The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated Sections 455.227(1)(a) and 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Maples is a licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida. He holds license no. PE 10214, and he practices engineering in the Panama City, Florida, area. During all times pertinent Mr. Maples held an active license and practiced pursuant to it. FEMC is charged with providing administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services to the Board pursuant to Section 471.038, Florida Statutes. The Board exists pursuant to Section 471.007, Florida Statutes, and is authorized to discipline engineers under its authority by Section 455.225, Florida Statutes. Mr. Maples signed and sealed three pages of sprinkler system plans for the Wellness Center at Gulf Coast Community College (Wellness Center), located in Panama City, Florida. These plans were admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. No date can be observed on the seal on Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. It either is illegible or a date was never placed upon it. Hydraulic calculations, which use drawings as a source document, and which appear to coincide with Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, were dated November 15, 2001. It is deduced, therefore, that Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 was drawn on or about November 15, 2001. Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent on April 1, 2005. The Administrative Complaint alleged that the plans and calculations for the Wellness Center demonstrated negligence in the practice of engineering. That charge resulted in an final hearing conducted by Administrative Law Judge Stephen Dean on August 11, 2005. That case number was DOAH Case No. 05-2049PL. On October 13, 2005, Judge Dean recommended that the Complaint be dismissed. One of the allegations of negligence in 05-2049PL, related to a charge that inadequate water would be supplied to the hydraulically most demanding (HMD) area in the event of a fire. It was alleged, and proof was elicited, that a single 1 and 1/4-inch pipe traveling from a riser, across the men's shower area to the women's shower area, would be insufficient. This pipe is identified on Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 as a line between Node 45 and Node 25. This pipe leads to a "T" intersection and further piping carries water, when activated, to the women's shower area. The matter of whether adequate water would be supplied to the HMD devolved into whether the plans called for one 61- foot long, 1 and 1/4-inch diameter pipe, or two 61-foot long, 1 and 1/4-inch diameter pipes. Because there was no pump provided on the drawings, and in fact there was no plan to install a pump, two 61-foot long, 1 and 1/4-inch diameter pipes were necessary to provide sufficient water in case of fire. As was illuminated in Case No. 05-2049PL, calculations were made, based on the drawings, in order to ensure that the HMD area will receive 1500 square feet of coverage per sprinkler head required by the contractor. The coverage required by the contractor exceeds that required by National Fire Protection Association-13 standards. HMD calculations are made at a point most remote from the source of water. The hydraulic calculations are produced through the use of a commercially produced computer program. Calculations from Case No. 05-2049PL became Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 in this case. At the hearing in Case No. 05-2049PL, the allegation that the fire sprinkler plans signed and sealed by Mr. Maples would not provide adequate water pressure to the HMD area was rejected by Judge Dean. This is because Mr. Maples claimed that the plans, when viewed in light of the calculations, actually depicted two 61-foot long pipes, 1 and 1/4-inch and Judge Dean, while determining that the depiction was inadequate for that purpose, found in essence that adequate water would be provided to the HMD. Mr. Maples works closely with Chris Thomas, a sprinkler contractor whose license does not permit him to design a fire suppression system that consists of more than 49 heads. Their working arrangement is such that it would be expected that Mr. Thomas would understand Mr. Maples' drawings even if they were not as complete as they would be if the drawings were made for a contractor other than Mr. Thomas. In fact, Mr. Thomas participated in the production of the drawings signed and sealed by Mr. Maples. More than one set of drawings were used for the Wellness Center project. The project came under the jurisdiction of the Florida Department of Education. That agency approved the plans and the Florida State Fire Marshal approved the plans, although it is not certain that the plans those agencies approved were Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. There were errors in the data entry on the hydraulic calculations. The building was completed prior to the time Case No. 05-2049PL was heard on August 11, 2005. Using the plans drawn by Mr. Maples, Mr. Thomas's foremen for the Wellness Center installed a single pipe between Node 45 and Node 25. On a weekend subsequent to the hearing in Case No. 05-2049PL, Mr. Thomas went to the Wellness Center and discovered that only one 61-foot long, 1 and 1/4-inch diameter pipe had been installed in the area represented to be between Node 45 and Node 25. Mr. Thomas immediately installed a second 61-foot long, 1 and 1/4-inch diameter pipe. Mr. Maples never went to the site and, accordingly, was unaware at the time he testified in Case No. 05-2049PL, that only one pipe had been installed. The Administrative Complaint lists five statements made by Mr. Maples in Case No. 05-2049PL that are alleged to express "an opinion publicly on an engineering subject without being informed as to the facts relating thereto." The five statements are further alleged to describe testimony that was, "untruthful, deceptive, or misleading in any professional statement or testimony." As noted above, the statements do not cite with particularity to the Transcript in Case No. 05-2049PL. The five statements read as follows: Respondent testified at the hearing that the line on the plans appearing as a single pipe, in fact, represented two pipes, 61 feet long with 1 1/4 inch diameters, running over the men's showers. Respondent testified at the hearing that the intent to install the sprinkler system with two pipes over the men's showers was obvious to anyone with experience in fire sprinkler systems. Respondent testified that he had signed and sealed revised plans showing a second parallel line over the men's showers. Respondent testified that the second 61 foot long 1 1/4 inch diameter pipe was represented in his calculations by a 3 foot length of pipe. Respondent testified that he used pipe lengths in the supporting