The Issue Whether Petitioner was wrongfully denied general permits to construct an extension to a public water supply distribution system and to construct a waste water treatment system at a camp being constructed by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact On December 11, 1991, the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), Ft. Myers office, received applications from the Orange Blossom Baptist Association, Petitioner, submitted by its project engineer, for general permits to install an extension to provide water to, and construct a waste water treatment facility for, a camp being built by Petitioner. These applications were reviewed by the Respondent, and on January 2, 1992, James Oni telephoned Petitioner's engineer to tell him the applications were incomplete and additional information was required. Some of this additional information was submitted by Petitioner on January 7, 1992, but the word "vertical" was left out of the application to indicate what the 18 inch separation of the water and sewer lines represented; no pump out was provided for the lift station; the flotation formula as submitted contained a typographical error where an "s" was substituted for a "5", leaving the calculation of storage capacity of the system indeterminable; the lift station was only 4.5 feet deep and should normally be 10 feet; the configuration of the sump to insure solids would settle to the bottom was not provided, nor was the amount of concrete to be used to obtain this configuration shown; and the type of equipment to be used was not clearly shown. In summary, when submitted the application was not technically correct, and it remained technically incorrect after the additional information was submitted by the applicant. General permits are required to be processed by DER within 30 days of their receipt, and if not denied within that 30 day period they must be approved regardless of their compliance with the statutes and regulations.
Recommendation It is recommended that a Final Order be entered denying Orange Blossom Baptist Association general permits to install a waste water treatment facility and to construct an extension to a public water supply distribution system in Highlands County, Florida. ORDERED this 6th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: William N. Clark, P.E. 233 E. Park Avenue Lake Wales, FL 33853 Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue Whether SFP's revised application for a permit to construct a sewage treatment plant with percolation ponds should be granted or, for failure of SFP to give reasonable assurances that the plant will not cause pollution significantly degrading the waters of Gator Cove, be denied?
Findings Of Fact About 1,500 feet from Santa Fe Lake's Gator Cove, SFP proposes to build an extended aeration package sewage treatment plant to serve a "private club with restaurant and overnight accommodations," SFP's Exhibit No. l, to be built between the plant and the lake, on the western shore of Santa Fe Lake, just south of the strait or pass connecting Santa Fe Lake and Little Santa Fe Lake. The site proposed for the waste water treatment plant lies at approximately 177 or 178 feet above sea level, north of Earleton on county road N.E. 28 near State Road 200A, some three miles north of State Road 26, in unincorporated Alachua County, Section 33, Township 8 South, Range 22 East. SFP's Exhibit No. 1. Santa Fe Lake, also called Lake Santa Fe, and Little Santa Fe Lake, also called Little Lake Santa Fe, are designated outstanding Florida waters by rule. Rule 17-3.041(4)(i), Florida Administrative Code. Lake Santa Fe "is . . . the sixth largest non-eutrophic lake in the State of Florida . . . [and] the last remaining large non-eutrophic lake in Alachua County." (0.367). Recreation is a "beneficial use" of these waters. The Lakes Santa Fe are at an elevation of approximately 140 feet above sea level, and their level varies within a range of four feet. Input The proposed plant is to treat sewage generated by staff, by diners at a 150-seat restaurant, and by inhabitants of 150 lodge or motel rooms, comprising 100 distinct units. On the assumptions that 150 rooms could house 275 persons who would generate 75 gallons of sewage a day for a daily aggregate of 20,625 gallons, and that a 150-seat restaurant would generate 50 gallons of sewage per seat per day, full occupancy is projected to engender 28,125 gallons of sewage per day. This projection is based on unspecified "D.E.R. criteria; (5.35) which the evidence did not show to be unreasonable. Full occupancy is not foreseen except around the Fourth of July, Labor Day and on other special occasions. An annual average flow of between 15 and 20,000 or perhaps as low as 13,000 gallons per day is envisioned. (S.38) The proposed plant is sized at 30,000 gallons per day in order to treat the peak flow forecast and because package plants are designed in 5,000 gallon increments. Sluice-gate valves and baffling are to permit bypassing one or more 5,000 gallon aeration units so plant capacity can be matched to flow. The composition of the sewage would not be unusual for facilities of the kind planned. As far as the evidence showed, there are no plans for a laundry, as such, and "very little laundry" (S.37) is contemplated. The health department would require grease traps to be installed in any restaurant that is built. Gravity would collect sewage introduced into 2,000 feet of pipe connecting lodging, restaurant and a lift station planned (but not yet designed) for construction at a site downhill from the site proposed for the water treatment plant. All sewage reaching the proposed treatment plant would be pumped 3,000 feet from the lift station through a four-inch force main. Influent flow to the treatment plant could be calculated by timing how long the pump was in operation, since it would "pump a relatively constant rate of flow." (S.39) Treatment Wastewater entering the plant would go into aeration units where microorganisms would "convert and dispose of most of the incoming pollutants and organic matter." (S.40) The plant would employ "a bubbler process and not any kind of stirring-type motion . . . [so] there should be very little:; aerosol leaving the plant," (S.42) which is to be encircled by a solid fence. Electric air blowers equipped with mufflers would be the only significant source of noise at the proposed plant, which would ordinarily be unmanned. If one blower failed, the other could run the plant itself. A certified waste water treatment plant operator would be on site a half-hour each week day and for one hour each weekend. SFP has agreed to post a bond to guarantee maintenance of the plant for the six months' operation period a construction permit would authorize. (0.63) The proposed plant would not "create a lot of odor if it's properly maintained." Id. The specifications call for a connection for an emergency portable generator and require that such a generator be "provide[d] for this plant. . . ." (S. 43). The switch to emergency power would not be automatic, however. A settling process is to follow extended aeration, yielding a clear water effluent and sludge. Licensed haulers would truck the sludge elsewhere for disposal. One byproduct of extended aeration is nitrate, which might exceed 12 milligrams per liter of effluent, if not treated, so an anoxic denitrification section has been specified which would reduce nitrate concentrations to below 12 milligrams per liter, possibly to as low as 4 or 5 milligrams per liter. Before leaving the plant, water would be chlorinated with a chlorinator designed to use a powder, calcium hypochlorite, and to provide one half part per million chlorine residual in the effluent entering the percolation ponds. A spare chlorine pump is to be on site. The effluent would meet primary and secondary drinking water standards, would have 20 milligrams or less per liter of biochemical oxygen demand or, if more, no more than ten percent of the influent's biochemical oxygen demand, and total suspended solids would amount to 20 milligrams or less per liter. (5.294- 295). Half the phosphorous entering the plant would become part of the sludge and half would leave in the effluent. Something like ten milligrams per liter of phosphorous would remain in the effluent discharged from the plant into the percolation ponds. (5.202). Although technology for removing more phosphorous is available (S.298, 0.170-171), SFP does not propose to employ it. Allen flocculation treatment followed by filtration could reduce phosphorous in the effluent to .4 milligrams per liter, but this would increase the cost of building the treatment plant by 30 to 40 percent; and operational costs would probably increase, as well, since it would be necessary to dispose of more sludge. (0.170-172). SFP did agree to accept a permit condition requiring it to monitor phosphorous levels in groundwater adjacent to the proposed plant. (0.63). Land Application Three percolation ponds are planned with an aggregate area of 30,000 square feet. At capacity, the plant would be producing a gallon and a half of effluent a day for each square foot of pond bottom in use. The ponds are designed in hopes that any two of them could handle the output of effluent, even with the plant at full capacity, leaving the third free for maintenance. The percolation ponds would stand in the lakes' watershed, in an area "of minimal flooding, (S.30) albeit outside the 100-year flood plain. Santa Fe Lake, including Gator Cove, and Little Santa Fe Lake are fed by groundwater from the surficial aquifer. All effluent not percolating down to levels below the surficial aquifer or entering the atmosphere by evapotranspiration would reach the lake water one way or another sooner or later. If percolation through the soils underneath the percolation ponds can occur at the rate SFP's application assumes, effluent would not travel overland into Lake Santa Fe except under unusually rainy conditions, which would dilute the effluent. Whether the planned percolation ponds would function as intended during ordinary weather conditions was not clear from the evidence, however. In the event the ponds overflowed, which, on SFP's assumptions, could be expected to happen, if peak sewage flaw coincided with weather more severe than a 25-year rainfall, effluent augmented by rainwater would rise to 179.87 NGVD (S.34), then overflow a series of emergency weirs connecting the ponds, flow through an outfall ditch, drain into a depression west of the ponds, enter a grassed roadside ditch, and eventually reach Lake Santa Fe after about a half a mile or so of grass swales. (5.69). Sheet flow and flow through an ungrassed gulley in the direction of Gator Cove (0.154) are other possible routes by which overflowing waters might reach the lake. (0.263). Since the facilities the plant is designed to serve are recreational, wet weather would discourage full use of the facilities and therefore full use of the water treatment system. Effluent traveling over the surface into Gator Cove would wash over vegetation of various kinds. Plants, of course, do take up phosphorous, but they don't do it forever, and if you leave a plant system alone, it will come to a steady state in which there is no net storage of phosphorous in the plant material. (0.166) Whether by sheet flow or by traversing swales, overland flow would reach Gator Cove within hours. Effluent traveling through the surficial aquifer would not reach the lake for at least five years. (S.238-9). It could take as long as 45 years. (0.316). In the course of the effluent's subterranean passage, the soil would take up or adsorb phosphorous until its capacity to do so had been exhausted. In addition, interaction with certain chemicals found in the soil, primarily calcium, precipitates phosphorous dissolved in groundwater. As between adsorption and precipitation, the former is much more significant: "[W]ith a three-meter distance you can expect at least 70 to 80 percent removal of phosphorous just by a a[d] sorption alone." (0.21). Precipitated phosphorous does not return to solution, unless the soil chemistry changes. (0.19) Adsorption, however, is reversible, although not entirely, because of the "hysteresis phenomenon." (0.19) Eventually, a kind of dynamic equilibrium obtains to do with the binding of the phosphorous to soil constituents, binding or precipitation of phosphorous. At some point . all of the binding sites become saturated . [and] the amount of phosphorous leaving, into the lake really, will be equal to the amount of phosphorous going into the the system. When there is no more place to store the phosphorous in the ground, then the output is equal to the input and that is called the steady state. (0.161) Although precipitation of phosphorous would not reach steady state under "conditions that render the phosphorous-containing compound insolu[]ble," (0.168) these conditions were not shown to exist now "much less . . . on into perpetuity." Id. Spring Seep A third possible route by which the effluent might reach lake waters would begin with percolation through the sand, which is to be placed on grade and on top of which the percolation ponds are to be constructed. Underground, the effluent would move along the hydraulic gradient toward the lake unless an impeding geological formation (an aquiclude or aquitard) forced it above ground lakeward of the percolationi ponds. In this event, the effluent would emerge as a man-made spring and complete