The Issue The issues are whether the Consent Order entered into between the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) and Kenneth Acre (Acre) is an appropriate settlement of the violations addressed therein and whether Acre is entitled to construction permit number IC35-190005 for an Industrial Waste Disposal Facility. The Bradys assert that the Consent Order is not a reasonable exercise of DER's enforcement discretion and that the permit should be denied.
Findings Of Fact Background Acre owns and operates an animal research facility in Eustis, Florida. Acre performs research trials on dogs using a USDA approved heartworm medication sold under the brand name of Heartguard, the chemical name of which is ivermectin. Acre is not in the business of testing or manufacturing new drugs. The Consent Order To handle the waste generated by the animals at the facility, Acre initially constructed a conventional septic tank system. Prior to construction, Acre contacted the Lake County health department to inquire about permitting and was told that he did not need a permit for his facility. With that information, he continued with the project. Subsequently, DER became aware of the facility and notified Acre that a DER industrial waste permit was required and that he should cease the discharge into the septic tank until such a permit was obtained. Acre complied with DER's instructions and plugged the septic tanks. Since the time the septic tanks were plugged, the waste has been collected by Roto Rooter on a periodic basis and disposed of offsite. Acre entered into a Consent Order with DER to resolve the alleged past violation for not obtaining a permit and paid of penalty of $600 as required by DER. The Consent Order is a reasonable and appropriate settlement of the violations alleged therein. The Disposal System Acre has applied for a permit to construct and operate an evapotranspiration disposal system to dispose of the waste from his facility on site. The proposed system is essentially a modified septic tank system using a lined drainfield to capture and hold the liquid waste, allowing it to transpire from the grass or otherwise evaporate into the atmosphere and preventing any discharge to groundwater. The waste will be discharged to a series of modified septic tanks which will provide treatment beyond that of a traditional septic tank system and will reduce the amount of total suspended solids. The first septic tank accepts the waste and provides initial treatment through natural settling of solids. The waste then passes through a filter device and travels by gravity flow to the second septic tank. From the second tank it flows through a second filter device and into a dosing tank. The dosing tank is basically a small holding basin with a pump that disperses the waste to the drainfield in incremental amounts. The dosing tank contains several float mechanisms which monitor the level of liquid in the tank. When the water level in the dosing tank reaches a certain level, one such float mechanism turns on the pump to transport the liquid to the drainfield. The waste is then pumped from the dosing tank through a closed pipe to one of two evapotranspiration cells where it is distributed through a number of perforated pipes. The Evapotranspiration Cells The perforated pipes are situated in a gravel bed approximately 24 inches in depth. On top of the gravel bed is a clay soil mix approximately 15 inches deep. The clay soil mix absorbs the liquid waste in the gravel bed by drawing it up through the process of capillarity. Once the liquid is in the upper clay soil layer, it is evaporated. Grass is planted on top of the soil mix as an additional method for dissipation of the waste. The liquid waste is absorbed by the roots of the grass and transpired through the grass leaves. The clay soil mix in the top layer of the system is relatively impervious. The impervious nature of the soil mix along with a three percent surface slope will prevent rain water from entering the evapotranspiration cells and impacting the effective operation of the system. The entire drainfield has a double liner: one PVC plastic liner and a 6" clay layer. These two liners will ensure that no discharge to groundwater will occur from the system. System Capacity It is estimated that the Acre facility will produce approximately 520 gallons per day (GPD) of waste to be handled by the system. The drainfield is designed to handle twice the volume that will be discharged by the Acre facility and is therefore more than adequate to assimilate the waste received into the system. The drainfield is composed of two independent cells so that loading of each cell will be rotated. Once one cell receives its maximum capacity, the loading of that cell will cease in order to allow that cell to assimilate the waste through evapotranspiration. In this manner, the first cell is permitted to "rest" while the second cell receives further loading from the dosing tank. Safety Features Although the proposed disposal system is innovative in design, it incorporates several safety features which will ensure that no overflow of waste will occur. First, a float mechanism in the dosing tank is designed to trigger an alarm in the event the water level in the dosing tank gets too high. If that occurs, the alarm provides a flashing light as well as a horn which will notify the operator of a problem. Once the float reaches this warning level, the system will automatically shut down, thus preventing further waste from entering the system. Second, each evapotranspiration cell is equipped with a similar device which will automatically close off the dosing tanks and prevent further discharge into the cells in the unlikely event the system were to become too saturated to accept further loading. Finally, the double lined drainfield provides an additional safety measure which will prevent any discharge to groundwater. The numerous permit conditions requiring periodic monitoring of water quantity and quality in the system itself as well as the groundwater in the vicinity of the system provide ample assurance that the system will not pose a threat to the state's water resources. Ivermectin Although the proposed system will not discharge to groundwater, DER required the applicant to determine the amount of ivermectin in the wastestream. Ivermectin binds tightly to soil and does not dissolve in water. A sample of the wastestream from the Acre facility was collected by Bionomics Laboratory, Inc., and analyzed by Analytical Development Corporation using the analytical procedure designed by Merck scientists. The results of this analysis show that the concentration of ivermectin in the Acre wastestream ranges from .6 to 6.1 parts per trillion (ppt). The publication submitted to the Department by Acre entitled, Chapter 11, "Environmental Aspects of Ivermectin Usage in Livestock: General Considerations" by Halley, Nessel and