calculations that match the pipe lengths shown in the plans. The actual testimony of Mr. Maples that addresses the pipes follows below. The initial questions were posed by Mr. Maples' attorney, Mr. Peters at page 260, line 13, of the Transcript in Case No. 05-2049PL. . Q. Okay. Now, the bulk of this allegation was that the hydraulically demanding design area did not have sufficient water pressure. Let's talk about that. Does the most hydraulically demanding area in this project show that it was receiving sufficient water pressure and distribution? A. Yes, the calculations show that specifically. Q. Do you have any concern that the most hydraulically demanding area is being under served? A. I do not. Q. Do the plans -- while they may not be perfect -- do they reasonably and competently show sufficient water pressure getting to the most hydraulically demanding area? A. Yes. (At this point there was a recess. Subsequently, the interrogation continued.) * * * Q. So do the plans and do the calculations show that there's sufficient water getting to the most challenging -- A. Yes, it does. Q. Okay. And let's take a minute to just make sure we review our nodal system. (At this point the Court interjected and moved the questioning away from the nodal system. The nodal system had been reviewed earlier in the hearing.) * * * Q. How is that? Okay. There is a segment called 20 to 25, which is an inch-and-a-quarter, 61 feet long. A. Correct. Q. And is there a parallel pipe in the same plane that runs along that same segment? A. Yes. Q. How can you tell that from this drawing and this set of calculations? A. I can tell on the calculations, because it tells me from 25 to 30, there's a connection. It tells me that 30 is connected to a three-inch main. Q. All right. Can you show these calculations and -- go over them with us and show us how you see that from these documents? A. Where is my set? Q. Right there. That's yours. THE COURT: Let me ask you this, sir. I see where it says that it's connected to that. But by [sic] my question is, it says that it's only 3-feet long. THE WITNESS: Three feet. Yes, sir. Let me -- can I address that? THE COURT: Surely. THE WITNESS: That is -- I will say an input error on it. But I want to tell you that it doesn't make any difference into the function of the system. BY MR. PETERS: Q. Tell us why not. A. It says 25 to 30 tells me there's a line, a connection to a 3-inch -- to node 30. What that tells me is that 3-inch line is feeding this row of sprinklers right here. Even though it says 3 feet, what it does, it has a short segment of line that just gushes water through there and makes those sprinklers flow a whole lot more than it needed. All right. When you put the right length, you put 61 feet in there, it comes back to just about what this line does, and it cuts the sprinkler flow down in those three areas. But it doesn't effect [sic] the function of the system because it doesn't effect [sic] the head loss in the main system where the pressure goes in the 3-inch line. Q. Head loss. Take a minute to try to explain that. A. The water -- it doesn't effect [sic] the pressure that the sprinklers are getting. What it does, when you put 61 feet in there, those three sprinklers that where it shows a 3-feet [sic] connection, it cuts them down from sprinkling a whole lot more water that's needed back to what's required. But as you go along this -- as you go along this line, go along this line where the 3-inch line is up here, at each place on the 3-inch line, there's a branch that goes towards the sprinklers. And each branch line is calculated separately. And the most demanding branch line is what puts the pressure that's required -- the flow -- required a 3-inch line. So what the 3-foot did, it made these three sprinklers right here flow considerably more, because it was just a little short piece of pipe and didn't have any friction loss going down through there. But it didn't effect [sic] -- it didn't effect [sic] the system head. Because that had less head loss than this one did. So when you put -- BY THE COURT: Q. Head loss is effected [sic] by, what? A. The length of pipe. Flow -- the length of pipe and size of pipe. Q. So will a longer piece of pipe -- assuming all the pipes are the same diameter -- does the pipe -- does the head loss on a short piece, is it greater than a long piece? A. Oh, no. Head loss on short pieces are considerably less than a long piece loss. The further it travels, the more pressure it loses. Q. Okay. And the pressure loss is transmitted, if you will, back to the 3-inch main? It effects [sic] the -- A. It effects [sic] what the flow comes from a 3-inch main. The 3-inch main effects [sic] it, because the three-inch main has the water supply, and has the pressure that's pushing it. Q. So the calculation for this system -- A. Yeah. Q.-- even though there's an error, the error is not a critical error? A. No, sir, it does not effect [sic] the function of the system. Q. It doesn't effect [sic] the function of the system. Thank you. A. What it does, it shows a little more water flow. THE COURT: Okay. DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. PETERS: Q. So do the plans -- does it need a pump to get water to this area? A. No, sir. THE COURT: Now, let me ask you a follow up on that. THE WITNESS: All right. THE COURT: After Mr. Schmidt put his input in, and he was basically engaged to do exactly what he did, and that was, to go through the plans, catch any things that he was concerned about, and turn that back to the general contractor so the general contractor could go back to the people he needed to go back to? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: The general contractor came back to you, and you did whatever was necessary to generate the second set of plans that you-all put in, which is your Respondent's 1? MR. PETERS: Well, although Respondent's -- can I ask him a couple of questions? THE COURT: Sure. BY MR. PETERS: Q. Respondent's 1, this is the one that shows the second line, the parallel lines, right? A. Yes, if this is the plan we're looking at, it shows the second -- physically shows -- separated it so anybody could see. THE COURT: It also shows the point of service. THE WITNESS: Yes, it also shows a different point of service. It shows --bring it back up to the 5. BY MR. PETERS: Q. But these don't bear your signature. A. This particular set doesn't. We signed some, but I don't know where they are. That came from Gulf Coast College there. Q. All right. All right. In terms of what this case is directly about, then, do the plans provide pipes with adequate diameters for water pressure to provide protection for the area most remote from the main riser? A. Absolutely. Q. Do the plans provide -- do the plans need to show a pump to increase water pressure for the pipe design use? A. No. Q. And did you use pipe