its trip to Gator Cove, or directly to the lake, overland. The evidence demonstrated that a spring seep of this kind was not unlikely. Relatively impermeable clayey soils occur in the vicinity. A more or less horizontal aquitard lies no deeper than four or five feet below the site proposed for the percolation ponds. Conditions short of an actual outcropping of clayey sand could cause effluent mounding underground to reach the surface. Nor did the evidence show that an actual intersection between horizontal aquitard and sloping ground surface was unlikely. Such a geological impediment in the effluent's path would almost surely give rise to a spring seep between the pond site and the lakes. In the case of the other percolation ponds in this part of the state that do not function properly, the problem is n [U] sually an impermeable layer much too close to the bottom of the pond," (S.179), according to Mr. Frey, manager of DER's Northeast District. Phosphorous in effluent travelling by such a mixed route would be subject to biological uptake as well as adsorption and precipitation, but again a "steady state" would eventually occur. On Dr. Bothcher's assumptions about the conductivity of the clayey sand (or sandy clay) lying underneath the topsoil, the effluent would accumulate as a mound of groundwater atop the clay unit, and seep to the surface in short order; and "after a matter of probably weeks and maybe months, it would be basically of the quality of the water inside of the percolation pond." (0.278). More Phosphorous in Gator Cove The total annual phosphorous load from all existing sources "to the lake" has been estimated at 2,942 kilograms. Assuming an average effluent flow of 17,000 gallons per day from the proposed plant, "the total phosphorous load [from the proposed plant] will be 235 kilograms per annum," (0.16), according to Dr. Pollman, called by SFP as an expert in aquatic chemistry. Even before any steady state condition was reached, 20.75 to 41.5 kilograms of phosphorous, or approximately one percent of the existing total, would reach the lake annually from the proposed plant, on the assumptions stated by Dr. Pollman at 0.22-23 (90 to 95 percent removal of phosphorous in the soils and average daily flow of 30,000 gallons). Santa Fe Lake is more than two miles across and two miles long, and Little Santa Fe Lake, which may be viewed as an arm of Santa Fe Lake, is itself sizeable, with a shoreline exceeding two miles. But Gator Cove is approximately 200 yards by 100 yards with an opening into Santa Fe Lake only some 50 to 75 yards wide. (0.154). On a site visit, Dr. Parks observed "luxuriant growth of submerged plants" (0.154), including hydrilla, in Gator Cove. If a one percent increase in phosphorous were diffused evenly throughout the more than eight square miles Santa Fe Lake covers, there is no reason to believe that it would effect measurable degradation of the quality of the water. Some nutrients are beneficial, and the purpose of classifying a lake is to maintain a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife. It's hard to see how 1.4 percent increase would lower the ambient quality. But . . . seepage into Gator Cove, which is a much more confined place [100 by 200 yardsj [would make it] quite probable that there would be a lowering of ambient water quality in the site . R] educed dispersion . . . in this cove would allow . . . phosphorous to build up. (0.156) Overland effluent flow to Gator Cove would increase concentrations of phosphorus there, with a consequent increase in the growth of aquatic plants, and the likely degradation of waters in the Cove, unless rapid and regular exchange of lake and cove waters dispersed the phosphorous widely, promptly upon its introduction Except for testimony that wind-driven waves sometimes stir up phosphorous laden sediments on the bottom, the record is silent on the movement of waters within and between Lake Santa Fe and Gator Cove. The record supports no inference that phosporous reaching Gator Cove would be dispersed without causing eutrophic conditions significantly degrading the water in the Cove. Neither does the record support the inference, however, that effluent moving underground into the lakes would enter Gator Cove. On this point, Dr. Bottcher testified: [T]he further away from the lake that you recharge water the further out under a lake that the water will be recharging into the lake; gives it a longer flow . . . it's going to migrate and come up somewhat out into the lake. (0.281-2) Phosphorous in the quantities the treatment plant would produce, if introduced "somewhat out into the lake" would probably not degrade water quality significantly, notwithstanding testimony to the contrary. (0.349, 354). Sands and Clays DER gave notice of its intent to deny SFP's original application because SFP proposed to place the pond bottoms approximately two and a half feet above an observed groundwater table. Placement in such proximity to groundwater raised questions about the capacity of the ground to accept the effluent. In its revised application, SFP proposes to place sand on the existing grade and construct percolation ponds on top of the sand. By elevating the pond bottoms, SFP would increase the distance between the observed groundwater table and pond bottoms to 5.2 feet. (S.256, 257). This perched water table, which is seasonal, is attributable to clayey sand or sandy clay underlying the site proposed for the percolation ponds. Between January 9, 1985, and January 17, 1985, "following a fairly dry antecedent period," (S.229) Douglas F. Smith, the professional consulting engineer SFP retained to prepare the engineering report submitted in support of SFP's permit applications, conducted six soil borings in the vicinity of the site proposed for the plant. One of the borings (TB 5) is in or on the edge of a proposed percolation pond and another (TB 4) is slightly to the north of the proposed pond site. Three (TB 1, 2 and 3) are east of the proposed pond site at distances ranging up to no more than 250 feet. The sixth is west of the proposed site in a natural depression. Mr. Smith conducted a seventh test boring under wetter conditions more than a year later a few feet north of TB 4. Finally, on September 5, 1986, during the interim between hearing days, Mr. Smith used a Shelby tube to obtain a soil sample four to six feet below grade midway between TB 4 and TB 5. 1/ The sites at which samples were taken are at ground elevations ranging from 173 to 178 feet above sea level. From the original borings and by resort to reference works, Mr. Smith reached certain general conclusions: The top four feet or so at the proposed pond site consists of silty sand, 17 percent silt and 83 percent quartz sand. This topsoil lies above a two-foot layer of clayey sand, 20 percent clay, 6 percent silt and 74 percent sand. Below the clayey sand lies a layer some eight feet thick of dense, silty sand, 23 percent silt, 7 percent clay and 70 percent sand, atop a one and one-half foot layer of clayey sand, separating loose, quartz sands going down 40 feet beneath the surface from what is above. These formations "are very heterogeneous, in the sense of the position and occurrence of the clay layers or the sandy layers . . .," (0.230) and all occur within the surficial aquifer. "There are layers of clay within it, and so perched water tables are rather common." (0.225). In March of 1986, the regional water table was some 17 feet down. SFP Exhibit 1B. Below the surficial aquifer lie the Hawthorne formation and, at a depth of 110 feet, the limestone of the Floridan aquifer. The soils above the Hawthorne formation are not consolidated. (S.254, 255). Conductivity Measurements The applicant offered no test results indicating the composition or conductivity of soils lying between the easternmost test boring and Gator Cove, some 1,200 feet distant. No tests were done to determine the conductivity of the deeper layer of clayey sand beneath the site proposed for the ponds. Tests of a sample of the topsoil in TB 7 indicated horizontal permeability of 38.7 feet per day and vertical permeability of six feet per day. On the basis of an earlier test of topsoil in TB 3, "hydraulic conductivity of the surface soils was measured to be 8.2 feet per day. . . ." SFP's Exhibit No. 1B. From this measurement, vertical hydraulic conductivity was conservatively estimated at .82 feet (9.84 inches) per day. Id. The design application rate, 2.41 inches per day, is approximately 25 percent of 9.84 inches per day. Id. The initial test done on a sample of the clayey sand, which lay beneath the topsoil at depths of 3.5 to 5.5 feet, indicated a permeability of 0.0001 feet per day. Thereafter, Mr. Smith did other testing and "made some general assumptions" (S. 235) and concluded that "an area-wide permeability of this clayey sand would be more on the order of 0.0144 feet per day." (S. 234). Still later a test of the sample taken during the hearing recess indicated hydraulic conductivity of 0.11 feet per day. SFP's Exhibit No. 10. The more than thousandfold increase in measured conductivity between the first laboratory analysis and the second is attributable in some degree to the different proportions of fines found in the two samples. The soil conductivity test results depend not only on the composition of the sample, but also on how wet the sample was before testing began. Vertical Conductivity Inferred On March 6, 1986, ground water was observed on the site about two and a half feet below the surface. SFP's expert, Mr. Smith, concluded that it was "essentially a 1.5 foot water table, perched water table over the clay." (0.422). There was, however, groundwater below, as well as above, the clay. On March 12, 1986, the water table at this point had fallen six inches. In the preceding month rainfall of 5.9 inches had been measured in the vicinity, after 5.1 inches had been measured in January of 1986, but in November and December of 1985 "there was a total of 0.6 inches of rainfall." (0.421). Later in the year, notwithstanding typically wet summer weather, no water table was measured at this point. From this Mr. Smith concluded that, once the clayey sand layer is wetted to the point of saturation, conductivity increases dramatically. If that were the case, a more or less steady stream of effluent could serve to keep the clayey sand wetted and percolation at design rates should not be a problem. But Dr. Bottcher, the hydrologist and soil physicist called as a witness for the Association, testified that the six- inch drop over six days could be attributed, in large part, to evapotranspiration. He rejected the hypothesis that the clayey sand's conductivity increased dramatically with saturation, since "the actual water table was observed . about three weeks after the very heavy rainfall had stopped" (0.290) and had probably been present for at least a month; and because the soil survey for Alachua County reports that perched water tables ordinarily persist for two months (0.227) in this type of soil. Certain soils' hydraulic conductivity does diminish with dessication, but such soils usually regain their accustomed conductivity within hours of rewetting. Dr. Bottcher rejected as unrealistically optimistic the assumption SFP's expert made about the conductivity of the clayey sand on grounds that "the conductivity that . . . [SFP] used, if you went out there you couldn't perch a water table for a month." (0.277). In these respects, Dr. Bottcher's testimony at hearing has been credited. In the opinion of the geologist who testified on behalf of the Association, Dr. Randazzo, a minimum of seven or eight additional augur borings in "definitive patterns to the northeast and to the northwest" (0.240) to depths of 15 to 20 feet, with measurements within each augur boring every two feet, are necessary to determine "how permeable the soils are and how fast the waters would move through them." (0.240). This testimony and the testimony of the soil physicist and others to the same general effect have been credited, and Mr. Smith's testimony that no further testing is indicated has been rejected. Wet Ground In the expert opinion of a geologist who testified at hearing, "it is reasonable to assume that saturation conditions of the surficial aquifer in this area can be achieved," (0.238) even without adding effluent from a wastewater treatment plant. The evidence that soils in the vicinity of the site have a limited capacity to percolate .water came not only from engineers and scientists. Charles S. Humphries, the owner of the property 150 feet from the proposed percolation site, "put a fence post line . . . every ten feet, and every ten feet [he] hit clay." (0.372). Three quarters of an inch of rain results in waters standing overnight in neighboring pastures. In parts of the same pastures, rain from a front moving through "will stay for a week or so." (0.373). It is apparent that the area cannot percolate all the rainfall it receives. This is the explanation for the gully leading down toward Gator Cove. Six-feet deep (0.377), "the gully is a result of natural surface runoff." (0.263).
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Petitioner was responsible for maintaining a sanitary nuisance on his property by piping sewage onto the ground from the septic system and by ignoring the need to repair a failed septic system; and whether the Department of Health properly issued a citation to Petitioner for violation of Sections 386.041(1)(a) and (b).