Lu, from William C. Campbell, Ivermectin and Abamectin, documents the results of studies designed to determine whether using ivermectin in animals would result in any harmful or undesirable effects on the environment through excretion in the feces. This publication indicates that: Ivermectin is relatively immobile in soil and will not readily translocate into groundwater. Ivermectin is rapidly decomposed by sunlight and therefore will not accumulate in soil when administered to livestock. Ivermectin has no effect on earthworms at a concentration in soil of 12 parts per million (ppm). (This concentration is approximately two million times higher than that of the Acre waste stream.) Aquatic organisms such as water fleas and fish are highly sensitive to ivermectin toxicity. However, ivermectin is not toxic to the most sensitive species, the Daphnia magna, at a concentration of 0.01 parts per billion (ppb). Ivermectin concentrations in cattle feedlot runoff was less than the no-effect level of 0.01 ppb for Daphnia magna and therefore should cause no adverse environmental effects in surface or subsurface waters. The highest concentration of ivermectin found in the Acre waste stream is 6.1 ppt (or .006 ppb), which is less than the 0.01 ppb non-toxic level for the most sensitive aquatic species. Based on the concentration of ivermectin found in the Acre waste stream and the fact that ivermectin binds tightly to soil, the discharge from the Acre facility would not cause any adverse environmental impact, even if it were discharged to groundwater. Bradys' case Bradys submitted no evidence to show that the Consent Order is not an appropriate settlement of the violations alleged therein. They submitted no evidence that the septic tanks were improperly plugged. Brady offered no expert testimony in support of their claim that the facility had caused an adverse impact to groundwater or that the proposed system would cause any threat to groundwater quality. Bradys apparent concern about standing surface water on their property during heavy rainfalls is not relevant to this proceeding. Their concern that the lining of the drainfield could leak is unsupported by competent evidence. Bradys learned immediately prior to hearing that DER had changed its position and intended to issue the permit. Their failure to present any relevant evidence that the Consent Order was insufficient or that the proposed facility would violate any applicable DER rules or criteria and their ill- prepared participation in the hearing was in part the result of DER's late change in position. Bradys' participation in this proceeding was not shown to be frivolous.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order and therein: Ratify the terms of the Consent Order as reasonable. Grant Acre construction permit number IC35-190005 for an Industrial Waste Disposal Facility, subject to the special conditions set forth in DER Exhibit 1. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 22nd day of July, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NOS. 91-2608, 92-0958 AND 92-0959 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioners, Bradys 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 6 & 7(8) and 15(10). 2. Proposed findings of fact 1-5, 16, 27, 28, 31, 36-42, 44, 46-49, 51, 52, 54, 57-59, 61, and 62 are subordinate to the facts actually found in the Recommended Order. 3. Proposed findings of fact 8, 10-14, 17, 19-21, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 43, 53, 55, and 56 are irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 9, 18, 22-25, 45, and 50 are unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 34 and 60 are unsupported by the competent and substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondents, Acre and DER Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-44(1-44). Proposed findings of fact 45 and 46 are unsupported by the competent and substantial evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Carlyn H. Kowalsky, Attorney at Law Bogin, Munns & Munns 250 North Orange Avenue 11th Floor-P.O. Box 2807 Orlando, FL 32802 Douglas MacLaughlin, Attorney at Law Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Martha Hunter Formella Attorney at Law FOLEY & LARDNER Post Office Box 2193 Orlando, FL 32802-2193 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 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
The Issue Whether the objections of the City of Pembroke Pines and the Green Meadows Civic Association to South Broward Utility, Inc.'s, proposal to extend its water and sewer service area should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact South Broward Utility, Inc. (South Broward), is a corporation engaged in the business of providing water and wastewater service to the public in Broward County, Florida. That business is subject to regulation by the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC). South Broward's water and wastewater treatment facilities are located in the Town of Davie, and it currently provides water and sewer services to residents of that municipality. Included within the area of the Town of Davie currently served by South Broward are the lands bordered on the north by Sterling Road, the south by Sheridan Street, and the west by Dykes Road (S.W. 160th Avenue). On February 4, 11, and 18, 1989, South Broward published a notice of extension in the Florida Lauderdale News/Sun-Sentinel, a daily newspaper of general circulation published in Broward County, Florida, in accordance with Rule 25-30.030(2), Florida Administrative Code. The notice provided that South Broward would file an application with the PSC pursuant to Section 367.061, Florida Statutes, to amend its certificates of public convenience and necessity to allow South Broward to provide water and sewer service to the east half of Section 5, Township 51 South, Range 40 East, Broward County, Florida. Such area may commonly be described as those lands lying immediately west of Dykes Road to S.W. 166th Avenue, and from Stirling Road on the north to Sheridan Street on the south. On February 24, 1989, South Broward mailed a copy of the aforementioned notice to all local, county and state governmental agencies and all other persons required by Section 367.041(4), Florida Statutes, and Rule 25-30.030(2), Florida Administrative Code. Objections to the notice were filed with the PSC by the City of Pembroke Pines (Pembroke Pines) and the Green Meadows Civic Association (Green Meadows). In its objection, Pembroke Pines contended that it had invested over 30 million dollars to expand its municipal water and sewer service west to the Conversation Area from Sheridan Street on the north to Pembroke Road on the south, that this expansion project was anticipated to provide water and sewer service for its existing municipal boundaries as well as the area proposed to be served by South Broward, that it was preparing an