations and evaluations and to submit his findings to Tipton. Sometime before April 8, 1985, Tipton was retained to perform professional engineering services in connection with the preparation and filing of an application for a septic tank on lot 168, block 3, Charlotte Ranchettes Subdivision in Charlotte County ("lot 168"), owned by Joseph Duseo. Tipton sent Corno to lot 168 on April 13, 1985, to examine and evaluate the site, take soil samples and make other observations that would have to be reported to Tipton in connection with Tipton's work. Corno completed his work and reported to Tipton. Corno did not bring Tipton the actual soil samples. On April 8, 1985, Duseo's general contractor told Corno about a well on lot 168. When Corno visited the site, he observed the well. The well is an artesian well, about 3 feet high and six inches in diameter. The well is an irrigation-type well and is non-potable. The well was within fifty feet of the drain field of the septic system Tipton proposed for lot 168. The well also is approximately 5 to 10 feet from the north property line. Corno knew at the time of his visit to the site that the well was not plugged. However, Corno understood that Duseo was in the process of arranging with the Southwest Florida Water Management District to have the well plugged. Corno did not tell Tipton about the well before Tipton prepared and filed the application for the proposed septic tank. Therefore, Tipton did not know there was a well on lot 168 when he was preparing the application for the septic tank permit. Tipton did not ask Corno any questions calculated to reveal whether there was a well on lot 168. Corno held the belief that non-potable wells, especially those that were to be plugged, did not have to be shown on septic tank permit applications. There was evidence about a survey of lot 168 certified by a land surveyor employed by a firm of professional engineers which did not show any well on lot 168. However, Tipton did not have access to the survey before he prepared the septic tank permit application on lot 168. (The survey bears two dates, April 17 and April 18, and was not signed until April 25, 1985.) On or about April 15, 1985, Tipton signed and certified the septic tank permit application for lot 168. The application was filed at the Charlotte County Public Health Unit (Health Department) on April 16, 1985. The application indicates "none" in the space provided to indicate the "location of wells within 75 feet of property lines." The well on lot 168 is an important consideration which should have been depicted on the application. Septic tank drain fields could pollute a well. Even if Tipton had known that the well was supposed to be plugged, it was not plugged until July 1985. Failure to show the well was a serious omission. Tipton was negligent for relying on Corno without having an understanding whether Corno would report to him the existence of non-potable wells within 50 feet of the drain field of a septic system or within 75 feet of a property line if the well was likely to be plugged. If he had used due care, Tipton would have either made explicit inquiry of Corno sufficient to reveal the existence of the well or ascertained from Corno in advance that he would report to Tipton the existence of any well within 50 feet of the drain field of a proposed septic system or within 75 feet of property lines. Having failed to exercise due care, Tipton did not realize that Corno would not be reporting to him the existence of a non-potable well which was supposed to be plugged in the future. A few days after he filed the application, Tipton learned about the well on lot 168. But at about the same time, Duseo and his contractor began discussing construction alternatives that would change the septic system and require a new septic tank application. Therefore, Tipton did not immediately amend the April 15 application to show the well. In mid-May, Tipton filed a new application for the different septic system. The new application, not in issue in this case, showed the well. The application also contained a soil profile which probably is not accurate. However, Tipton's soil profile simply reflects the information reported to him by Corno. While Tipton's soil profile does not correspond with soil profiles from other test holes dug in the area of the proposed drain field by the Health Department and an expert witness, the information Corno reported to Tipton was well within the realm of possibilities for soil in the area of lot 168. Corno generally seemed to be a qualified and experienced field man who used proper tools to do his job. There was nothing suspicious about Corno's information, and there was no reason for Tipton to suspect that it was false or fraudulent. While it is the better practice for a professional engineer to require his field man to deliver the actual soil sample to support a soil profile report, this is not required of professional engineers if there is no reason to suspect that a field man's soil profile report is false or fraudulent. On the application, Tipton estimated the high water table on lot 168 at 2.2 feet below existing grade. While other expert witnesses estimated a higher high water table, the evidence did not prove that Tipton was negligent in his estimate. Some of the conflicting estimates were Health Department estimates which, the evidence indicates, tend to be high to be on the safe side. Others were estimates on permit applications which may have been influenced by the Health Department's desires and which may not reflect the engineers' actual estimates. Of all the estimates, only Tipton's was supported by testimony how the estimate was derived. (Tipton used what he called Darcy's Law.) Finally, Petitioner's own expert witness testified that Tipton's high water table estimate could not be called negligent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order holding Respondent, James A. Tipton, guilty of negligence in the practice of engineering under Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint (but dismissing Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint) and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00). RECOMMENDED this 19th day of May, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Sarah Logan Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Wings Slocum Benton, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 John Charles Heekin, Esq. C-1 Ocean Plaza 21202 Ocean Blvd. Port Charlotte, FL 33952 APPENDIX The following are specific rulings on all the parties' proposed Findings of Fact as required by Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985). Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 through 3, 9, 10, 13 through 16, 19, 21 and 22 are accepted as substantially factually accurate and are incorporated in the Findings Of Fact in the same or similar format to the extent necessary. Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 4 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that the last sentence is unnecessary. Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 5 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that the third sentence is unnecessary. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact 17, 18 and 27 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that they are unnecessary. Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 26 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that whether Alligator Creek is a "significant" drainage feature would depend on the definition of "significant" which was not established by the evidence. In addition, Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 26 is unnecessary. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact 6 through 8 are rejected as conclusions of law and because the last sentence of Proposed Finding Of Fact 6 is cumulative. Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 11 is rejected because the first sentence is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and Findings Of Fact and the second sentence is, subordinate to Findings Of Fact. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact 12, 20, 23 and 24 are rejected as subordinate to Findings Of Fact. Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 25 is rejected because the first sentence is subordinate to Findings Of Fact and the second sentence is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings Of Fact 1 through 3, 5 and 12 are accepted as substantially factually accurate and are incorporated in the Findings Of Fact in the same or similar format to the extent necessary. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 4 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that the second sentence is unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 8 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that it is unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 9 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that it is in part unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 11 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that it is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and Findings Of Fact that there is "no way" for an engineer to avoid relying on a field man's error such as Corno's error in omitting to report the existence of the well. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 14 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that it is irrelevant. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 6 is rejected because it is subordinate to Findings Of Fact and is unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 7 is rejected because it is simply a recitation of conflicting evidence, some of which is accepted but some of which is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and Findings Of Fact. Specifically, it was found that Corno did not tell Tipton about the well and that Tipton did not have the survey in his possession at the time the application was filed. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 10 is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and Findings Of Fact. Specifically, the evidence supported a finding of negligence on the part of Tipton for failure to utilize due care and to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles whether or not practicing in Charlotte County. In addition, Mr. Murray's expert testimony must be disregarded because it was given upon a hypothetical assumption that an engineer had possession of a sealed survey showing no improvements on the property as the time of the application, a fact not proved by the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 13 is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and Findings Of Fact. Specifically, personnel in the Health Department, part of the "general public," were misled. (The general public also reasonably could have been led to a fallacious conclusion, but there was no "misconduct" on Tipton's part. See Conclusions of Law.) ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS Petitioner, vs. DOAH CASE NO. 85-2684 DPR CASE NO.0058289 JAMES A. TIPTON, Respondent. /
The Issue The ultimate issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether the Department should issue a permit allowing the construction of a wastewater treatment and disposal system as requested in the modified application filed by Thomas E. Wasdin. The applicant and the Department contend that reasonable assurances have been given that the proposed facility will not result in violations of any of the Department's rules or regulations. The Petitioner contends that the proposed facility is located too near to existing shallow water drinking wells and that the facility otherwise fails to comport with the Department's rules and regulations.