Findings Of Fact In November, 1995, a Department of Health, Volusia County Health Department employee, Sherry Rodriguez, was performing a sanitary survey of the water system at 479 Maytown Road, Osteen, Florida, when she observed sewage on the ground. The property in questions consists of a large, two-story house which contains rental units. The house is provided water by a well on the property and sewage is handled by an onsite septic system. On November 6, 1995, Ms. Rodriguez issued a Notice of Violation for the sanitary nuisance which stated that the violation must be corrected by November 20, 1995. The septic system was not repaired by November 20, 1995. Ms. Rodriguez subsequently issued a Notice of Intended Action (NIA), giving Petitioner a deadline of December 5, 1995, to repair his system. When Ms. Rodriguez went to the property to serve the NIA, she observed PVC pipe on the ground, with one end at the septic tank and the other at the read of the property. Sewage was on the ground at the end of the pipe. Ms. Rodriguez took photographs of the pipe before she departed. Agency employee, Britt Williams, visited Petitioner's property on November 1, 1996, and observed sewage on the ground. Mr. Williams issued a follow-up NIA to Petitioner on January 30, 1997, which required Petitioner to repair the septic system by February 3, 1997. Petitioner did not obtain a repair permit to correct the violations, therefore, Mr. Williams issued a citation for the violations of sewage on the ground and having an improperly maintained septic system.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered affirming the civil penalty against Petitioner and requiring Petitioner to repair his septic system. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: John Gee 1245 Gee Whiz Lane Osteen, Florida 32764 Charlene J. Petersen, Esquire Department of Health 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Building 6 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Dr. James Howell, Secretary Department of Health Building 6, Room 306 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether, under the facts and circumstances of this case, Respondent's license to practice engineering in the State of Florida, should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, L. Thomas Hubbard d/b/a The Hubbard Association, was licensed to practice professional engineering in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 006634 on August 17, 1962. Certificate of authorization number EB0003297 was issued to the firm, The Hubbard Association, Inc., on September 25, 1981. In March 1986, Respondent prepared a set of plans for the proposed City of Macclenny Wastewater Treatment Works Improvement Program, Sewage Treatment Facility ("Macclenny project"), and one volume of "Contract Documents and Specifications" ("specifications"), which were submitted to the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Bureau of Wastewater Management and Grants (Bureau) on or about April 24, 1986. All wastewater treatment plans designs must go to the DER for approval prior to construction, and if a public entity wants grant funding for its wastewater treatment facility, the project must be reviewed and approved by the Bureau (now called Bureau of Local Government and Waste Water Financial Assistance) which administers State grant programs for wastewater treatment facilities. The Bureau reviews grant project plans and specifications to ensure that they: (a) comply with administrative requirements of the grants programs; (b) comply with minimum Federal and/or State technical standards for wastewater facilities; (c) are suitable for bidding; and (d) present a constructible project. The plans for the Macclenny project depict an existing treatment facility, a new clarifier to improve the removal of solids (an expansion of about 130,000 gallons per day in treatment capacity), and a new effluent pumping station to pump to an overland flow field (field) through a force main pipeline to spray risers. The risers would spray the water laterally across the field. Water would collect in a central collection ditch, and run through a final chlorine contact chamber prior to discharge in Turkey Creek. A new agricultural building for equipment storage, and a new holding pond, which is an off-line pond for storage of inadequately treated water, are also depicted. The field in the Macclenny project is roughly 24 acres and is located in a large area between the chlorine contact chamber and the holding pond. The field in this system has 5 cells. A cell is an area of land that can be independently controlled to allow loading/resting cycles in the treatment process. Each cell in a given field should be as near equal in size as possible to provide for equal treatment of the wastewater during the loading/resting cycles. Loading/resting cycles allows a cell within the field to "rest" (no effluent being pumped on to that cell) so maintenance mowing or harvesting can be accomplished and to "load" the other cells to revitalize the bacteria that renews the treatment process. "Load" means to apply the effluent or treated wastewater from the existing facility to the field. Generally, forty percent of the field would be loaded with wastewater at any one time. On December 9, 1985, the Bureau had a predesign conference with Respondent in Macclenny to discuss design items. No plans or specifications for the Macclenny project had been submitted at that time, nor were they submitted at this conference. On February 18, 1986, an in-progress design review was held at Macclenny, with the Bureau staff available to answer Respondent's questions. On March 5, 1986, another in-progress design review meeting was held in Macclenny, with the Bureau staff present, at which time the plans were "fifty percent" (50%) complete. The unsigned and unsealed plans were given to the Bureau for a preliminary review. On March 25, 1986, the Bureau issued a few preliminary comments on the 50% completed plans and specifications. The purpose of the 50% complete review is to help the design engineer complete his plans and specifications. On March 31, 1986, Respondent transmitted to the Bureau a set of plans for the proposed Macclenny project. Respondent's transmittal letter, which the Bureau received with the plans on April 11, 1986, stated that "completed plans" were being transmitted. On April 21, 1986, Respondent transmitted to the bureau an additional set of the same plans for the Macclenny project, which Respondent again referred to as "completed plans" on his transmittal letter form which were received by Bureau on April 24, 1986. This transmittal also included specifications, a design data check list, design calculations, cost estimate, and plan of operation. The plans in this submittal are referred to as "the plans." It was Respondent's understanding that signing and sealing a set of engineering drawings signified a legal obligation that if someone takes the plans and builds a project it will work. Respondent's signature and seal are on the first sheet of the set of plans which was in the April 1986 submittal but not on the specifications. The plans were prepared, signed, sealed and submitted to the Bureau for review by Respondent. Respondent did not place any conditional language or qualification on the plans or write a letter advising the Bureau that the plans were not complete. It was Respondent's understanding that the Bureau would not review a set of plans unless they were signed and sealed, notwithstanding the completeness of the plans. Respondent did not consider the plans as completed, notwithstanding that he had signed, sealed and submitted them to Petitioner as "completed". It was Respondent's understanding that the plans were being submitted for review only, not complete for construction. An engineer may get answers from the Bureau without submitting plans that are signed and sealed as completed, such as the predesign conference or 50% review that occurred in this case. The Bureau considers plans that are signed, sealed and submitted as "completed" for review to be 100% complete and ready to bid. The Bureau considered the plans and specifications which Respondent submitted on April 24, 1986 as being final, complete plans and specifications for final review by the Bureau. The Bureau reviewed the plans assuming them to be complete and followed normal procedures for reviewing a complete set of plans and specifications. On June 19, 1989, the Bureau issued 52 written comments based on its review of the plans and specifications it had received in the April 24, 1986 submittal from Respondent. The plans and specifications were submitted to the Department of General Services (DGS) by the Bureau for a review and opinion because the Bureau was concerned about the structural design. DGS responded to this request through Jim Berkstresser, P.E. on June 25, 1986. By cover letter dated July 18, 1989, Respondent filed written responses to the Bureau's 52 comments. The Bureau did not approve Respondent's plans and specifications for the Macclenny project submitted on April 24, 1986. On September 5, 1986, Respondent resubmitted plans in response to the Bureau's 52 comments. These plans had the same configuration as the April submittal regarding the overland flow treatment. On September 29, 1986, Respondent met with David Wolfe to discuss the field configuration for the proposed overland flow system and other outstanding issues related to the revised contract documents. The principal concerns were non- uniform flow and significant erosion potential. Respondent's plans did not follow accepted design criteria. At this meeting field configurations were discussed, as well as guidelines to be followed in design of the overland flow field, and a general field layout were developed. Respondent submitted another set of plans which the Bureau received on October 30, 1986, and that set was approved and stamped accepted by DER-BWMG on December 22, 1986. All sheets in the approved set are dated August 20, 1986, with the exception of the cover sheet on which Respondent failed to date his seal and signature, and sheets G-6 and G-7 which are dated October 24, 1986. Respondent signed and sealed the cover sheet and sheet G-7 of the approved set of plans, but did not seal any other sheets in the approved set of plans. A signature and seal on a set of plans indicates that the plans were prepared by, or under the direct supervision of the person signing and sealing them, and that the plans are complete and depict a project that will perform its intended function. A signature and seal on a set of plans means the engineer assures that the design is his design and that the plans and specifications are ready to be bid for construction. The design should contain criteria and information significant to ensure the project will work. Sheet flow is the primary treatment mode in an overland flow system. Sheet flow is where a thin layer of water is induced to flow in a very controlled atmosphere across a length of land that is functioning very similarly to a trickling filter. The acceptable range of slope of an overland flow system is 2% to 8% with the best results obtained in the lower range because of a longer "residence time". "Residence time" is the amount time the wastewater is on the field for treatment. The slopes must be even and uniform to maintain a constant velocity so as to minimize the potential for erosion and to maintain a constant depth of water throughout the filed so as to maximize the treatment. Cross slopes should be minimized and topographic lines should be as close to parallel as possible on the field. The plans for the Macclenny project shows: (a) slopes ranging from less than 2% up to 6%; (b) multiple compound slopes across the field and; (c) topographic lines that are not parallel. The specifications for the field do not set out the acceptable tolerances on the slopes or the acceptable level of compaction of the field for the contractor who is to construct the field and; therefore, lacks control over the final product. Contours in an overland flow field are important, and while it is desirable for them to be on 1-foot intervals, contours at intervals of 2 feet are acceptable provided the plans and specifications address what happens between the contours. Respondent's plans and specifications show contours at intervals of 2 feet but do not address what happens between the contours. The plans of the facilities that were approved prior to the submittal of any plans by Respondent called for a 2- 3 week loading/resting cycle. The standard practice is to have all cells within an overland flow field to be of equal size so that the area to be loaded at any given period of time is the same size. The cells in the overland flow field in the Macclenny project as depicted by the plans are not of equal size, and if operated on a 2-3 week loading/resting cycle would not provide a consistent amount of treatment and thereby result in varying levels of treatment of the effluent. It is standard practice to provide performance specifications for seeding the field with the primary grass cover and for overseeding when necessary to prevent wind and water erosion. There were no performance specifications in the plans and specifications on the Macclenny project submitted by the Respondent. Agricultural equipment is an integral part of the overland flow field system and has a direct bearing on whether the system will function over the long run. Specifications for agricultural equipment are necessary to determine if the system will work properly. There were no specifications for agricultural equipment submitted by the Respondent in the plans. It is standard practice to furnish spray nozzle specifications, such as nozzle size, degree of fanning, characteristics under varying pressures and how much water will be discharged by the nozzle, in a set of plans and specifications for an overland flow field. Respondent's specifications for the Macclenny project did not contain the necessary specifications for the spray nozzles. Compacting is a standard practice, and it is standard practice to show compaction requirements on plans or specifications. The usual practice is to investigate the soil and specify compaction, usually based on a foundation report by a geo-technical engineer, showing the safe beading capacity of the soil in what condition, with recommendations for compaction. The Respondent's specifications