annexation report for the proposed area, and that if South Broward's application were approved it would be precluded from servicing its own residents should annexation occur. At hearing, the proof demonstrated that Pembroke Pines had expanded its municipal water and sewer service such that its water and wastewater treatment plants and related facilities have adequate present capacity to meet the current and anticipated future water and wastewater needs in the disputed service area. The Pembroke Pines water lines are currently located on the south side of Sheridan Street, which street forms the southerly boundary of the disputed service area. Its wastewater treatment lines are, however, located approximately one and one-half miles south of Sheridan Street and would require several months and considerable expense to extend them to the disputed service area. Notably, however, no proof was offered that Pembroke Pines had any current intention to annex the disputed service area, or that it had otherwise evidenced any intent to, or taken any action to, provide service to the area. Green Meadows is an association of residents of this area of unincorporated Broward County, some of whom reside within the service area in dispute. The gravamen of Green Meadows' objection is its concern that sewer lines for a centralized sewer system would leak into its member's ground water supply, and that the increase in population density caused by a centralized water and sewer system would adversely affect the area's ecosystem. Neither Green Meadows nor Pembroke Pines contended, however, that the subject extension of service would violate any land use plan, zoning ordinance or other state or local law, and no credible proof was offered that, if built consistent with existent law, the sewer lines would adversely impact the ground water supply or ecosystem. Until recently, all of the lands lying in the disputed service area were located in unincorporated Broward County. However, in September 1988 a parcel of approximately 15 acres which abutted Dykes Road was annexed into the Town of Davie, and in May 1989 a parcel of approximately 80 acres, which abutted the previously annexed parcel on the east, Sterling Road on the north, and S.W. 166th Avenue on the west, was annexed into the Town of Davie. These lands comprise approximately 30 percent of the lands within the disputed service area, and it is the desire of the Town of Davie that water and sewer service to such lands be provided by South Broward. To date, South Broward has entered into a developer's agreement with the owner of the 80-acre parcel to provide such services, and is in the process of executing such an agreement with the owner of the 15-acre parcel. Pembroke Pines does not object to South Broward's expansion into these areas. As to the remaining acreage within the proposed service area, the owners of the vast majority of those lands have expressed a preference for South Broward to provide water and sewer service to their properties, and South Broward has expressed its desire and ability to provide such services. South Broward's water plant has an existing capacity of 500,000 gallons per day (GPD), and has sufficient capacity to address the current need for water service in the proposed area. Upon completion of its current expansion, which is anticipated in October 1989, South Broward's water plant will have a capacity of 1,250,000 GPD, and adequate capacity to address any future demand for water service in the proposed area. South Broward's wastewater treatment plant, with a capacity of 500,000 GPD, currently has sufficient capacity to satisfy the present and future demand for such services in the proposed area. An expansion of that plant is expected to be in service by 1991, which will double the plant's capacity and provide additional capacity. Currently, South Broward has water and sewer lines adequate to serve the proposed area in place, and located under Dykes Road at the eastern edge of the service area. Such lines are adequate to meet all present and anticipated future needs for such service in the area, and the water lines are adequate to provide fire protection to the area. South Broward has the present financial, managerial, operational, and technical ability to provide the present and anticipated needs for water and wastewater service in the proposed area, and the public interest will be best served by the extension of South Broward's water and wastewater systems to that area. Such expansion will not be in competition with or a duplication of any other system in the area.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the objections filed by Pembroke Pines and Green Meadows be denied. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of August 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of August, 1988. APPENDIX The proposed findings of fact filed by South Broward are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 1. Addressed in paragraph 3. Addressed in paragraph 4. Addressed in paragraph 5. 5-10. Addressed in paragraph 9. 11-14. Addressed in paragraphs 10-13. 15 & 16. Addressed in paragraphs 6 and 7. Addressed in paragraph 13. To the extent pertinent, addressed in paragraph 8. Addressed in paragraph 8. 20 & 21. Addressed in paragraph 13. The proposed findings of fact filed by the PSC are addressed as follows: 1 & 2. Addressed in paragraph 3. Addressed in paragraph 9. Addressed in paragraph 3, and paragraphs 2 and 3 of the conclusions of law. Addressed in paragraph 8. 6-12. Addressed in paragraphs 9-13. Addressed in paragraph 7. Addressed in paragraph 9. Addressed in paragraph 8. Addressed in paragraph 12. COPIES FURNISHED: Mitchell S. Kraft, Esquire Josias & Goren, P.A. 3099 East Commercial Boulevard Suite 200 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 32308 Deborah Simone, President Green Meadows Civic Association 5831 S.W. 162nd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33331 James L. Ade, Esquire Martin, Ade, Birchfiled & Mickler, P.A. 3000 Independent Square Post Office Box 59 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Randy Frier, Esquire Public Service Commission Fletcher Building 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0870 Mr. Steve Tribble, Director Records and Reporting Public Service Commission Fletcher Building 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0870 David Swafford, Executive Director Public Service Commission Room 116 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0870 Susan Clark General Counsel Public Service Commission Room 116 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0870