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the president of Beach Woods of Brevard County, Inc. The corporation is the developer of "Beach Woods," a 376-unit planned unit development located in Melbourne Beach, Brevard County, Florida. One hundred eighty of the units have already been developed. Existing regional sewage treatment facilities operated by Brevard County are not adequate to accommodate the total number of units that the applicant proposes to develop. It appears that 24 more hookups are all that the existing facilities will tolerate. Beyond that number, a sewer moratorium is in effect, and unless the applicant can make some other arrangement for disposing of sewage, the development cannot be completed. The county has approved the planned unit development. In order to meet sewage treatment needs of the proposed development, the applicant is proposing to construct a "package sewage treatment plant" to accommodate waste that exceeds quantities that can be handled by existing regional facilities. Once the regional facilities are upgraded so that the development's sewage treatment needs can be accommodated, the applicant proposes to disassemble the package plant and utilize the regional facilities. The proposed plant would be a 50,000 gallons per day contact stabilization sewage treatment plant. Initially, it would be operated as a 5,000 to 15,000 gallons per day aeration plant. Once loads reach 18,000 gallons per day, it would become a contact stabilization plant. The Present collection and transmission system for sewage that exists at Beach Woods includes an 8-Inch collection station from which sewage flows to an existing lift station that pumps effluent via 6-inch pipes to the regional plant. When the proposed plant is completed, a computerized system would be set up to send effluent to the new plants when the limits that the regional plant can accommodate are met. Once the regional plant is upgraded to sufficient capacity, the bypass to the proposed plant would be eliminated, and all units would then be connected to the original collection system. The proposed treatment plant is based upon proven technology that has been in existence for more than 50 years. The plant should operate reliably, and proper consideration has been given to odor, noise, lighting, and aerosol drift. In close proximity to the plant, it is likely that there would occasionally be a "earthy smell" that would be noticeable, but not objectionable. Outside of the immediate proximity, no odor would be noticeable. Large fans would be operated in connection with the plant, and some noise would result. It does not, however, appear that the noise would be excessive or bothersome, even in the immediate vicinity of the plant. The plant would be lighted by street lights and would not result in any more excessive lights than normal street lights. The plant is not of the sort that aerosol drift is a likely problem. Adequate considerations have been given to providing emergency power to the plant in the event of a power outage. The plant could sit for at least 20 hours without power before any emergency would exist. If there was a power outage in excess of that period, emergency power sources are available. Consideration has been given to the 100-year flood plain. The plant has been placed at an elevation that keeps it outside of the 100-year flood plain. The land application system proposed by the applicant would utilize drain fields that would be alternately rested. Groundwater flows from the area of the proposed drain fields are in a southwesterly direction toward the Indian River. The Indian River in the location of the proposed facility is a "Class III surface water." Groundwater in the area of the proposed facility might be classified as either "G-I" or "G-II." Reasonable assurance has been given that the proposed sewage treatment plant would not operate in such a manner as to degrade surface or ground waters to the extent that any of the Department's specific water quality parameters set out in Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code, would be violated. The proposed sewage treatment plant comports with local requirements and has been approved by Brevard County. The Allans Subdivision is a residential development that is located directly to the north of the Beach Woods development. Petitioner utilizes a shallow water well as a source of drinking water. The proposed land application site of the sewage treatment plant is located within 500 feet of the Petitioner's well. There are at least two other shallow water wells that serve as drinking water sources located within 500 feet of the proposed land application site. The applicant indicated a willingness to move the proposed facility so that no part of it would be located within 500 feet of the shallow drinking water wells. The evidence establishes that the plant could be moved to accomplish that. No specific plan, however was presented. Potential factual issues could exist respecting appropriate buffer zones for any relocation of the facility, even a minor relocation. The applicant is proposing to develop areas within 100 feet of the proposed facility. The applicant does not, however, propose to locate any public eating, drinking, or bathing facilities within 100 feet of the proposed plant or land application area. No map was presented during the course of proceedings before the Department of Environmental Regulation that preceded the formal administrative hearing or during the hearing itself to establish present and anticipated land uses within one mile of the boundaries of the proposed facility. The facility of such a size that it could not inhibit any conceivable present or proposed future land uses except within 500 feet of the proposed facility. Evidence was offered at the hearing from which it could be concluded that the Department has, in the past, issued permits for sewage treatment plants located within 500 feet of existing shallow drinking water wells. The testimony was that this has occurred despite a requirement in the Department's rules that there be a 500-foot buffer zone between any such plant and a shallow drinking water supply. No specific evidence was presented as to why the Department has allowed such a breach of its rules or why it should be allowed in this proceeding.