lengths in the supporting calculations that match the pipe lengths shown in the plans? A. Yes. (At this point Mr. Peters addresses another matter. Thereafter, Mr. Campbell proceeded with his cross-examination on Page 268, line 25.) * * * BY MR. CAMPBELL Q. Mr. Maples, there was no testimony about phantom pipes in that previous case, was there? A. No. Q. And you would admit that if there was no pipe underneath this Node 25 pipe, that this fork of six sprinkler heads would not adequately be served by 1-and-a-quarter inch diameter pipe; isn't that correct? A. That's correct, with a caveat. The NFPA 13 has a section that says on the density .1 in a 1500 square feet [sic] area, if it is - - if it says ceiling heights less than 20 feet, and this is 10, that you can reduce the area of sprinkling by 40 percent. So that means, if we did that, we would do 900 square feet, and that would be adequate. Now, if you went strictly by NFPA 13 -- Q. But that's not what you drew here. You drew or attempted to draw 1500 square feet. A. That's what we were told to do. But that's not in accordance with NFPA 13. NFPA 13 is less. And we agree NFPA 13 rules. Q. Now, you initially said this was your initial set of plans before you got any input such as being told to do 1500 square feet; is that correct? A. No, no, I was told to do that to start with. Q. All right. Was that part of the specifications on this job? A. I didn't see it. That was --according to the contractor, that was the specifications from Schmidt or whoever they were. Q. All right. Now, looking at the Respondent's 1 you did not sign. A. That one is not signed, but I know there were some that were signed. Q. Doesn't it appear that in these entries for pressures and static pressures, at some point, there was a whiteout and a reentry on the first page of the sheet? A. I can't tell you that. It may have been. Q. All right. Now, in fact, you have got two separate entries of written information where some of those are different. For instance, the required pressure is different -- A. Yes, because it's a different system. This is one that's not in contention right here. This was the gym. It's got the same static pressures and flows, but this is a different set of calculations of the gym. This has not been -- that was for the gymnasium, just to see if there was enough water. They asked us to do that. Q. Now, is the gymnasium a part of the Wellness Center? I thought that was what the Wellness Center was. A. Well, it's part of the Wellness, yes. But it's a separate part. But this has never been in contention. Q. Well, now, on the set of plans, your initial set of plans, there were no such double entries? A. No, they didn't ask for it then. Q. And this separate set of entries here for the gym -- well, this -– yeah -- is still used by the same riser and the same -- A. Yes, sir. Q. -- point of service. A. Yes, sir. Q. So there would be a separate set of calculations somewhere for the gym; is that what you're saying? A. My understanding, they asked Chris to do a set of calculations just so they would have plenty of water at the gym. That's never been in contention. Because one thing, it's located right at the riser. Q. Now, isn't it a fact, if someone never looked at the calculations but only looked at page 2 of Exhibit P-1, that where the node 25 seems to go up to node 45, there is only one line indicating one pipe? A. Depending on who looks at it. Anybody familiar with the calculations and sprinkler systems would know. Q. If they saw no calculations whatsoever, they just looked at this sheet -- A. I would assume so. If it was Joe Blow out there that knew nothing, he would have probably been, you know -- Q. He would think there's one pipe there. A. Who would do that? Q. So the basis of your statement that anyone that knew that there had to be more than one pipe is -- anyone with experience in fire protection systems would know you could not feed -- A. That's correct. Q. -- 6 heads 60 feet down from the 3-inch pipe on a one -- A. An inexperienced person, probably, correct. Q. Well, now, an experienced person would know automatically you couldn't feed it that way, right? You would have to have a second pipe; that's what you're saying? A. Well, you would have to go by the calculations. I didn't say that. Q. But if you didn't go by the calculations, if you didn't know anything about the calculations, would it be obvious to anyone with experience in fire protection sprinkler systems that at the end of 60 feet of a one-and-a-one-quarter-inch pipe you could not support 50 pounds pressure -- support 6 heads on 1 inch pipe? A. I wouldn't say that. Because if I was an experienced person in fire protection and installation, I would look at that, and I would look for something else to see if there was something else. Q. So that sheet of plans by itself is insufficient even with someone with experience in fire protection? A. No, I didn't say that. I said I would be looking for something else. Q. You said you would be looking for something else. A. He would know that there was something supporting it. And especially a licensed contractor that's licensed to design sprinklers, too. He would obviously know. The statement set forth in paragraph 7, of the Administrative Complaint does not appear in the Transcript in Case No. 05-2049PL. Mr. Maples said nothing about showers. He did not say that the single pipe represented two pipes each of which was 61 feet long. What he said was that the calculations told him that there is a parallel pipe in the same plan as the pipe shown on the drawings. He said he could tell that because the calculations showed from Node 25 to 30 a connection to a 3- inch main. Mr. Maples' testimony in this regard was confusing and difficult to follow but not untruthful, deceptive, or misleading. He was not giving fact testimony but was expressing an opinion. The statement set forth in paragraph 8, of the Administrative Complaint does not appear in the Transcript in Case No. 05-2049PL. Mr. Maples never said that the "intent to install the sprinkler system with two pipes over the men's showers was obvious to anyone with experience in fire sprinkler systems." What he said was, that, "Anybody familiar with the calculations and sprinkler systems would know." He further said that if someone familiar with sprinkler systems would know that two pipes were necessary looked at the plans without the calculations that he "assumed" they would know there should be two pipes. With regard to the statement set forth in paragraph 8, when offered to agree with the statement, ". . . an experienced person would know automatically you couldn't feed it that way, right? You would have to have a second pipe; that's what you are saying?" Mr. Maples declined. In response to the question he said, "Well, you would have to go by the calculations. I didn't say that." Mr. Maples' testimony