do not call for compaction of the soil under the clarifier slab. However, the Respondent's specifications do call for compaction in the holding pond and situations where an area is over-excavated and backfilled. Should the area under the clarifier slab be over- excavated and backfilled, then compaction is covered in the specifications but compaction would not be covered unless this occurs. Therefore, since the weight of the slab is carried by the soil beneath it, specifications for compaction should have been included in Respondent's specifications for any situation. Changes in temperature causes concrete to expand or contract which may result in cracking. Placement of a concrete slab may result in the slab bending which may result in cracking. Therefore, reinforcing a concrete slab is required to maintain the slab's integrity. The thickness of a concrete slab will determine the distribution of the reinforcing so that cracking is minimized. The clarifier slab in the Macclenny project is depicted as being 12 inches thick and shows number 6 bar reinforcing on 6 inch centers in the top of the slab but no reinforcing in the bottom of the slab. Failure to require reinforcing in the bottom of the slab could result in the slab cracking due to significant changes in temperature and soft spots in the soil beneath the slab. Failure to place reinforcing in the bottom as well as in the top of the slab is not in accordance with standards of the code of the American Concrete Institute (ACI), revised in 1983, and is a structural weakness. The chlorine contact chamber as detailed on sheets 5-6 and 5-7 is like a rectangular concrete box beneath the earth where the earth is within a few inches of the top of the walls. The walls are vertically reinforced with number 4 bars on 12 inch centers placed in the center of the 8 inch thick wall. When the tank is empty the reinforcing bars will be approximately 160 per cent overstressed from the active pressure of the earth. Additional reinforcing is needed in the walls to meet ACI standards. There are deficiencies in the vertical wall reinforcing of the chlorine contact chamber as detailed on sheets 5-6 and 5-7 of the Plans. On sheets 5-3, 5-4 and 5-7 of the plans, reinforcement through the construction joints is incorrectly detailed to assure that cracking of the concrete will not occur. Construction joints occur between different pours of concrete, such as where the walls meet the top of the bottom slab. The concrete bottom of the holding pond as detailed in sheet 5-8 of the Plans is large enough to require expansion joints to prevent cracking as the slab expands and contracts due to changes in the weather, yet no expansion joints are shown for the slab as detailed on sheet 5-8 of the plans. Neither the collection ditches nor the spray riser bases as detailed on the plans show any reinforcing to maintain the integrity of the concrete. While this is not a major structural weakness, it indicates a failure to comply with standard structural engineering practices. Although the plans call for relocation of an existing drainage ditch, the Respondent failed to consult DER regarding the permitting of such drainage ditch. A detention time of 30 minutes is required to properly disinfect wastewater and is-basic knowledge for all civil engineers, yet the plans called for only a fifteen minute detention time. It is standard engineering practice to provide flood level elevations on the site plans. Respondent failed to provide flood level elevations for the Macclenny facility site plans. The plans failed to: (a) provide elevations for high water alarm and pump off settings; (b) provide specifications for flume liner on sheet M-4; (c) show how to close an existing outlet on the chlorine contact chamber; (d) show where an effluent pump station was to be located; (e) show pressure relief valve locations and; (f) indicate quantities for purpose of contract bidding. The specifications list equipment and work items, such as pumping equipment, grit storage tank, case-out assembly, telescoping valve, air diffusers, portable pump, hose and couplings, that are inapplicable to the Macclenny project. There are inconsistencies in the plans and specifications, such as: (a) the plans showing one clarifier while the specifications call for two clarifiers, (b) the plans showing a 150 pound chlorine cylinder as opposed to a 1-ton chlorine cylinder in the specifications and; (c) the plans showing the clarifier with a 38-foot diameter while the specifications calls for a clarifier with a 40-foot diameter. Respondent was negligent in submitting incomplete plans to the Bureau as "completed plans" and in failing to utilize due care and failing to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles, with regard to the content of those plans which he submitted as "completed plans".
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the circumstances surrounding this case, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent, L. Thomas Hubbard guilty of violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and for such violation impose an administrative fine of $1,000.00 and suspend from the practice of engineering for a period of thirty (30) days, stay the suspension and place the Respondent on probation for a period of one year under terms and conditions the Board deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearing this 20th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0096 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Petitioner in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Findings of Fact 1. Rejected as not being necessary to the conclusions reached in this Recommended Order. 3.-12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, respectively, but modified. 13. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 14.-19. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17, respectively, but modified. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or subordinate or unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17 and 18 but modified. 22.-33. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 27, respectively, but modified. 34. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17 and 18, but modified. 35-37. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 38. Adopted in Findings of Fact 28 and 29, but modified. 39.-40. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate, but see Findings of Fact 37 and 38. 41.-5O. Adopted in Findings of Fact 28, 32, 29 (28-31), 29, 29, 32, 30, 32 and 32, respectively, but modified. 51. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 52.-53. Adopted in Findings of Fact (28-33) and 32, respectively, but modified. 54.-55. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. Adapted in Finding of Fact 55. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 58.-62. Adopted generally in Findings of Fact 28-33. 63.-66. Adopted generally in Findings of Fact 34-36. 67.-72. Adopted generally in Finding of Fact 37. 73.-74. Adopted generally in Finding of Fact 38. 75.-76. Adopted generally in Finding of Fact 39. 77.-79. Adopted generally or covered in Findings of Fact 13-15 and 28-39. 80.-82 Adopted generally or covered in Findings of Fact 40- 41. 83.-90. Adopted generally or covered in Findings of Fact 42 and 43. 91.-96. Adopted generally or covered in Findings of Fact 44 and 45. 97.-104. Adopted generally or covered in Finding of Fact 46. 105.-107. Adopted generally or covered in Finding of Fact 47. 108.-109. Adopted in Finding of Fact 48. 110.-115. Adopted generally or covered in Finding of Fact 55. 116.-117. Adopted in Finding of Fact 49 and 50. 18. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 119. Adopted in Finding of Fact 51. 120.-124. Adopted in Finding of Fact 52. 125. Rejected as immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 126.-127. Adopted in Finding of Fact 52. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Adopted in Finding of Fact 54. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Adopted in Finding of Fact 55. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Findings of Fact 13-15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19 except last sentence that is rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant. Rejected as being a restatement of Administrative Complaint and not a Finding of Fact but see Findings of Fact 15 and 19. Rejected as being a restatement of John Sowerby's testimony and not a Finding of Fact, but see Findings of Fact 15, 17 and 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. 6. Restatement of David Wolfe's testimony COPIES FURNISHED: Rex Smith Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Wings S. Benton, Esquire 1020 D. Lafayette Street, Suite 205 Post Office Box 5676 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-5676 L. Thomas Hubbard, pro se THA Building 3110 Spring Glen Road Jacksonville, Florida 32207
Findings Of Fact The Respondents, Frank L. Reppa and Denise J. Reppa, own and reside in their dwelling located at 3863 Plumosa Drive, St. James, Florida. The property is a narrow canal front lot. All lots in the area are small and narrow and the dwellings thereon, mostly mobile homes, are placed closely together. On January 11, 1988, as the result of a nuisance complaint by the Reppa's next door neighbor, Stephen E. Havig, an Environmental Specialist with the Lee County Health Department, a part of the State of Florida DHRS, inspected the property in question and observed that effluent from the Respondents' drain field, a malodorous liquid, had run from Respondent's property down onto the driveway of their neighbors. On January 13, 1988, he returned to the property and spoke with Mrs. Reppa who admitted to living on the property. He again observed that the drain field in the Reppas' septic system was heavily saturated and had failed. Effluent was coming to the surface due to the high water table resulting from heavy recent rains and the failure of the system, and there was still a sewage odor to the effluent. The effluent showed in stains on the neighbor's drive. Mr. Havig told Mrs. Reppa that the problem had to be corrected as it was a violation of the law to allow it to remain. In response, Mrs. Reppa indicated they had no money to effect the repairs and because of that, Mr. Havig, who could have cited them immediately, indicated he would return to his office to see if they could be given some additional time to have the work done. After checking with his supervisor, Mr. Havig, on the same day issued an "Official Notification of Insanitary Nuisance" and a "Notice of Intended Action", both of which were sent by Certified Mail and receipted for by Mrs. Reppa on January 19, 1988. The Notice gave the Reppas until January 28, 1988 to correct the problem. On January 14, 1988, Mr. Havig again talked with Mrs. Reppa, telling her what he was sending and advising her how she could get the problem fixed. When he again went out to the property on January 28, 1988, he noted that the property had dried out due to a lack of rain. However, he could see no evidence that any repairs had been effected. He returned to the property on February 1, 1988 after a rain and observed that the problems had reoccurred. Mr. Havig again spoke with Mrs. Reppa on February 8, 1988, at which time she advised him the problem was to be repaired, but they were without funds to pay for it. At that time, Mr. Havig gave the Reppas three weeks to have the work completed with a contractor to be retained within one week. When he spoke with Mrs. Reppa on February 16, 1988, she stated she was still having trouble getting a contractor. She had contacted one contractor who looked at the system on February 15, 1988 and who proposed to remove the washing machine from the drain system. When Mr. Havig talked with Mrs. Reppa on February 19, 1988, she indicated she would have to discuss the matter with her husband. Mr. Havig stated at that time that the Department would have to proceed with enforcement action if work was not started on the correction by February 22, 1988. No corrective action was taken by the Reppas and the Administrative Complaint was filed as a result. DHRS considers it important to properly dispose of effluent because, since it contains human waste, it carries bacteria, viruses and a danger of parasites. Agency policy requires that the septic system be continually monitored and that the tank be pumped and the drain field be repaired when necessary. The Department has no funds available to assist those who cannot afford to make repairs. In order to be properly processed, effluent drainage from septic tanks needs a minimum of two feet of soil between the discharge outlet of the tank and the water table. The soil acts as a filter to remove harmful organisms and contaminants from the effluent before it reaches the water table. A high water table, due to heavy rains or other causes, prevents this filtration and causes the effluent to come to the surface. The situation is correctable. Two methods of correction are: 1) elevate the system above the water table, or 2) remove the saturated soil and replace it with a good grade of sand. In October, 1985, another complaint against the Reppas, relating to the same situation, was filed with DHRS. At that time, the Reppas paid $650.00 to have the system repaired by an individual who replaced the drain field, drawing it away from adjoining property and toward the road. Though the contractor assured them this would fix the problem, wash water would continue to come to the surface. As a result, Mrs. Reppa has refrained from washing clothes at her home and takes them to the laundry in town. Because of the actions they have taken, such as having the drain field expanded and moved, the pumping out of the septic tank in January, 1988, and the cessation of washing clothes at home, Mr. and Mrs. Reppa are convinced the system is not overflowing and that the water on the neighbor's property is the accumulation of surface water drainage when it rains. The Reppa property is higher than the neighbor's property and Mrs. Reppa believes that rain water drains down there. The new part of the drain field works and the water in question, she feels, cannot be effluent. The evidence of record, however, indicates to the contrary and that it is waste effluent. Inquiry by the Reppas indicates that it would take $750.00 more to fix the system and the Reppas do not have that money. They are still paying back the money they borrowed from Mrs. Reppa's parents to make the first repairs. Mr. Reppa is a commercial fisherman whose income has been substantially reduced due to the restrictions placed on the taking of redfish. Many neighbors in the area, according to the Reppas, discharge sewage directly into the abutting canal and allow wash water to run out onto the ground. The Reppas cannot comprehend why these individuals, mostly three month winter visitors, are not cited while they, full time residents, are.