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's request for variance should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns a parcel of land in Palm Beach, County on which is housed Petitioner's paving and landscapping business and which is zoned for industrial use. Petitioner intends to install a manufactured building for use as an office. To provide sewage treatment for the bathroom of the office, Petitioner had a septic tank designed and applied for a septic tank permit which was denied as was its variance request. As a result of a complaint, Petitioner was inspected in August, 1988, by the Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resources Management and by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. Both inspections yielded citiations for soil contamination by oil and other hazardous waste. Petitioner represented that most of the infractions had been rectified by the date of the hearing in this matter and pledged full cooperation with the County and State rules. To oversee the operation of the business and assure that no further problems arose, Petitioner decided to establish its office on site. The closest sewage treatment plant is at full capacity and does not intend to provide service to the parcel in the near future. The adjoining properties are serviced by septic tanks. As such, the proof did not demonstrate that alternative methods of waste disposal were available to the site However, as part of its business operation, Petitioner does minor repair of its equipment on site and may include oil changes and other such services. Although Petitioner does not intend to pollute the groundwater and intends to use the proposed septic tank for office use only, the proof demonstrated that waste disposal into a septic tank from the maintenance and repair of its equipment could result in the disposition of prohibited hazardous waste into the groundwater. Further, the proof failed to demonstrate that the septic tank would be protected from use by those who handled the hazardous waste. Although the hardship, if any, caused by the denial of the variance was not caused by Petitioner and the proof failed to demonstrate reasonable alternatives of waste disposal, the potential for an adverse affect of the operation to the groundwater is great. Additionally, the proof failed to establish the ameliorating conditions of soil, water table or setback conditions or whether the property was platted prior to 1972. Accordingly, the denial of the variance was proper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the variance. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of July 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of July 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Hattie Parker 160 Toneypenna Drive Jupiter, Florida 33468 Peggy G. Miller, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 111 Georgia Avenue Third Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Fallschase is a special taxing district which was created by the Board of County Commissioners of Leon County, Florida, in Leon County Ordinance No. 75-6. The district contains approximately 620 acres and is located in the area of the intersection of U.S. Highway 90 and Buck Lake Road in Leon County, Florida. The Intervenors are corporations which are seeking to develop the Fallschase area into a residential community. Through its permit application, Fallschase is seeking authority to construct a 167,000 gallon per day sewage treatment plant which would serve the proposed development. The plant would be of the extended aeration type with tertiary filters. Effluent from the plant would be discharged into a Percolation pond system. The City of Tallahassee operates a sanitary sewer system which serves areas within the city limits, as well as many unincorporated areas of Leon County. Service is provided to the unincorporated areas of the county in accordance with a contract between the City and Leon County which was executed in 1973. No election has been conducted within Leon County to authorize the contract. The County has terminated the contract, but the termination will not be effective until November 12, 1980. The City's sanitary sewer system is a regional system in that it serves a broad area not limited by the political boundaries of the City. The City's system has operated under temporary permits issued by the Department for a number of years because it does not meet the Department's requirements for tertiary sewage treatment. The City's regional sewage treatment system is capable of providing service to Fallschase. A 10-inch sewage pipe known as the "Belle Meade" Line runs adjacent to Fallschase. If a pumping station were constructed, sewage from Fallschase could be pumped into the Belle Meade Line and eventually into the City's primary sewage lines for treatment at one of the City's treatment facilities. In accordance with its statutory responsibilities, the Department has adopted Rule 17-4.26, Florida Administrative Code, which relates to permit requirements for sewage works. As filed with the office of the Secretary of State, the rule provided as follows: No person shall operate, maintain, construct, alter, modify, or expand any sewage collection system, sewage disposal system or sewage treatment facilities without a current and valid permit from the Department, pursuant to the Provision of Chapter 17-6, Florida Administrative Code. The Department shall deny an appli- cation for a permit and refuse to issue a permit unless the sewage collection, treatment and disposal system will pro- vide adequate and effective treatment in accordance with the rules and regu- lations of the Department and unless the system will operate as part of a regional system if one exists or be capable of tying into a regional system should one be established. Applications for a permit under this section shall be in accordance with Part I, Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. (e.s.) As filed with the Secretary of State, the rule included a clear policy choice in favor of regionalization of sewage treatment systems. In accordance with its responsibilities, the office of the Secretary of State published the rule in the Florida Administrative Code. When the rule was published in the Code, the portion of the rule which is underlined in the above quote was omitted. The rule as published in the Code thus did not include a clear statement requiring regionalization, and does not make sense. This erroneous version of the rule has been published in the Florida Administrative Code for more than five years, and the error has been compounded in that the Department has utilized the Florida Administrative Code version of the rule in its official handouts. A citizen requesting a current copy of Rule 17-4.26 from the Department, or from the Secretary of State's office, would receive the erroneous rule. The error has been further compounded because the Department subsequently adopted a policy of evaluating applications for sewage treatment proposals without regard to whether hookups to a regional system were possible. This policy has been applied by the Department for at least three years in accordance with verbal and written instructions of the