in this regard was not untruthful, deceptive, or misleading. He was not giving fact testimony but was expressing an opinion. The statement alleged as paragraph 9 does not appear in the Transcript. With regard to other plans, he said in response to a question about Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 that, ". . . it shows the second--physically shows--separated so any body could see." He noted that Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 did not bear his signature but said that he had signed some similar plans. There is no proof in the record that his testimony in this regard was untruthful, deceptive, or misleading. The allegation in paragraph 10 of the Administrative Complaint was that Mr. Maples said that the second 61-foot long, 1 and 1/4-inch diameter pipe "was represented in his calculations by a 3 foot length of pipe." Mr. Maples never uttered that statement. In response to a question from Judge Dean, with regard to the 3-foot long pipe, Mr. Maples said, "That is--I will say an input error on it." Mr. Maples' testimony in this regard was confusing and difficult to follow but not untruthful, deceptive, or misleading. The allegation in paragraph 11 of the Administrative Complaint was that Mr. Maples said that, "he used pipe lengths in the supporting calculations that match the pipe lengths shown in the plans." This allegation approximates a verbatim statement made by Mr. Maples. However, he had earlier noted, and thus qualified the statement when he stated that there was input error. Mr. Maples' testimony in this regard was not untruthful, deceptive, or misleading. The allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint at paragraphs 7 and 8, were fairly alleged as the opinions of Mr. Maples. The opinions alleged are in essence that a person with experience in the fire suppression business could determine from the plans and calculations that a second 61-foot long, 1 and 1/4-inch pipe would run parallel to the pipe shown from Node 25 to 45. After an exhaustive study of the plans and calculations in this case, the Administrative Law Judge has not been able to conclude that the testimony as to the second pipe is borne out by Petitioner's Exhibit 2 or the calculations that are Petitioner's Exhibit 3. Moreover, Judge Dean found that the intent to have two pipes, "was not adequately shown in the original drawings." The foremen sent by Mr. Thomas to install the system did not conclude that two parallel pipes were required. They installed only one. An expert called by FEMC, Larry Simmons, an expert in professional engineering, stated unequivocally in this case that using Mr. Maples' drawings and calculations, he could not determine that a second 61-foot long, 1 and 1/4-inch pipe was called for by the plans. Judge Dean was not misled by Mr. Maples' testimony in Case No. 05-2049PL, with regard to the pipe. This was indicated by his acknowledgement in Finding of Fact 8 in his Recommended Order that the intent to have two pipes, "was not adequately shown in the original drawings." Judge Dean was not called as a witness so that he could reveal if he was misled based on the information that became available after the hearing in Case No. 05-2049PL. It was not proven by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Maples was "untruthful, deceptive, or misleading in any professional statement or testimony." As will be discussed in detail below, Mr. Maples engaged in misconduct in the practice of engineering by expressing an opinion publicly on an engineering subject without being informed as to the facts relating thereto.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board find that Respondent Lester M. Maples did not violate Section 455.227(1)(a), Florida Statutes, but that he offered an opinion publicly on an engineering subject without being informed as to the facts relating thereto in violation of the prohibitions contained in Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that he be reprimanded, placed on two years' probation, and ordered to pay an administrative fine of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 28th day of April, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce Campbell, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Alvin L. Peters, Esquire Peters & Scoon 25 East 8th Street Panama City, Florida 32401 Paul J. Martin, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Doug Sunshine, Esquire Vice President for Legal Affairs Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact Tim Youngquist is a licensed water well contractor, holding Florida license #2172, and is principal of Youngquist Brothers, Inc. The South Florida Water Management District, operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40E, Florida Administrative Code, is responsible for the permitting and regulation of nonexempt water well drilling within the District's geographical jurisdiction. Unless specifically exempted from permitting requirements, each well must be separately permitted prior to construction. Due to the unique characteristics of wells, well construction permits are issued separately for each individual well and are not issued on a site basis. The Respondent, in the summer of 1990, contracted with the City of Fort Myers, Florida, to construct twenty public water supply wells and eight monitoring wells, all located within the existing city well field site. The Respondent was responsible for compliance with all applicable permit requirements. On December 19, 1990, the Respondent obtained the appropriate city permit for the drilling operation, but did not at that time apply for or obtain any permits as required by the Petitioner. The City of Fort Myers permits wells in compliance with the Standard Plumbing Code, but does not have a well construction ordinance. The city permit does not substitute for the Petitioner's well construction permits. On April 9, 1990, the Petitioner received an inquiry from a representative of the Lee County Health Department as to whether the Respondent had obtained well construction permits from the Petitioner. At that time, there had been no application for the permits submitted to the Petitioner by the Respondent. On April 10, 1990, Don Douglas, Youngquist Brothers manager for the Fort Myers city wells project, contacted the Petitioner and inquired as to the method for obtaining permits for the well construction. Mr. Douglas was advised to immediately cease any well construction operations at the City of Fort Myers well field pending receipt of the appropriate permits. On April 11, 1991, Petitioner's staff inspected the City of Fort Myers well field site, and observed six newly- completed public supply wells on the site. Petitioner's staff again instructed Respondent's representative to cease any further activity. There is no evidence that, subsequent to