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: Recommended that an administrative fine of $50.00 per day be assessed against the Reppas for the violation established, said fine to be effective upon entry of a Final Order herein, with provision that the fine be remitted upon satisfactory proof that the violation has been corrected. Recommended in Tallahassee, Florida this 24th day of August, 1988. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Eugenie G. Rehak, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Post Office Box 06085 Ft. Myers, Florida 33906 Frank Lee Reppa, pro se Denise J. Reppa, pro se 3863 Plumosa Drive St. James, Florida 33986 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondents, Anthony Crescenzo and Johns by John II, Inc. (collectively, Respondents), violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.022(1)(g), (k), (l)2., and (p), and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of the standards for onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems (OSTDS), pursuant to chapters 381 and 489, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 64E-6. Respondent Anthony Crescenzo is a resident of the State of Florida and holds DOH registration number SR0061541, to provide septic tank contracting services in Florida. Mr. Crescenzo owns and operates Johns by John II, Inc. (Johns by John), a Florida corporation located at 6252 Commercial Way, Weeki Wachee, Hernando County, Florida. Johns by John is authorized by the Department to provide septic tank services under Business Authorization number SA0041171. Johns by John provides OSTDS services pursuant to rules adopted by the Department and under the license, registration, and direction of Anthony Crescenzo. Winston and Dianne Wescott reside at 2245 Ring Road in Spring Hill, Florida, and have done so for approximately 19 years. Sometime in April 2014, Mr. Wescott noticed a depression and some saturated soil in his yard, near his septic tank. Mr. Wescott was concerned because of prior sink hole activity. After some telephone calls and an inspection by the insurance adjuster, Mr. Winston called Johns by John. On or about Saturday, June 7, 2014, a worker from Johns by John came to the residence and pumped out the drainfield. At that time, waste was coming out of the ground but was not backing up into the home. After the pump-out was complete, Mr. Wescott showed the technician the depressed area, and an exposed area that revealed that the outlet pipe to the septic system’s distribution box (D-box) was defective. The area had been exposed by either the insurance adjuster or the homeowner before the technician arrived. The technician telephoned Mr. Crescenzo, who advised that he would come out the following Monday or Tuesday to inspect the system and see what additional repairs were necessary. Mr. Wescott paid $205.72 for the pump-out of the drainfield. On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, Mr. Crescenzo met with Mr. Wescott to assess what repairs were necessary. When he arrived, the homeowner had already dug around the area, leaving the tank and the D-box at least partially exposed. Mr. Crescenzo advised that a new drainfield might be necessary, but did not state that it was absolutely required. He also explained that the repair would require a permit, and that they would do what they could to repair, as opposed to replace, the existing system. Mr. Crescenzo also explained that because of the need to obtain a permit, it might be four to six weeks before the job was completed. Mr. Crescenzo prepared, and Mr. Wescott signed, a Work Order/Proposed Drainfield Estimate form. Under “Job Description,” the following handwritten notation was provided: D-box collapsed down [illegible] point may have to replace entire system $2,500-$3,500. System will need to go in the front due to site conditions 4 bedroom house deposit required $1,000. The preprinted text on the form provided the following statements in bold-faced type: * NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR SPRINKLERS, WIRES, BROKEN PIPES, YARD, SOD OR DRIVEWAY DAMAGEDeposits are non-refundable. The form also provided for a 10-year warranty of any work performed. Although the language of the form is not clear, Mr. Crescenzo testified credibly that the warranty was applicable to repairs of the existing system as well as to replacement of the system. While the maximum the homeowner might have to pay is clearly indicated on the form, the costs of a repair short of replacement is not listed. Mr. Crescenzo testified that a $1,000 deposit is required for any job requiring a permit, as the permit itself is $300, and that he told the homeowner that he would not know the extent of the repair needed until he started the work. Mr. Wescott signed the estimate. Despite the language on the estimate that a new drainfield may be needed, Mr. Wescott understood that his drainfield would be replaced. While he admits signing it, he did not recall seeing the statement that deposits are non-refundable, notwithstanding that it is printed in bold type. His understanding appears to be based, in part, on a discussion between Mr. Wescott and Mr. Crescenzo about the continued vitality of the D-box. Mr. Wescott understood Mr. Crescenzo to say that the life of the septic system was approximately 19 years (the age of his home), and that if the drainfield was not replaced, the Wescotts would in all likelihood be calling him back in a matter of months to replace it because it was nearing the end of its expected life-span. He also understood Mr. Crescenzo to say that the D-box was obsolete and would not be replaced when the drainfield was replaced. Mr. Crescenzo, on the other hand, testified that he always maintained that they would try to repair the existing drainfield but may have to replace it. In the event that the system was replaced, D-boxes are no longer used and the existing one would not be replaced. Mr. Crescenzo denied stating that the life of a drainfield is 19 years, stating that drainfields do not have a standard life expectancy.1/ Mr. Crescenzo also emphasized that the work performed, whether a repair to the existing drainfield or a replacement, was subject to a 10-year warranty, thus making any statement that the company would just have to come back in a few months nonsensical. Mr. Crescenzo’s testimony is credited. Mr. Crescenzo applied for a permit on June 18, 2014, which costs $300. The permit application was to repair or replace the distribution box, not to replace the drainfield, and noted that the D-Box had collapsed. Mr. Crescenzo stated on the application that it may be possible to fix the D-Box and remove roots. The permit was issued for OSTDS repair on June 20, 2014. According to Stephen Kataro, an engineer for the septic tank program for Hernando County who approved the application and inspected the repair, the permit gave the option to replace the drainfield if necessary, based upon what was found during the repair. This approval is consistent with Department policy. On approximately July 3, 2014, Jeremiah Blake, a technician for Johns by John, went to the Wescott home to work on the septic system. Mr. Blake drove a Johns by John truck equipped with the standard equipment to install a drainfield. When he arrived at the home, the system was already uncovered. Mr. Blake discussed the repairs with Mr. Wescott, stating that he could do the drainfield or fix the D-Box. He determined that replacement of the outlet pipe leading to the D-Box addressed the problem, and that there was no need to replace the drainfield, as all drains were taking water. Mr. Blake completed the repair and used Mr. Wescott’s garden hose with a jet-spray nozzle to spray inside the D-Box and clean out the lines. There is an alternative repair method referred to as “jetting” that requires a separate permit that Respondents did not obtain. Jetting requires specialized equipment that Respondents do not own. The unrebutted testimony of both Mr. Wescott and Mr. Blake is that Mr. Blake used a simple garden hose to clear the lines. He is familiar with what the Department refers to as jetting, but has never operated jetting equipment. He uses the term “jetting” because it is an easier way to describe what he does with a simple garden hose to clear the D-Box of sand. When Mr. Blake replaced the pipe leading to the D-Box, he broke sprinkler lines in the area. Sprinkler lines are often, if not always, damaged in OSTDS repairs. Respondents had arranged the day before for a timed inspection, for which they paid an additional fee. The purpose of a timed inspection is to be able to complete the job and have it inspected as soon as it is finished. Mr. Kataro came out to the property at approximately 9:00 a.m., inspected the work performed, determined that it met permit requirements to restore function, and approved it.2/ Mr. Kataro left the site before Mr. Blake covered the system, consistent with standard practice. While Mr. Wescott was present when Mr. Kataro arrived to inspect the work, there was no testimony to indicate Mr. Wescott advised the inspector that he was unhappy with the scope of work performed. Mr. Blake had a backhoe on the premises for use in covering the area. He testified that he covered the system, including the broken sprinkler pipes, and that he always does so and then notifies the homeowner about the need to fix the sprinkler pipes. Both Mr. Blake and Mr. Wescott testified that Mr. Wescott asked Mr. Blake to remove some sod for him nearby, and paid him cash for doing so. According to Mr. Blake, Mr. Wescott seemed satisfied at this point. It seems inconceivable that Mr. Wescott would be willing to pay additional funds for Mr. Blake to remove sod if he had not covered the system he was supposed to cover and if he was unhappy with the work (or lack of work) performed, and yet not say anything to Mr. Blake about covering the completed repair. Mr. Wescott expected that since the drainfield was not replaced, he would receive some portion of the $1,000 he paid back. Had he realized that the repair would cost that much, he would have gotten estimates from other contractors. He viewed replacing the drainfield as preventative maintenance. Based on this belief, after Mr. Blake left the premises, Mr. Wescott called Mr. Crescenzo and asked about a refund. He did not complain, however, about the system not being covered. Mr. Crescenzo informed him that there would be no refund, as the work order clearly indicates that deposits are non-refundable. The Wescotts called the Johns by John office to get an itemized receipt for insurance purposes. There was some delay in receiving a receipt, so they went to the office to obtain it in person. Initially, they were given a receipt stating that the D- box had been replaced. When they questioned this and told the person working in the office that the D-box had not been replaced, she made some phone calls to verify the work performed. The office worker prepared a new receipt while speaking to someone, presumably Jeremiah Blake, on the phone. The new receipt stated, “connected tank to distribution box. Leveled D-Box to drainfield. Jetted drainfield lines.” The change in the description appears to have occurred more because the person working in the office misunderstood the scope of work performed, rather than any nefarious intent to defraud. Further, the reference to jetting was consistent with both Mr. Blake and Mr. Crescenzo’s shorthand notation for cleaning the line with the garden hose, as opposed to the alternative repair method requiring additional permitting. As noted in paragraph 16, the sprinkler lines were broken during the repairs. Mr. Wescott replaced the broken pipes, and placed bricks underneath them to hold them in place. He was still unhappy about not having a new drainfield in place, and felt that he had been defrauded. On August 4, 2014, Mr. Wescott filed a complaint with Albert Gray, the Environmental Manager at the Department. At the very end of his two-page letter, Mr. Wescott stated that the broken irrigation pipes have been repaired and the hole is still wide open with the tank cover exposed. The Department does not regulate the prices to be charged for repairs or installation of new systems: that is between the contractor and the homeowner. There is more involved to complete the job than the time that the workman is on the premises actually performing the repair. For example, in addition to the cost of the permit application, additional time is necessary to perform a site evaluation and soil test. Whether or not the drainfield must be replaced, the materials must be available to install should it be necessary, as well as the skilled workman and equipment (truck, backhoe, etc.). Further, it is clear that, had Respondents installed a new drainfield, the cost would have been much higher than what the Wescotts actually paid, not only to pay for the drainfield, but also to replace a large section of sod and a larger portion of the sprinkler system. Regardless of whether a new drainfield is installed, contractors are required to cover the OSTDS when they work on it. As a result of the Wescott’s complaint, Inspector Kataro went back out to the Wescott home to inspect the site. He found that the D-Box was lying open and exposed, with no earth covering the system. He took pictures of the area, which were admitted into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibits J and K. The pictures show two exposed sprinkler pipes, supported at one end by bricks. One picture shows a bucket positioned over the distribution box, while the other shows the box sealed but not covered. Mr. Kataro testified that the pictures look similar to what he saw when he inspected the property after the repair was completed in July 2014. However, he could not say whether the sprinkler system pipes were broken before, or whether the bricks supporting the pipes were there previously. The testimony is clear