Department's then Secretary, Jay Landers. Additional language was later added to Rule 17-4.26 as follows: Except for regional treatment plants, as designated by approved metropolitan or basin plans, all permits for treat- ment plants shall be valid only until connection, according to an approved plan, can be made to regional facilities. Such connection shall be made within ninety (90) days of the scheduled date for connection as provided in the approved plan. This provision has no applicability to the City's treatment system because the City's system has never been approved as the metropolitan or basin clan by the Department. The City has contended that the sewage treatment plant proposed by Fallschase would result in violations of the Department's standards for nitrates in the groundwater in the area of the plant. Nitrates would be a constituent of the effluent which would be discharged from the proposed sewage treatment plant into percolation ponds. The engineer who has designed the proposed plant estimated that total nitrogen discharged into the percolation ponds would be approximately 20 milligrams per liter, or parts per million (p.p.m.). In extended aeration plants such as that proposed by Fallschase, a substantial portion of the nitrogen would be in the form of nitrates. The 20 p.p.m. estimate is high. The experience generally in north Florida has been that nitrogen concentrations would not exceed 10 p.p.m. in the effluent discharged into percolation ponds. Once the effluent is discharged into the ponds, a certain amount of nitrogen is removed during the settling process. As the effluent percolates through the subsoils into the groundwater, further nitrogen is removed. Estimates of nitrogen removal through these processes range from a low of 25 percent to a high of 75 percent. The groundwater below the proposed plant is classified as Class 1-B groundwater under the Department's rules. It is very unlikely that effluent reaching the groundwater would contain as much as 10 p.p.m. nitrates. Even if it did, mixing with the groundwater would cause an almost immediate dilution of nitrogen concentrations so that concentrations in the groundwater as high as 10 p.p.m. would be unlikely in the extreme. Many sewage treatment plants operate within the Department's northwestern region, which extends from Pensacola to Tallahassee. The Department monitors these plants. A violation of the Department's nitrate standards has never been observed in the region. Indeed, in the entire State of Florida, nitrate violations have been detected only in certain areas of Dade County. Testimony was presented by the City to the effect that chemical processes in percolation ponds can cause very drastic nitrate concentrations when the funds are intermittently flooded and drained. Such concentrations have been observed at one of the City's treatment plants. The City`s plant, however, is of a different sort than that proposed by Fallschase. The City's plant produces concentrations of nitrogen in ammonia compounds and utilizes intermittent drying and flooding of the percolation ponds as a part of its operation. Ammonia compounds will not be a major constituent of effluent placed in the Fallschase percolation ponds; and, furthermore, the ponds will not be intermittently flooded and drained in the manner that would cause such concentrations to develop. In its Notice of Intent to Issue the proposed permit, the Department indicated that sludge produced through the proposed treatment facility should be disposed of by hauling to a plant operated by the City. The City has indicated that it will not make its plant available for such disposal, and cotends that accordingly Fallschase has given no reasonable assurances that the sludge will be disposed of properly. The contention is without merit. Many alternatives exist for disposal of sludge. Fallschase has adequate area available to it for construction of sludge drying pits. Sludge can be hauled to many potential locations. Specific issues respecting sludge disposal can be addressed in the operating permit which would not be issued by the Department until it is established that the proposed plant can operate within the Department's rules and regulations. The soils which lie below the proposed percolation ponds are not of a highly permeable sort. To aid in the percolation of effluent through the ground into the groundwater, Fallschase proposes to construct two-foot diameter holes in the bottom of the percolation ponds. The holes would extend from 18 to 25 feet below the bottom of the percolation ponds. The holes would be filled with sand, and alternatingly coarse layers of gravel. The City has contended that these holes would constitute wells, and that they therefore would need to be permitted by the Department. This contention is without merit. These structures could fit loosely within the definition of a well, but their function is merely to aid in the percolation of effluent through the subsoils. They are not designed to inject effluent directly into the groundwater. These structures would constitute wells to the same extent that any drain field would constitute a well.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of discharging untreated septage at a site that Respondent was not permitted to use, in violation of Rule 10D-6.052(7)(b), Florida Administrative Code; and operating two septic pumping trucks, even though authorized to operate only one such vehicle, in violation of Rules 10D-6.052(2)(a) and 10D-6.052(1), Florida Administrative Code; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Since 1989, Respondent has been a registered septic tank contractor. Petitioner annually issues Respondent a separate permit to pump, transport, and dispose of septage. Petitioner or its predecessor has disciplined Respondent on two occasions. On November 15, 1994, Respondent paid a $500 fine after the issuance of an administrative complaint for discharging improperly treated septage, and, on August 19, 1996, Petitioner issued a final order imposing a $500 fine and 90-day suspension against Respondent for repairing a septic tank system without a permit. Respondent’s attempts to explain away these violations were unpersuasive. At the time in question, Respondent’s permits allowed him to operate only one truck in transporting septage--a 1988 Ford--and to discharge septage only at one location--Hunter Land Application Site. Respondent’s permits also required him to stabilize septage only at one location--A-1 Septic Tank Service’s Lime Stabilization Facility. On August 15, 1997, Respondent operated or caused to be operated the permitted 1988 Ford truck and another unpermitted truck for the purpose of receiving and transporting septage that Respondent had pumped from septic tanks. Respondent and one of his employees drove the loaded trucks to J. R. Brooks & Sons Ranch, where they landspread the septage that they had been transporting. They dumped at this site about 8000 gallons of raw septage containing condoms, tampons, vegetable matter, and other items of the type normally found in unscreened septage pumped from septic tanks and grease traps. Petitioner had not approved the J. R. Brooks site for discharge of septage pumped from septic tanks. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) had designated the J. R. Brooks site for use by Resource Tech, which transported wastewater residuals from the Dade County Municipal Treatment Plant and discharged them at the J. R. Brooks site. The permit allowed Resource Tech to discharge wastewater residuals with only minimal levels of pathogens. DEP calculates the carrying capacity of sites such as the J. R. Brooks site based on the amount of material that they receive from permitted, disclosed discharges. After learning that the J. R. Brooks site had received unpermitted discharges, DEP determined that it must close the site and find a new one due to public-safety concerns. Respondent also failed to stabilize the septage with lime prior to discharging it on the J. R. Brooks site. The purpose of adding lime to septage is to kill pathogens. The J. R. Brooks site drains through ditches into nearby wetlands. From there, runoff drains into the Estero Bay. The untreated septage discharged by Respondent presents a greater threat to wildlife and public safety than do the wastewater residuals remaining after wastewater treatment that Residual Tech was authorized to discharge at the site. At the time of the hearing, Respondent was negotiating the sale of the business, but the buyers needed to operate under Respondent’s certificate until they could qualify to obtain one. However, Respondent admitted that he had someone else available to qualify the buyers’ operation for a certificate.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order revoking Respondent’s certificate as a septic tank contractor. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Mastin Scott Chief Legal Counsel Department of Health Post Office Box 9309 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-9309 John Charles Coleman Coleman & Coleman Post Office Box 2089 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, is the state agency charged with regulating waste water treatment facilities and any sanitary nuisance which may emanate as a result of such operations pursuant to Chapters 381 and 386, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Larry G. Delucenay d/b/a Madhatter Utilities, Inc., owns and operates the Foxwood Waste Water Treatment Plant which is permitted and certified by the Department of Environmental Regulation. Respondent, in operating the Foxwood system, discharges its treated effluent water by means of two percolation ponds and a drip field located adjacent to the Cypress Cove Subdivision in Pasco County, Florida. Respondent owns and controls percolation ponds which are located adjacent to the Cypress Cove Subdivision and pumps human waste from a sewage treatment plant to percolation ponds in the Cypress Cove Subdivision. Respondent's percolation ponds are located approximately 50 ft. west of several residences and the ponds are accessible to the public. The ponds are elevated from 3 ft. to 5 ft. above the adjacent residential lots in the subdivision. However, there is a sand berm approximately 8 ft. high with a 12 yd. base which serves as a barrier between the percolation ponds and the Cypress Cove residences. On August 5, 1991, environmental health specialist Burke observed liquid flowing through the sand berm. He also observed erosion patterns in the sand on the berm which indicated liquid was flowing through it. Mr. Burke, while in the company of two other employees of Petitioner, observed liquid flowing from the percolation ponds onto Lake Floyd Drive to the south of the ponds. An improperly designed nearby lake exacerbated the flooding into Lake Floyd Drive. Respondent's waste water treatment system is designed according to the manufacturer's specifications. Pasco County allowed a number of developments to be built in the area without an adequate drainage system which adversely impacts Respondent's system to the point whereby untreated drainage outfall is draining into the southeast areas in Cypress Cove. Specifically, Respondent's pond #4 is designed to handle a water level up to 67.33 ft. During the investigation of the case, the water level in that pond was approximately 3 1/2 ft. higher than the designed capacity and was therefore causing overflow into the southeast areas of the development. (Respondent's Exhibits A, B and C.) Noteworthy also was the fact that a developer failed to complete a connection which has impacted Respondent's percolation pond and has forced the water to rise approximately 9 ft. higher than the designed capacity which has resulted in an overflow approximately 3 ft. to 4 ft. into the neighboring subdivision. As a result of the overflow, waste water spills over the percolation ponds and prevents the water from draining through the berms as designed. Petitioner's consulting engineer, Robert William Griffiths, credibly testified that a number of agencies having oversight responsibility such as Pasco County, the Southwest Florida Water Management District and the Department of Environmental Regulation, mandated that the drainage system be completed prior to the entire build-up of Cypress Cove. Despite the mandate, the drainage system was not completed and the County allowed the development to continue. Respondent is properly treating and chlorinating sewage in its plant which complies with Petitioner's requirements for the treatment of sewage in systems designed such as Respondent's. Respondent properly treats sewage flowing through its ponds and its berms are properly maintained. As early as October 1989, Respondent consulted and retained an engineer, Gerald E. Towson, who was commissioned to investigate the specifics of designing a waste water treatment plant based on concerns raised by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER). As a result of that charge, Towson investigated the area and observed flooding and the stormwater runoff in the Cypress Cove neighborhood and attempted to find a solution to alleviate the problem. Consultant Towson also investigated Respondent's treatment plant to determine if the system was functioning as designed. Based on his observation and inspection of the treatment facility, the facility was operating as it was designed and properly filters and treats the effluent. However, based on Respondent's inability to control the stormwater runoff in the neighborhood created by the excess buildup, Towson concluded that there was no workable solution to the problem. As a result of Towson's inability to find a workable solution to handle the concerns raised by DER, Respondent suggested that Towson locate another wastewater treatment site which he found in a