the Petitioner's directions to cease operations at said site, any additional construction activities occurred. On April 16, 1991, Petitioner's staff again inspected the City of Fort Myers well field site, and observed three additional public supply wells on the site, two of which were surface-cased with the third well appearing to be completed. On May 23, 1991, a Notice of Violation (NOV) was issued to Youngquist citing the failure to obtain well construction permits for the seven completed public water supply wells and the failure to provide notice to the Petitioner 24 hours in advance of the placement of grout in the annular spaces of the seven wells. The Petitioner's staff determined that the extent of the two surface- cased wells construction did not prohibit appropriate inspection even though the wells would also require permitting. As stated in the NOV, the Petitioner sought a fine of $5,000 for the violations. Further, because the Petitioner's staff was first informed by the Respondent's representative that there were six wells completed on site when in fact there were nine, the NOV sought the imposition of a 20% penalty applied to the $5,000, and the suspension of Respondent's well drilling license. Subsequent to the issuance of the NOV, the Petitioner's staff met with Respondent's project manager to discuss the matter. At that time, it was determined that there actually were only six fully completed public water supply wells and three additional surface-cased but incomplete public water supply wells. The Petitioner dropped the proposed 20% penalty and suspension of Youngquist's license. However, subsequent to this discussion, the parties could not resolve the dispute and an Administrative Complaint was filed. 1/ Six individual well construction permits are required for the six completed public water supply wells located at the City of Fort Myers well field. The evidence establishes that the Respondent constructed and completed the six public water supply wells without obtaining the appropriate permits from the Petitioner. The failure to obtain the six permits constitutes six separate violations. The evidence establishes that, in completing the wells, the Respondent failed to notify the Petitioner 24 hours in advance of placement of grout in the annular spaces of the six completed wells. The failure to notify the Petitioner 24 hours in advance of placement of grout in the annular spaces of the six completed wells constitutes six separate violations. There is no evidence that, prior to initiation of the well construction activities and prior to the discovery of the violations by Petitioner's staff, the Respondent made any attempt to comply with the permitting requirements of the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine of $4,500.00 against Tim Youngquist. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 14th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 14th day of January, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Background In 1983, Concerned Citizens of Citrus County, Inc. (Concerned Citizens), an intervenor in this case, filed a petition toe initiate rulemaking for single source reclassification of groundwater under the existing provisions of Rule 17-3.403, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). In this manner, Concerned Citizens sought to have existent potable waters in Pinellas, Hillsborough, Pasco, Hernando, and Citrus Counties classified Class G-I groundwater, and to thereby provide them the most stringent water quality protection accorded groundwaters of the state. At a public meeting in February 1985, the Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC) deferred action on the petition of Concerned Citizens, and directed the Department of Environmental Regulation (Department) to review the existing G-I rule, prepare proposed revisions, and present its recommendations to the ERC. Following the ERC directive, the Department held numerous public meetings and workshops to explore different approaches to groundwater protection. As a consequence, it prepared the proposed revisions to Rules 17-3.021, 17-3.403, 17-3.404, and 17- 4.245, F.A.C., at issue in these proceedings. On October 31, 1986, the Department duly noticed the proposed rules in volume 12, number 44, of the Florida Administrative Weekly. The notice interested parties that a public hearing would be held on December 16, 1986, before the ERC. 1/ On December 16-17, 1986, the ERC held a public hearing at which time it considered the rules recommended by the Department. During the course of this meeting, the ERC approved and adopted the rules with certain changes. These changes were duly noticed in volume 13, number 3, of the Florida Administrative Weekly on January 16, 1987. Petitioners and Intervenors Petitioners, Adam Smith Enterprises, Inc., and Alliance for Rational Groundwater Rules (Case No. 86-4492RP), and Petitioners Aloha Utilities, Inc.; Interphase, Inc.; Phase 1 Homes, Inc.; A.C. & R., Inc.; Tahitian Development, Inc.; Great Cypress Mobile Village, Inc.; and Barrington, Ltd. (Case No. 86- 4705R), filed timely petitions to challenge the validity of the proposed rules, which petitions were consolidated for hearing. Petitions for leave to intervene were granted on behalf of Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc.; Florida Land Council, Inc.; and Pasco County. These Intervenors' interests were aligned with those of petitioners. Petitions for leave to intervene were a1so granted on behalf of West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority and Concerned Citizens of Citrus County, Inc. These Intervenors' interests were aligned with those of the Department and the ERC. Petitioner, Adam Smith Enterprises, Inc. (Adam Smith), is the owner/developer of a 3,800-acre development of regional impact (DRI) to be known as Trinity Communities. This development, which has been in the acquisition and planning stages for almost 5 years, is currently undergoing DRI review and Adam Smith anticipates that it will receive its development order by September 1987. The Trinity Communities development is located predominately in Pasco County, with just over 250 acres of its lands located in Pinellas County. These properties are predominately open pasture land, and are bordered on the north, east and west by roads and on the south by Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties. As proposed, the Trinity Communities development will include 1100 acres of parks, golf courses, and other open areas. The remaining lands will be developed to accommodate 9500 dwelling units, as well as industrial and commercial uses to service the community, over a 20-year period. At today's market value, the property represents an investment of approximately 28 million dollars. Abutting the Trinity Communities development is the Eldridge-Wilde Well