that, after the job was inspected, Mr. Wescott made repairs to the sprinkler system that would require the area to be uncovered and Mr. Wescott acknowledged that he placed the bricks under the sprinkler pipes. Mr. Kataro recalled that Mr. Blake had a backhoe on the premises at the time of repair, but Mr. Kataro left the site before the area would have been covered. There is credible testimony that Mr. Blake covered the area and credible testimony that he did not. Other evidence presented is more consistent with a finding that the area was covered, at least minimally. The equipment for covering the area was by all accounts on site, and Mr. Blake used that equipment to remove sod for Mr. Wescott. It makes little sense for him to use the equipment to remove the sod but not use it for covering the D-Box and surrounding area. Moreover, had Mr. Blake covered the area, it would have to be uncovered to fix the sprinkler pipes. The Department did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Blake, as an agent of Respondents, failed to cover the D-box. Respondent Crescenzo happened to be at the Department on August 14, 2014, picking up permits when he learned of the complaint from Mr. Wescott. He was very upset about the complaint and immediately wrote a response while still at the Department. In his response, he denied stating that the drain field would definitely be replaced, and emphasized that by repairing the pipe leading to the D-Box the homeowner saved a substantial amount of money, including not only the cost of installing the drain field, but the re-sodding of his yard and more substantial repair of his sprinkler system. Although clearly unhappy about the complaint, Respondent Crescenzo stated, “If the homeowner wants the system just replaced they should have said that at the time of the job. Or we could still do it if they insist for the original agreed price.” Mr. Wescott has not elected to accept Respondents’ offer. In his response, Crescenzo also referred to “jetting,” but used it in the same informal manner as Mr. Blake. His informal reference did not change the unrebutted testimony regarding the scope of work performed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of May, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of May, 2015.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 64E-6.022(1)(b)2., 64E-6.022(1)(d), and 64E-6.022(1)(p) by repairing an onsite sewage disposal system without a permit, resulting in missed inspections, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with enforcing the statutory and regulatory provisions pertaining to the practice of septic tank installations and repairs in Florida. See § 381.0065(3), Fla. Stat. (2003). Repair of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems must be performed under the supervision and control of a registered septic tank contractor. Respondent is the qualifying registered septic tank contractor for All Florida Septic Tank Service, Inc., having been issued the registration number SR00011389. Respondent has 15 years of experience in the field of septic system construction and repair. The qualifying registered septic tank contractor for Simmons Septic and Tractor Service, Inc., is Joey Wayne Simmons. The qualifying registered septic tank contractor for AA Septic Tank Service, Inc., is Billy Wayne Joyner. However, Mr. Simmons, Mr. Joyner, and Respondent work closely together, sometimes working together on a job and/or acting as the qualifying registered septic tank contractor on each other's behalf. On September 2, 2003, the septic disposal system at the residence of Jack Young was not functioning properly. Mr. Young contracted with one of the above-referenced septic tank services to repair the system. On September 2, 2003, Respondent and another employee of All Florida Septic Tank Service, Inc., along with two employees from AA Septic Tank Service, Inc., went to Mr. Young's residence to repair Mr. Young's onsite sewage disposal system. No one applied for a permit to make any repairs to Mr. Young's system. With Respondent acting as the registered septic tank contractor, the men used a backhoe to dig up the septic tank, which was buried three feet in the ground. Respondent then repaired the pump and ran a new one and one-quarter force main line to the existing header because the old line had been compromised by roots. Respondent also cleaned roots from inside the distribution box. Respondent then sealed the tank and directed the men to cover it up. No one called Petitioner's local office, the Duval County Health Department, to request an inspection of the repair before covering the tank. The work on Mr. Young's septic system involved the replacement of an effluent transmission line. It required a permit because it constituted more than a minor repair to the pump and distribution box. Respondent should not have performed the work without a permit from the Duval County Health Department. Because there was no permit, there was no request for inspection by the Duval County Health Department. When the work was completed, Mr. Young gave Respondent a check in the amount of $1,000, payable to Mr. Simmons. The check reflected payment for repair to the filter bed, otherwise known as the drainfield. Respondent indicated his receipt of the check by signing the AA Septic Tank Service, Inc.'s Daily Truck Log and Maintenance Report. In February 2004, Mr. Young's septic system began to fail once again due to root blockage in the lines. Respondent advised Mr. Young that a permit would be required in order to make any further repairs. Mr. Young refused to pull a permit or to pay for any additional costs. On February 17, 2004, Mr. Young contacted Petitioner to report the failure of his system's drainfield. On February 18, 2004, Petitioner's inspector confirmed that Mr. Young's drainfield had failed and was causing a sanitary nuisance. During the hearing, Respondent admitted that there are no disputed issues of material facts in this case. He stated that he agreed with everything. However, he did not agree that the work he performed for Mr. Young required a permit from and inspections by Petitioner's Duval County Health Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order, finding that Respondent violated the standards of practice and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Catherine R. Berry, Esquire Department of Health 515 West Sixth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32206-4311 James L. Smith All Florida Septic Tank Service, Inc. 8300 West Beaver Street Jacksonville, Florida 32220 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Timothy M. Cerio, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. John A. Agwunobi, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Whether, and to what extent, petitioner should be authorized to increase the water and sewer rates it charges its customers.
Findings Of Fact I. The Utility and its Application The Utility, a wholly owned subsidiary of Gulfstream Land and Development Corporation, owns and operates water and sewer systems serving residents of "Jacaranda Community," a development located within the city limits of Plantation, Florida. The Utility's water treatment plant uses a lime- softening process; its sewage treatment plant uses a contact stabilization mode. During the test year ending September 30, 1980, the Utility supplied water service to an average of 3,162 residential, 662 general service, and 14 private fire-line customers; during the same period it supplied sewer service to an average of 3,162 residential and 276 general service customers. By its February 5, 1981, application, the Utility alleged that it was authorized a rate of return of 9.87 percent, yet during the test year it earned only a 7.20 percent rate of return on its water rate base, and a 6.58 percent return on its sewer rate base. It proposed new rates which would generate $1,271,841 in water operating revenues and $1,381,401 in sewer operating revenues--constituting a rate of return of not less than 12.42 percent. (Testimony of Fabelo; Petitioner's application dated January 30, 1981, R-4.) II. The Elements of Rate-Making In setting utility rates, the Commission must determine: (1) rate base; 2/ (2) the cost of providing the service, including debt interest, working capital, maintenance, depreciation, tax, and operating expenses; (3) a fair return on the rate base; and (4) the quality of service provided. If the Utility is providing service of acceptable quality, it is entitled to rates which will produce revenues sufficient to cover its reasonable costs of operation and allow it an opportunity to earn a fair return on its rate base. There are three major issues in this case: two involve the determination of rate base and the other involves whether several Utility expenditures should be expensed or capitalized. These issues are addressed below with the the appropriate rate-making element. Rate Base The two issues involving rate base are: (1) what portion of the Utility's sewer treatment plant is used and useful in the public service; and what method should be used to calculate working capital allowance. Used and Useful Plant A public utility is entitled to a return only on Utility property which is "used and useful in the public service." 3/ At hearing, the Utility contended that 100 percent of its sewage treatment plant was used and useful; the Commission contended that the correct figure was 76 percent. 4/ The Utility's contention is accepted as more credible because it is based on a professional engineering analysis of actual wastewater flows through the sewage treatment plant during the test year and eight months thereafter. In contrast, the Commission's contention is based on application of a formula which relates total rated capacity of a plant to the number of Equivalent Residential Connections 5/ ("ERCs") it is capable of serving. Here, actual must prevail over theoretical fact. The Utility's sewage treatment plant has a rated capacity of 2.5 million gallons per day ("MGD"). During the test year, average daily flows, calculated monthly, fluctuated between 63.6 percent and 75.2 percent of the rated capacity; the average three-day peak flow, calculated monthly, ranged from 73.2 percent to 86.4 percent of capacity; and one-day peak flows ranged from 74.4 percent to 87.2 percent of capacity. During the eight months following the test year, sewage flow steadily increased. The greatest flow was during February, a relatively dry month; average daily flow was 2.20 MGD, 88 percent of rated capacity; the average three-day peak flow was 98.8 percent of capacity; and the peak flow day was 100.4 percent of capacity. If, on that peak flow day, the plant had only 76 percent of its present capacity, sewage would have overflowed the plant. The parties agree 6/ that a margin of reserve or allowance for growth of approximately 24 percent should be used in calculating the Utility's used and useful plant; they also agree that the Utility's future growth in ERCs is expected to range from 700 to 800 ERCs a year. The Commission argues that the 24 percent growth allowance should be added to average ERCs during the test year, and not to actual February, 1981, flows. This argument is unpersuasive. The test year period is a tool for predicting conditions which will exist during the period in which the new rates will be effective; rates are set prospectively, for the future--not the past. Thus, rates must take into account known changes and conditions occurring subsequent to the test year in order to accurately reflect conditions expected for the future. Here, the Utility's actual sewage flows indicate that 100 percent of its existing plant is used and useful and necessary to satisfy the immediate and anticipated future needs of its customers. In an attempt to rebut or overcome the effect of the sewage plant's actual flow conditions, the Commission contends that the sewage system is experiencing ground water infiltration of sufficient magnitude to cast doubt on the use of total flow figures. However, the infiltration does not exceed the amount which is ordinarily planned for in constructing sewage treatment plants. Infiltration which will continue to take place--despite the Utility's best efforts to ameliorate it--cannot be separated from the wastewater stream. Since the plant must be capable of handling the combined flow, including infiltration, total flow figures must be considered. The Commission also contends that the system is not 100 percent used and useful because it can serve more connections. This contention is inconsistent with the acknowledged requirement that a sewage treatment plant must be capable of accepting increased sewage flows reasonably anticipated in the near future. That is the purpose of including an allowance for growth in the used and useful calculation. Lastly, the Commission contends that the Utility's failure to consult with Department of Environmental Regulation officials about future plant expansion is inconsistent with its 100 percent used and useful claim. But the Utility, recognizing its present limits and future needs, has actively pursued an interlocal agreement which will allow it to pump approximately 700,000 GPD to Broward County's regional sewage facility. The agreement is in its final stages and approval is eminent. (Testimony of Ring, Farina, Walden; P-1, p-2, R-1.) Cash Working Capital Allowance Cash working capital is the amount of investors' supplied cash needed to operate a utility during the interval between rendition of service and receipt of payment from the customers. By including it in rate base, a utility is allowed to earn a return on this portion of its investment. A utility's working capital requirements may be calculated by using: a standardized formula; (2) the utility's balance sheet; or (3) a lead-lag study. Until June, 1981, the Commission routinely used the formula approach; working capital was calculated by multiplying 12.5 percent (equivalent to one- eighth of a year) times the utility's annual adjusted operations and maintenance expenses. This method is also facilitated by Commission Rule 25- 10.176(2)(a)2.g., Florida Administrative Code which requires that water and sewer rate adjustment applications include a schedule showing: g. Allowance for working capital (1/8 of annual operations and maintenance expenses for the test year.) Id. In this case--consistent with the Commission's rule and custom--the Utility seeks a working capital allowance derived by using the standard Commission formula. However, the Commission seeks to use, instead, the balance sheet approach--an approach which it contends is more precise than the standard formula and results in a closer correlation between the Utility's rate base and its capital structure. The Commission's contention is accepted as persuasive. Under the balance sheet method, working capital allowance is the difference between a utility's current assets and current liabilities. Thus, the working capital component of rate base is derived, by simple adjustments, from a utility's balance sheet; it originates in the balance sheet's capital structure, just as do the other components of rate base. In comparison, the formula approach originates from a utility's income statement, i.e., one-eighth of its annual operating and maintenance expenses. The one-eighth factor equates to a 45-day lag--a period of time assumed to cover the lapse between the rendering of service and payment by the customer. But this assumption, while generally useful, may not accurately depict the working capital requirement of a given utility. In this case, the balance sheet approach is a more precise method for determining the Utility's working capital requirements. The Utility poses two objections to calculating working capital allowance by the balance sheet method: (1) it deviates from the Commission's prior practice in water and sewer rate cases, and (2) it may result in a negative allowance when a utility has insufficient cash to pay its current bills; thus a utility in greatest need of working capital would receive the least allowance. As to the objection that the balance sheet method represents a departure from past practice, the Commission has flexibility to expand, refine, and alter its policy through individual case decisions provided its action is explained and justified by record evidence. 