surrounding area. Respondent negotiated a lease arrangement with the landowner and initiated the permit process with DER. After the completion of numerous documents and engineering studies required by the Department of Environmental Regulation, Respondent was able to get the leased site permitted by DER as a slow drip irrigation system during March 1991. However, while construction of the system was scheduled to start during March 1991, as a result of vigorous protests from area neighbors, construction was delayed. Respondent thereafter investigated several sites but was unable to fine a suitable area near Cypress Cove. Towson completed a lengthy and cumbersome process in getting Respondent's construction application processed by DER. Initially the application was filed and following a DER review, a Notice of Intent to Issue was given. Hillsborough County thereafter reviewed the project and following their review, Hillsborough County issued its Notice of Intent to Grant and public notice was given. Based on Respondent's inability to comply with the neighbor's concerns regarding setback problems, DER withdrew its permit during May of 1991. Thereafter, Petitioner became involved in connecting with the Pasco County Public System. That connection was ultimately made and the County gave its approval following a delay based on a review occasioned by an employee who had been on vacation. Upon getting the approval, Petitioner ordered the equipment from a supplier which included installation of a magnetic meter and the necessary hookups into the Pasco County System. A "phased in" connection has been completed and the stormwater runoff problem has been abated. When the problems raised by DER and ultimately Petitioner was first brought to Respondent's attention, Pasco County did not have the capacity to handle the hookups required by Respondent's system. Respondent, has been involved in the installation of waste water treatment plants since 1967. Respondent is qualified as a Class "A" Licensee Waste Water Operator. He has been accepted as an expert in numerous administrative hearings. Respondent purchased the Foxwood System during 1982. Respondent utilized a 13 acre tract near Lake Floyd Drive. The system was licensed and designed with a flow capacity of 300,000 plus gallons per day. During the time when the Administrative Complaint was issued, the flow capacity was 220,000 gallons per day. The storm water system which was to have been completed by developers in the area was not connected to the public system and the County granted numerous other permits to daycare centers and several parking lots were constructed for other newly constructed commercial buildings in the area. As a result of the excess runoff created by the development in the area, Respondent's system was impacted and the water level was raised in the percolation ponds to the point whereby an overflow resulted. Petitioner adduced no evidence which showed that any physical or emotional harm resulted from the runoff. At all times while the concerns were being raised by Petitioner and other oversite agencies, the effluents in Respondent's systems were properly treated. Respondent vigorously attempted to abate the runoff created by the excess buildup in the area despite the fact that the problem was raised by Pasco County and over which Respondent had no control. Throughout the process of attempting to find alternate solutions and ultimately getting permitting approval to start construction of an alternative waste water treatment system, Respondent operated in good faith. When no alternate site became available, Respondent initially made application to connect with Pasco County System and that connection has now been made.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint herein in its entirety. DONE and ENTERED this 29 day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29 day of April, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: THOMAS W CAUFMAN ESQ HRS DISTRICT V LEGAL OFFICE 11351 ULMERTON RD - STE 407 LARGO FL 34648 RANDALL C GRANTHAM ESQ COTTERILL GONZALEZ & GRANTHAM 1519 N MABRY - STE 100 LUTZ FL 33549 RICHARD S POWER AGENCY CLERK DEPT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 1323 WINEWOOD BLVD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0700 JOHN SLYE ESQ/GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 1323 WINEWOOD BLVD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0700
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 At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Petitioner, Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, (Board), was the Pinellas County agency responsible for the certification and regulation of construction specialties. Respondent was certified by the Board as an irrigation systems specialty contractor under license C-5997 in force at the time. Respondent was the qualifying contractor for Sun City Lawn Irrigation. On or about May 17, 1994, Respondent contracted with William J. Schneider, who resided at 5661 25th Avenue North in St. Petersburg, to install a lawn irrigation system in Mr. Schneider's front lawn. The automatic system was to incorporate 2 zones and was, according to the contract and the testimony of Mr. Schneider, to be connected to Schneider's then existing 1/2 horsepower electric pump which drew water from several wells on his property. Mr. Schneider claims there are four wells. No evidence was introduced to contradict that. On the day the system was installed, Mr. Schneider was not at home. Respondent's employees performed a test of the water capacity on Mr. Schneider's property. At first, the wells produced 10 gpm, which was adequate for the system, but after a few minutes of drawdown, they found that the wells were producing only 4 gpm, along with some air. At that time Mr. Freestone, Respondent's sales manager, spoke with Mrs. Schneider about the situation, advising her there were two options open. One was to install a larger pump and the second was to connect the system to the city water supply. Mrs. Schneider returned to the house, presumably to call Mr. Schneider to get his decision on the matter. He claims she did not reach him. Respondent claims that she thereafter returned with directions to install a water line for connection to the city system. This is completely contrary to what Mr. Schneider had wanted and to what is included in the contract. Mr. Schneider claims he did not want to connect to city water because of the added expense of doing so, and he claims he made this very clear to Respondent's employees at the beginning and at all times thereafter. In any case, the system was installed and was, somehow, connected to the city water system near the place where the water line enters the house. In addition, no backflow preventer was installed to insure against contamination getting into the water system as is required by the building code. Most, if not all, the work