Field. This well field is covered by consumptive use permits issued by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), and contains major public community drinking water supply wells as defined by the rules at issue in this proceeding. Of these wells, 5 are located within 9.63 feet and 181.5 feet of the proposed development's property line, and 5 are located with 204.72 fee and 297.5 feet of its property line. Petitioner, Alliance for Rational Groundwater Rules (Alliance), is an association of landowners who united to educate themselves about the proposed rules. The proof failed, however, to establish whether Alliance had ever elected any officers or directors, or the magnitude of its membership. Consequently, the proof failed to establish that a substantial number of its members, although not necessarily a majority, were substantially affected by the proposed rules, and that the relief requested by it was of a type appropriate for it to receive on behalf of its members. Petitioner, Aloha Utilities, Inc. (Aloha Utilities), is a utility certified by the Florida Public Service Commission to provide water and sewer service to two separate service areas in southern Pasco County. Currently, Aloha Utilities operates an 850,000 gallon per day (gpd) sewage treatment facility (Aloha Gardens) and a 1.2 million gpd sewage treatment plant (Seven Springs). It also operates 10-11 producing wells, at least 7 of which are permitted by SWFWMD to withdraw at least 100,000 gpd. One of these wells is located approximately 1/4-1/2 mile from an Aloha Utility sewage treatment plant. At least 3 of Aloha Utilities' wells which are permitted to withdraw 100,000 gpd or more, will service or are servicing the Riverside projects and Aloha Gardens Unit Number 12 project discussed infra. Consequently, the proof establishes that Aloha Utilities operates a major public community drinking water supply system as defined by the subject rules. The Aloha Gardens facility is under a Department order to expand its effluent disposal capacity. To satisfy the Department's order and the need for increased disposal capacity, Aloha Utilities commenced condemnation proceedings 8-12 months ago to secure the needed property. While the condemnation proceeding is not yet completed, Aloha Utilities has already expended considerable sums for engineering studies and attorney's fees in its efforts to acquire the property. That property is located approximately 1/2 mile from an existing well that is permitted for an average daily flow of at least 100,000 gpd. The effluent disposal capacity of the Seven Springs facility is also being expanded to meet existing and future demand. In April 1987, Aloha Utilities acquired a 27-28 acre parcel of land immediately adjacent to its existing facility. Upon these lands, Aloha Utilities proposes to construct percolation ponds, a rapid rate land application effluent disposal process. As sited, these ponds would be located 1/2 to 3/4 of a mile from a well permitted for an average daily flow of 100,000 gallons or more. 2/ Petitioners, Interphase, Inc., Phase 1 Homes, Inc., and Tahitian Development, Inc., are corporations with common management which are developing three separate but geographically proximate projects in Pasco County. These projects will be, or are, serviced by Aloha Utilities. Interphase, Inc., is the owner/developer of a 100- acre tract known as Riverside Village Unit Number Four. This property is currently being developed to include 57 acres dedicated to single family use and 43 acres dedicated to multifamily use, and will require the installation of stormwater facilities and underground sewage transportation facilities. Two wells of Aloha Utilities that are permitted for an average daily flow of 100,000 gallons or more are located 1/2 mile and 1/3 mile, respectively, from this development. Interphase, Inc., is also the owner of a 17-acre parcel of vacant land in Pasco County that is zoned commercial. This property is located within 400 feet of Aloha Utilities' Seven Springs sewer treatment plant, and its development will require the installation of underground sewage transportation facilities. Phase 1 Homes, Inc., is the owner/developer of a project known as Riverside Village Townhouses. This project is fully developed and is currently serviced by Aloha Utilities. Located within 1/2 mile of the development are two wells of Aloha Utilities that are permitted for an average daily flow of 100,000 gallons or more. Tahitian Development, Inc., is the owner/developer of a 40-acre tract known as Riverside Villas. Twenty of these acres have been developed and some of the units sold. The remaining 20 acres are currently under development. In developing its remaining 20 acres, Tahitian Development would be required to install stormwater drainage systems and sewage transportation lines to connect with Aloha Utilities. Located within 1/2 mile of the development are wells of Aloha Utilities that are permitted for an average daily flow of 100,000 gallons or more. Tahitian Development also owns a 40-acre parcel in Orange County which it plans to develop for light industrial uses such as an industrial park or an office complex. Such development would result in at least a 40 percent impervious surface, including building tops, within that 40-acre parcel, and require the installation of a sewage transportation system and a stormwater drainage system. Petitioner, A.C. & R., Inc., is the owner/developer of a project in Pasco County known as Aloha Gardens Unit Number 12. The project, which currently is represented by 40-50 developed lots, is located just north of the Aloha Gardens sewage treatment facility, and is serviced by Aloha Utilities. Located within 1/2 mile of the development that is permitted for an average daily flow of 100,000 gallons or more. Petitioner, Great Cypress Mobile Village, Inc., is the owner/developer of a 149 unit mobile home park in Pasco County. Twenty of these units are completed and ready for occupancy. Completion of the project will require the installation of additional sewer lines. Located at the interior of the property is a sewage treatment plant owned by Northern Utilities which services the project, and within 600 feet of the project's boundary there is a well which services that utility. The capacity of that well was not, however, demonstrated in these proceedings, nor was it shown whether such well was part of a community water system. Petitioner, Barrington, Ltd. is a party of unknown capacity, origin, or interest. No evidence was presented on its behalf to demonstrate that its substantial interests would be affected by the proposed rules. Intervenor, Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. (FCG), a Florida corporation, is an association of Florida's electric utilities, and is composed of 37 members. The FCG has, as part of its internal