7/ The Commission has not, by rule, limited that flexibility. Rule 25-10.176(2)(a)2.g. only requires applicants for rate adjustments to show their working capital requirements by applying the formula method; it does not preclude the Commission or utilities from using an alternative method more suitable to the facts of a given case. For example, it is generally recognized that, if a lead-lag study is conducted, it will prevail over the formula method. The Utility's second objection (that a cash-poor utility receives a lesser working capital allowance), is based on a hypothetical case and has no application to the facts here; the Utility has sufficient current assets and the balance sheet method results in a positive working capital allowance. This finding in favor of the balance sheet method is based on the evidence presented; its effect is thus necessarily limited to this case. Should the Commission--in future cases--advocate the balance sheet method, as opposed to the formula method, it must again explain and justify its position, insofar as possible, by conventional proof. 8/ Unless its policy is adopted by rule, an agency must repeatedly establish and defend it. 9/ The other components of the Utility's rate base, as adjusted, are not in dispute. Water and sewer rate base are therefore $3,369,160 and $4,099,887, respectively, and are depicted below: RATE BASE Test Year Ending September 30, 1900 Water Sewer Utility Plant in Service $5,919,833 $9,210,212 Utility Plant Held for Future Use (145,384) (644,429) Construction Work in Progress 265,300 -0- Accumulated Depreciation (616,835) (954,300) Contributions in Aid of Construction--Net (2,293,690) (3,579,118) Working Capital Allowance 39,936 59,522 Materials and Supplies -0- -0- TOTAL $3,369,160 $4,099,887 (Testimony of Davis, Asmus; P-6, R-2, R-3.) Net Operating Income The Commission opposes several operation, maintenance, and depreciation expenses which the Utility proposes to include in the test year statement of operations. The Hardy Gross Analysis The Hardy Cross Analysis is a computer analysis of the entire water distribution system. It indicates loss of pressure, balances water flows, and determines residual pressure at the end points of the system. It is a useful and necessary informational tool in designing additions to water distribution systems: it allows the designer to properly size new pipes added to the system. Growth, such as that experienced by the Utility, requires that such an analysis be updated at least once a year. The parties do not dispute the value of such an analysis, its cost, or the necessity for its actual updating. They dispute only who should bear the cost: the existing rate-payers or the developers which require and benefit from the continued expansion of the water system. It is concluded that the recurring cost of updating the Hardy Cross Analysis should be borne by developers, and, indirectly, the future customers who are the primary beneficiaries of the annual updating; without the growth associated with new developments, the annual updating of the Hardy Gross Analysis would be unnecessary. It would be unfair to require existing customers to pay for services--through higher rates--which they do not require and from which they receive no significant benefit. (Testimony of Farina, Walden.) Review of City of Plantation Utility Standards In 1969, the City of Plantation, where the Utility's water and sewer systems are located, enacted an ordinance containing detailed technical standards governing the construction of water and sewer systems. Historical experience has indicated that the standards incorporated in the ordinance require annual review, and periodic revision; the Utility's participation in that process is reasonably necessary to its continued efficient operation. A necessary expense of $1,000 should be allowed and charged as an operation expense to each system--water and sewer. (Testimony of Farina.) Diesel Fuel On June 16, 1980--during the last quarter of the test year--the Utility installed two auxiliary power units which utilize diesel fuel. Since the two power units were not in service during the entire test year, the Utility seeks to annualize the cost of the diesel fuel consumed during the 3 1/2-month period and include it as a recurring operating expense. 10/ The Commission opposes annualizing the fuel costs on the ground that sufficient documentation was not presented by the Utility to justify the actual consumption of fuel by the power units and establish that such consumption represented normal operation of the Utility, i.e., that it is reasonably expected that such annual consumption will repeatedly occur in the future. The Commission's contention is accepted as persuasive. The Utility has the burden of supporting its claimed expenses with adequate documentation. 11/ Here, no evidence was presented to establish the actual periods of operation of the auxiliary generators or the conditions under which they were used; nor were rated consumption of fuel figures supplied. The alternate treatment suggested by the Commission--amortize initial diesel fuel fill-up cost over three years, placing one-third of it in expense and adding the other two-thirds to materials and supplies 12/ --is a reasonable method of treating the fuel expenditures. (Testimony of Davis, Walden, Asmus; R-2, R-3.) Amortization of Legal Expense Relating to Proposed CIAC Rules The Utility contends that the Commission is contemplating further CIAC 13/ rule making thus necessitating the expenditure of recurring legal expenses in the total amount of $778. However, although the Commission is now considering the adoption of CIAC rules, recurring revisions in the future are not reasonably expected. In the last ten years, the Commission has had one rule docket pertaining to CIAC rule making. Amortization of this expense is therefore unjustified. (Testimony of Davis.) Adjustment for Increased Chemical Costs Because of escalating costs of chemicals, the Utility proposes to adjust the water and sewer chemicals account by applying June, 1981, prices to the quantity of chemicals consumed during the test year. The Commission opposes the proposed adjustment, contending that the Utility's new lime-feeding equipment will result in lower lime costs. The Utility's adjustments 14/ are accepted as credible; since a new Zeolite treatment plant will soon be coming on-line, it is reasonably expected that lime requirements, associated with the water-softening process, will--if anything--increase. (Testimony of Farina, Davis, Asmus; R-6.) Maintenance Expenses: Amortization of Post Test-Year Gearbox Repairs The Utility proposes to include in sewer maintenance expense amortization of the cost of a gearbox repair incurred subsequent to the test year. The Commission proposes to amortize--for three to five years--all major repairs incurred during the test year. The Utility has not amortized such extraordinary repairs during each of the last five years; it contends that such historical amortization is necessary to arrive at a representative figure for extraordinary repair on an on-going basis, that the Commission cannot begin--for the first time--to amortize such repairs during the test year. The Utility proposes to simply adjust sewer maintenance expense by $3,386--an admittedly rough estimate. The Utility's accountant admits: It would be a lot more exact to go back five years and apply it [amortization of extraordinary repairs] down the line. . .but that's very time-consuming. (Tr. 192.) It is undisputed that the Utility--to properly account for extraordinary maintenance repairs--should amortize such expenses through the expected life of the repairs. The Utility has not done so to repairs incurred during the last five years. The substitution of an "estimate" of expected future repair costs for a preferable and more exact accounting method is unacceptable and should be rejected. (Testimony of Davis, Asmus.) Depreciation Expense The finding, infra, paragraph A(1) that the Utility's sewer plant is 100 percent used and useful necessarily requires an adjustment to the Commission's proposed depreciation expense. The adjustment increases depreciation, for sewer operations, by $11,897. (Testimony of Asmus; R-6.) The net operating income which a utility should be allowed the opportunity to earn is reached by multiplying rate base by a fair rate of return. 15/ Operating expense and taxes (income and gross receipts tax) are then added to net operating income to calculate gross revenue requirements. In this case, the Utility's net operating income should be $414,743 from water operations and $504,696 from sewer operations. Before gross revenue requirements can be determined, operating expense and taxes should be recalculated consistent with the above findings; such recalculation should be conducted by the Commission, verified by the Utility, and included as part of the Commission's final order entered in this proceeding. Rate Structure, Allocation, and Rate Design The Utility's present rates are structured in accordance with what is commonly referred to as the base facility rate design. The purpose of this design is to require customers to pay their pro rata share of the Utility's cost of providing the service. It is objectively determined and results in an equitable and consistent distribution of the costs involved. Both parties agree that the new rates should also be structured in accordance with the base facility rate design. However, the new rates should eliminate the present 25 percent rate differential between commercial and residential rates--a differential that has not been justified and which the Utility no longer seeks to impose. Motorola, Inc., a large industrial customer of the Utility, requested more favorable rate treatment because of the large volume of water it consumes. However, insufficient cost of service information was submitted to justify a "volume discount." A cost of service study is necessary to accurately allocate costs of service among customer classes. (Testimony of Fabulo, Asmus; R-4.) Quality of Service Several customers complained that the Utility's water had offensive color and taste. Eight complaints were filed with the Broward County Health Department during 1980. However, the preponderance of evidence establishes that the Utility's water and sewer systems are in compliance with local and state standards. Neither system is under any citation or enforcement action instituted by a regulatory agency. The quality of the water and sewer service provided is, therefore, determined to be satisfactory. (Testimony of Farina, Walden; P-11)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Utility be authorized to file rate tariffs consistent with the provisions of this Recommended Order. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 21st day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of August, 1981.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Health (Department or DOH) should fine the Petitioner, Jeffery Benefield, $500 and require him to move the drainfield of his onsite sewage disposal system so that no part of it is within ten feet of the potable water line of his neighbors, the Intervenors, Robert and Wanda Schweigel.