on this project was completed by Respondent's son and employee, Scott, who was not present at the hearing. Respondent attempted to introduce an unsworn written statement by Scott Bosworth, but it was not accepted. Scott advised Mr. Schneider, when he returned from work that day, that they had been unable to use his pump and wells. Nonetheless, Mr. Schneider paid Respondent in full for the work for which he had contracted, except for a supplemental charge in the amount of $190.95 for the tie in to the city water and the valves and other items connected therewith. Mr. Schneider claims that he made several calls to Respondent's office in an effort to correct the situation but was unable to reach anyone who could give him satisfaction. However, the evidence indicates that on at least one occasion, Mr. Schneider got through and was called back by Mr. Freestone with whom he discussed the situation and the additional charges. He was subsequently advised by counsel that he did not have to pay the additional sum and did not do so. Some time thereafter, Mr. Schneider was advised by the city that he would be fined because of the illegal installation. He then contacted another irrigation company, run by Mr. Williams, who examined the system and determined that the irrigation system installed by Respondent had been connected to the city water system and that no backflow preventer had been installed. A check with the city's building department revealed that no permit had been procured for this installation. Respondent's license to install irrigation systems does not include authority to connect that system with the public water system. That procedure must be done by a licensed plumber. Respondent and Mr. Freestone, the only individuals in the company who had the authority to arrange with a plumber to make the actual hook up to the city system, both deny that any arrangement was made by them to have the system connected to the city water system. Mr. Schneider arrived home on the day in question to find only Respondent's son, Scott, at work on the project. Scott indicated it would be necessary to move two bushes near the house to facilitate connection of the system with the water supply. Mr. Schneider contracted with Scott to move the bushes and remove them from the premises. Scott moved them but failed to remove them. In light of the fact that Scott was working on the system at the time Mr. Schneider arrived home, and the system was found to be connected to the city system thereafter without anyone else touching it, it must be concluded that the connection was made him. Respondent admits he did not come to the property in question while the system was being installed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued by the Board suspending the license of the Respondent for a period of six months with provision for withholding execution of the suspension for a period of one year conditioned upon such criteria as may be deemed appropriate by the Board. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road Largo, Florida 34643-5116 Larry J. Bosworth 8901 14th Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33716
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and operates a waste water treatment facility at Polynesian Village Mobile Home Park, owns the land at this village, leases these lots to mobile home owners, and provides them with waste water treatment. He was last issued an operating permit on January 18, 1983, by Petitioner. Respondent posted an Operational Bond (Exhibit 2) in the amount of $7,500 with Northwestern National Insurance Company as surety to faithfully operate the treatment facility and comply with all Rules and Regulations of the Petitioner. Englewood Water District, petitioner, was established by special act of the Florida Legislature in Chapter 59-931, Florida Statutes, and is given authority in Section 4 thereof to regulate use of sewers, fix rates, enjoin or otherwise prevent violations of the act or any regulation adopted by Petitioner pursuant to the act, and to promulgate regulations to carry out the provisions of the act. Pursuant to this authority, Petitioner promulgated Waste Water Treatment Facilities Design, Construction and Operation Regulations dated June 19, 1980, and revised April 28, 1983. During an inspection of Respondent's waste water treatment facility on October 17, 1983, leaching was observed at both the north and south drain fields with effluent from the system rising to the surface. Samples of this effluent when tested showed a fecal coliform count of 2800/100 ml. The basic level of disinfectant shall result in not more than 200 fecal coliform values per 100 ml of effluent sample (Rule 17-6.060(1)(b)3a, F.A.C.). Following this test, Notice of Violation (Exhibit 4) was served on Respondent. No action was taken by Respondent to correct this condition and on January 6, 1984, a Citation (Exhibit 5) was issued to Respondent scheduling a hearing for January 26, 1984. Following the issuance of that Citation frequent inspections of the facility were conducted by employees of Respondent to ascertain if steps were being taken by Respondent to correct the deficiencies. Additionally, inspections were made by inspectors from Sarasota County Pollution Control. Inspections were conducted January 9, 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, and 31; February 1, 8, 13, 14, 16, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29; and March 2, 5, 8, and 9, 1984. These inspections revealed what appears to be a "blow-out" in the south drain field where effluent bubbles to the surface and flows onto the adjacent streets and propert (Exhibits 9 and 11). Effluent tested from this source had fecal coliform counts as high as 9440/100 ml. During one of these inspections effluent from the treatment plant was being discharged directly onto the road to a drainage ditch adjacent to the plant (Exhibit 8). The coliform count of a sample taken from this ditch was 13500/100 ml. Respondent was issued a second Citation on March 2, 1984, and this hearing was held on the violations alleged in that Citation, to wit: creating a public nuisance and leaching from drain field. Respondent contends that he is dealing with the Sarasota County Engineer to correct the problems and, after failing in his attempt to get the county to provide drainage from his property, he is now in the process of installing drain pipes. Respondent contends that the natural drainage of surface waters from his land to adjacent land was stopped by development on the adjacent land and the heavy rains this winter has saturated his land and inhibited percolation in the drain fields. Accordingly, the effluent from his plant could not be absorbed by the drain field. Respondent also contends that the drain field worked fine for several years before the drainage problem arose and believes it will again work well when the drainage situation is corrected.