organization, an environmental committee whose purpose is to participate in regulatory development and provide mutual member assistance with regard to water related matters. This committee was authorized by the FCG executive committee to participate in the development of the rules at issue in these proceedings, as well as Intervene in these proceedings, to represent and protect the interests of FCG members. The FCG participated in the development of the subject rules by the Department, and was granted full party status by the ERC during that rulemaking process. The members of FCG are owners and operators of electric power generating facilities. These facilities“ include the power plant and ancillary facilities such as substations. Incident to the operation of these facilities are wastewater discharges associated with the production of electricity and stormwater discharges. One of these facilities, Gainesville Regional Utilities' Deer Haven generating station is located across Highway 441 from a major community drinking water supply well. Intervenor, Florida Land Council, Inc., a Florid corporation, is composed of 12 primary members who own large tracts of land in interior Florida, and who are engaged primarily in agribusiness. The Land Council's purpose is to protect the asset value of its members property and, because of that purpose, it is concerned with environmental regulations, growth management regulations, land use regulations, and comprehensive planning. To protect its interests, the Land Council sought leave to intervene in these proceedings. There was, however, no proof that any lands owned by any member of the Land Council were proximate to any major public community drinking water well. Intervenor, Pasco County, is the owner/operator of 25 wastewater treatment plants with capacities In excess of 100,000 gallons per day, and has under construction, or in the design stage, additional facilities with capacities in excess of 100,000 gallons per day. The construction of these new facilities will require the installation of new lines for the collection of wastewater. Pasco County's current, as well as its planned, wastewater treatment facilities will utilities a rapid rate land application effluent disposal process. Within a mile of any wastewater treatment plan operated by Pasco County can be found a major public community drinking water well as defined by the rules at issue in these proceedings. Pasco County also owns and operates wells within the county with permitted withdrawal rates exceeding 100,000 gpd, and participates in the ownership and management of their wells with permitted withdrawal rates exceeding 100,000 gpd through West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority. Pasco County currently has plans to add new production wells in the county with an average daily pumpage in excess of 100,000 gallons per day. Intervenor, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (West Coast), is an interlocal government body created in 1974 to develop, store, and supply water to its member governments so that all citizens within the areas served by the authority may be assured an adequate supply of water. Member governments served by WCRWSA are Hillsborough County, Pasco County, and the cities of St. Petersburg and Tampa. Wellfields operated by West Coast are the Starkey Wellfield located in west central Pasco County, which serves the citizens of New Port Richey and Pasco County; the South-Central Hillsborough Regional Wellfield located in south-central Hillsborough County, which serves the citizens of Hillsborough, County; the crossbar Ranch Wellfield located in north-central Pasco County, which principally serves the citizens of Pinellas, County; the Cypress Creek Wellfild located in south-central Pasco County, which serves the citizens of Hillsborough, Pinellas, and western Pasco Counties and the City of St. Petersburg; the Northwest Hillsborough Wellfield located in northwest Hillsborough County, which serves the citizens of Hillsborough County; the Section 21 Wellfield located in northwest Hillsborough County, which serves the citizens of the City of St. Petersburg; and, the Come-Odessa Wellfield located in northwest Hillsborough County, which serves the citizens of the City of St. Petersburg. 3/ Each of the wellfields operated by West Coast are public community water systems, and contain wells permitted to withdraw in excess of 100,000 gallons per day. Collectively, these wellfields serve a total population of 800,000 persons. Intervenor, Concerned Citizens of Citrus County, Inc. (Concerned Citizens), is a not-for-profit corporation, was chartered in 1981, and has 350 members who obtain their drinking water from operational community water supply wells permitted for over 100,000 gallons per day in Inverness, Crystal River, Floral City, Sugar Mill Woods, Beverly Hills, and Rolling Oaks, Citrus County, Florida. The purpose of Concerned Citizens is to protect the natural resources of Citrus County through planning and zoning regulations, and local and state legislation and regulations. It was granted party status by the ERC. General aspects of the proposed rules The proposed rules establish new eligibility criteria for designation of an aquifer segment as Class G-I groundwater. Under the existing rule, the ERC could reclassify an aquifer or portion of an aquifer as G-I within specified boundaries upon a finding that: The aquifer or portion of the aquifer is the only reasonably available source of potable water to a significant segment of the population; and The designated use is attainable, upon consideration of environmental, techological, water quality, institutional, and social and economic factors. Under the proposed revisions, an aquifer segment could be classified by the ERC as G-I provided it was: ...within the zones of protection of a major public community drinking water supply well(s) or wellfield(s) withdrawing water from unconfined aquifers or from leaky confined aquifer... and, upon consideration of: ...environmental, technologial, water quality, institutional (including local land use comprehensive plans), public health, public interest, social and economic factors. As with thee existing rule, the proposed rules require that rulemaking procedures be followed to actually designate a G-I aquifer or aquifer segment at any particular location. The scheme envisioned by the proposed rules is to provide protection to "major community drinking water supply wells", community water systems that are permitted by consumptive use permit to withdraw an average daily amount of 100,000 gallons or greater of groundwater, by preventing contaminants from entering the groundwater within a circumscribed radius of the wells. To accomplish this purpose, the proposed rules establish a methodology whereby two zones of protection would be established around such wells if they were withdrawing waters from unconfined aquifers (an aquifer exposed to the atmosphere) or leaky confined aquifers (an aquifer in which groundwater moves vertically from the water table to the top of the aquifer in five years or less). The first zone (the inner zone) would be based on a fixed radius of 200 feet. The second zone (the outer zone) would be based on a radius, calculated under the rule's methodology, of 5 years groundwater travel time. Within the inner zone, discharges would be prohibited. Within the outer zone, certain developments which discharge to groundwater would be prohibited or restricted. A major emphasis of the proposed rules is to restrict discharges to groundwater within the zones of protection. For example, the rules eliminate the zone of discharge within the zones of protection, and require that new discharges to groundwater of treated domestic effluent meet the groundwater criteria specified in rule 17-3.404, F.A.C., prior to discharge. 