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner's home at 10920 Lake Minneola Shores Road (Lake County Road 561-A) was built in 1977. It included an onsite septic tank and drainfield sewage disposal system. On March 31, 2003, the Petitioner personally applied for a permit to repair his existing sewage disposal system by replacing the drainfield. His application did not identify any potable water lines. Department personnel evaluated the site and calculated system specifications, and the Department issued a construction permit on April 3, 2003, based on the estimated size of the existing system. To replace the existing drainfield and meet specifications, 375 square feet of drainfield was required. However, the Petitioner wanted to add 125 square feet to what was required by the specifications, which is acceptable so long as required setbacks are maintained. The Petitioner's drainfield was replaced by a licensed contractor on April 29, 2003. Some work may have been done the following day to complete the job, but it appears that the contractor called for the final inspection on April 29, 2003. On inspection, it was clear that the new drain line closest and (like the other three) parallel to the property line was less than ten feet from a water line, riser, and spigot on the neighboring property, which was owned by Robert and Wanda Schweigel. Specifically, the closest of the new drain lines was estimated to be just five feet from the Schweigels' water line, riser, and spigot. (The next closest was just under ten feet from the Schweigels' water line, riser, and spigot.) As a result, the Department disapproved the installation. The Petitioner disputed the disapproval, initially contending that the Schweigels' water line, riser, and spigot did not convey potable water. It was decided that the new drainfield should be covered while pending a decision as to whether the water line was potable. By the end of July 2003, the Department decided that the Schweigels' water line was indeed potable. In that approximate time frame, the Petitioner's contractor offered to pay to have the Schweigels' water line "sleeved" to a distance at least ten feet from the nearest portion of the Petitioner's drainfield.2 He believed that solution would be much simpler and less costly than moving the Petitioner's drainfield to a distance at least ten feet from any part of the Schweigels' potable water line. This alternative was presented to the Schweigels in that approximate timeframe, but they refused (and continue to refuse.) In August 2003, the Petitioner took the position that, regardless whether the Schweigels' water line was potable, the Petitioner's new drainfield was in the same location as the existing drainfield, and the part of the water line closest to the new drainfield (i.e., the part including the riser and spigot) was not there until after the middle of April 2003 and was recently installed either just before or while the Petitioner's new drainfield was being installed. The evidence was not clear as to the configuration and precise location of the drain lines in the Petitioner's original drainfield. However, it appears to have had three drain lines emanating from the septic tank, starting in the direction of the Schweigels' property and then curving away in the direction of Lake Minneola, which is behind the Petitioner's and the Schweigels' properties, before terminating. The replacement drainfield had pipe emanating from the septic tank and running towards the Schweigels' property line before making a 90-degree turn towards the lake before connecting to the middle of a header pipe. Connecting to the header pipe are four equally-spaced drain lines, one on either end of the header pipe and two in between, that are perpendicular to the header pipe and parallel to each other and to the Schweigels' property line (and potable water line) and run towards the lake. As indicated, it was not clear from the evidence precisely where all of the old drain lines were located, or how close they got to the Schweigels' property (and potable water line.) However, it does not appear that they got as close as two of the four new drain lines in the replacement system. See Petitioner's Exhibits 13 and 21. There was conflicting evidence as to when the Schweigels' potable water line was installed. It is clear from the evidence that there are now three "T's" off the water line from the potable water source near the street. One "T- off" leads to near the front corner of the house, one leads to the middle of the side of the house, and one leads to near the rear corner of the house. The line then extends past the last "T" to the location of the water riser and spigot. The Petitioner's evidence proved that the water line riser and spigot now within ten feet of the Petitioner's drainfield were not there either in May 1999 or on April 14, 2003. But the Schweigels maintained, and the evidence as a whole was persuasive, that the potable water lines currently in place were installed in 1996 or 1997, but were cut and moved to enable the Schweigels to install footers for construction of a concrete privacy wall in approximately 1999. After installation of the footers, the water line had to be moved several inches closer to the Schweigels' house when replaced, and the "T's" were reconnected to the line. In approximately April 2003, the water line riser and spigot were damaged (the evidence was not clear how) and had to be replaced. The evidence was that the Schweigels got a permit to build their privacy wall but did not get a permit for the plumbing work that was necessary in conjunction with the installation of the footers for the wall. Although it appears from the evidence that a plumbing permit was required, the Schweigels did not think a separate plumbing permit was necessary. It is not found that the Petitioner participated in this proceeding for an "improper purpose"--i.e., "primarily to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or for frivolous purpose or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation, licensing, or securing the approval of an activity."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order that the Petitioner pay a $500 fine and either: (1) pay the reasonable cost of having the Schweigels' potable water line "sealed with a water proof sealant within a sleeve of similar material pipe to a distance of at least 10 feet from the nearest portion of the system," so long as no portion of the Schweigels' potable water line "within 5 feet of the drainfield shall be located at an elevation lower than the drainfield absorption surface"; or (2) move or relocate his drainfield to meet the setback requirements of the current Rule 64E-6.005(2)(b). DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 2005.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) should grant the Petitioner's applications, filed under F.A.C. Rule 10D-6.045, for variances from the F.A.C. Rule 10D-6.046(1)(c) requirement that on-site treatment and disposal systems (OSTDS's) be placed no closer than 200 feet from public drinking water wells serving a facility with a sewage flow of more than 2,000 gallons per day (gpd).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Joseph DiGerlando, owns three lots (1, 2 and 26) in the San Remo subdivision in Hillsborough County, which was platted in 1977. There is a public water well located between lots 1, 2 and 26. The well serves the entire San Remo subdivision, a 55-lot residential development having a total sewage flow much greater than 2,000 gallons per day (gpd) (although the sewage flow from homes built on lots 1, 2 and 26 can be expected to total no more than approximately 1350 gpd.) There is no way for the Petitioner to construct an on-site sewage treatment disposal system (OSTDS) on each of the three lots so that no part of any OSTDS will be closer than 200 feet from the San Remo well, measured horizontally across the ground surface to the well head. Measuring horizontally across the ground surface to the well head: an OSTDS on lot 1 could be placed no farther than 156 feet from the well; an OSTDS on lot 2 could be placed no farther than 184 feet from the well; according to drawings in the Petitioners' application, an OSTDS on lot 26 could be placed no farther than approximately 185 feet from the well. (Although lot 26 is larger than the others, it is contiguous to a surface water body, and the required setback from the surface water body decreases the area available for siting an OSTDS on the lot. The evidence was not clear exactly how far an OSTDS on lot 26 would be from the San Remo well.) HRS concedes: (1) that requiring 200-foot setbacks from the San Remo well will place the Petitioner under a hardship that was not caused intentionally by his own actions; and (2) that no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of sewage on his lots 1, 2 and 26. (It is not clear how or why HRS determined that utilization of a joint OSTDS to serve all three lots through the imposition of cross-easements on the lots would not be a reasonable alternative to at least one or two of the variance applications.) The San Remo well, which is 400 feet deep, has a steel casing from the surface of the well to 100 feet below the ground surface. The steel casing prevents the entry of ground water into the well above the bottom of the casing. If the distances between the proposed OSTDS's and the San Remo well were measured diagonally, through the ground, from the proposed OSTDS's to the bottom of the steel casing of the well: the proposed OSTDS on lot 1 would be 185 feet from the well; the proposed OSTDS on lot 2 would be 209 feet from the well; and the proposed OSTDS on lot 26 would be even farther from the well. (The evidence was not clear exactly how much farther.) In fact, due to the draw-down effect of the well, the path groundwater would travel from the proposed OSTDS's to the bottom of the steel casing of the San Remo well would curve upward somewhat from, and be somewhat longer than, the diagonal line running directly between those two points. (The evidence is not clear exactly how much longer the curved path would be.) If the distances between the proposed OSTDS's and the San Remo well were measured first horizontally across the ground surface to the well head and then vertically down to the bottom of the steel casing of the well: the proposed OSTDS on lot 1 would be 253 feet from the well; the proposed OSTDS on lot 2 would be 281 feet from the well; and the proposed OSTDS on lot 26 would be even farther from the well. (Since the bottom of the OSTDS's will be three feet below the ground surface, the vertical component of the measurement is only 97 feet instead of the full 100 feet between the well head and the bottom of the casing.) When applying the HRS rules on distances required between OSTDS's and existing public water wells, HRS measures from the OSTDS horizontally across the ground surface to the well. The evidence was that HRS's method of measurement is consistent both with the methods used by the federal EPA and with the scientific data on which the technical advisory board based the distances in the HRS rules. The Petitioner's expert witness testified that there is a 17-foot thick layer of sand and clay between 53 and 70 feet below the ground surface in the vicinity of the San Remo well and that the sand and clay layer would prevent contamination from the OSTDS's from reaching the bottom of the steel casing of the well. (He also testified that is a white lime rock layer between 70 and 90 feet below the ground surface and inferred that the white lime rock layer would add some degree of protection.) The opinions of the Petitioner's expert are accepted. Petitioner's expert is a civil, sanitary and environmental engineer, not a geologist or hydrogeologist; however, his experience is in the area of wastewater treatment and disposal is extensive. Meanwhile, HRS presented no competent evidence whatsoever to contradict the Petitioner's expert. The Petitioner proposes to use Norweco Singulair Bio-Kinetic Waste Water Treatment Systems. These systems treat waste better than a standard septic tank system. Instead of the single septic tank, they have three distinct chambers: first, a retreatment chamber; second, an aeration chamber to reduce biological oxygen demand (BOD) and total dissolved solids (TDS); and, finally, a clarification or filter chamber that further reduces BOD and TDS. With the proposed systems, BOD and TDS will be reduced to approximately a fourth of the BOD and TDS levels that would enter the drainfield from a septic tank system. In addition, unlike in a septic tank system, the proposed systems utilize chlorine tablets in conjunction with the clarification chamber to kill bacteria and viruses. It is found that the evidence presented in this case, taken as a whole (and in particular in the absence of any competent evidence to contradict the credible opinions of the Petitioner's expert) was sufficient to prove that the proposed OSTDS's would not adversely affect the health of members of the public. Except for a fleeting reference in its Proposed Recommended Order, HRS has not taken the position that the Petitioner's proposed OSTDS's will significantly degrade the groundwater or surface waters. The reference in the Proposed Recommended Order would seem to reflect that HRS's concern about the impact of the Petitioner's proposed OSTDS's on groundwater quality is limited to its public health concerns.
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 granting the Petitioner's applications for variances, on the condition that the Petitioner utilizes the proposed Norweco Singulair Bio- Kinetic Waste Water Treatment Systems. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of June, 1995, 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 30th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-6483 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted but conclusion of law, subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. 3.-6. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as to "significantly degrade the groundwater or surface waters"; HRS did not make this an issue, except with respect to public health concerns. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. However, accepted that HRS presented no evidence sufficient to support a finding on the issue. See Section 120.58(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1994). Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as to "relevant criteria"; not proven and as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted but conclusion of law, subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. 3.-7. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as contrary to facts found and as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (As found, HRS did not contend that the Petitioner's OSTDS's would "significantly degrade the groundwater or surface waters." HRS only raised this issue with respect to public health concerns.) 10.-12. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (These were hearsay statements that were not sufficient to support findings as to the matters asserted. See Section 120.58(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1994).) COPIES FURNISHED: Raymond R. Deckert, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 4000 W. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33614 Nelson D. Blank, Esquire Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin Frye, O'Neill & Mullis, P.A. 2700 Barnett Plaza 101 E. Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33601-1102 Robert L. Powell Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Kim Tucker, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