4/ Additionally, such wastewater treatment facilities would be required to pre-treat industrial wastewater, provide daily monitoring to insure proper treatment plant process control, and provide 24 hour a day attendance of a wastewater operator under the general supervision of a Class A certified wastewater operator. New underground lines for the transport of domestic raw wastewater would be required to be constructed so that no more than 50 gallons per inch of pipe diameter per mile per day could leak into the ground. Within the 5 year zone of protection, there are no restrictions on stormwater discharges for residential developments. However, discharges from new stormwater facilities serving an area forty acres or larger with a forty percent impervious surface, excluding building tops, are required to monitor the discharge. Construction and operation of new sanitary landfills would be prohibited. As previously noted, to be eligible for reclassification as a G-I aquifer, the aquifer or aquifer segment under consideration must be leaky confined or unconfined. Whether the aquifer is leaky confined or not will be determined through application of the "Vv" and "Tv" formulae contained in the proposed rules, and the zones of protection will be established by reference to the "r" formula contained in the proposed rule. To date, neither the Department nor any party has applied the "Vv" and "Tv" formulae to identify wells hat are withdrawing from unconfined or leaky confined aquifers, nor has anyone delineated any zones of protection by application of the "r" formula. The Department has, however, identified those areas of the state at which it is likely that major community drinking water supply wells are withdrawing from such aquifers. Based on this identification, the Department has contracted with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to "map" the Middle-Gulf region (Pinellas, Hillsborough, Pasco, Hernando, and Citrus Counties) by applying the "Vv" and "Tv" formulas to each well permitted to withdraw 100,000 gpd or more to determine if it is withdrawing from such aquifers and, if so, to delineate proposed zones of protection around such wells or wellfields through application of the "r" formula. The USGS is currently mapping the Middle-Gulf region. Pertinent to this case, the Department has identified all of Pasco and Pinellas Counties, the northern half of Hillsborough County, and most of Orange County including Orlando, as areas within which wells are most probably withdrawing from unconfined or leaky confined aquifers, and for which aquifers the Department will seek G-I reclassification. Under the circumstances, the parties have established, except as heretofore noted, that there is a reasonable likelihood that the proposed rules will substantially affect their interests. The rule challenge The gravamen of the protestant's challenge is that certain definitions and formulae continued within the proposed rule are vague, ambiguous, or not supported by fact or logic. The Protestants' also challenge the adequacy of the economic impact statement. The Protestants concerns are addressed below. Definitions Rule 17-3.021, as amended, would define "Confined Aquifer", "Leaky Confined Aquifer", and "Unconfined Aquifer", as follows: (7) "Confined Aquifer" shall mean an aquifer bounded above and below by impermeable beds or by beds of distinctly lower permeability than that of the aquifer itself. For the purpose of G-I, it shall mean an aquifer confined from above by a formation(s) which restricts the movement of groundwater vertically from the water table to the top of the confined aquifer for a period of more than five years * * * (16) "Leaky Confined Aquifer" shall mean, for the purposes of G-I, an aquifer confined from above by a formation(s) which allows groundwater to move vertically from the water table to the top of the leaky confined aquifer in five years or less. * * * (34) "Unconfined Aquifer" shall mean an aquifer other than a confined aquifer. For the purpose of G-I it shall mean an aquifer other than a confined or leaky confined aquifer. 5/ Protestants contend that the definition of "confined aquifer" and "leaky confined aquifer" are vague and meaningless because they are "defined by use of the phrase being defined". Accordingly, they conclude that proposed rule 17-3.021(7) and (16) must fall because they are without thought and reason, irrational and vague. Protestants further contend that since the definitions of "confined aquifer" and "leaky confined aquifer" are flawed, proposed rule 17-3.021(34), which defines unconfined aquifer, must also fall. The Protestants' contentions are not persuasive. If one were restricted to the definition of "confined", "leaky confined" and "unconfined" aquifer to glean their meaning, the rules might be considered vague. However, these definitions are, as they specifically provide, "for the purpose of G-I" and they must be read in context with the balance of the rule. When so read, it is apparent that "top of the confined aquifer" or "top of the leaky confined aquifer" is the top of the aquifer that has been calculated as confined or leaky through manipulation of the "Vv" and "Tv" formulae. Under the circumstances, the subject definitions are not vague, arbitrary or capricious. Proposed rule 17-3.021(20) provides: "New Discharge" shall mean, for the purpose of G-I, a discharge from a new installation; or a discharge from an existing permitted installation that has been altered, after the effective date of G-I reclassification, either chemically, biologically, or physically or that has a 211 22 different point of discharge, and which causes a significantly different impact on groundwater. Protestants contend that the definition of "new discharge" is vague, arbitrary and capricious because existing installations would be classified as new dischargers, and subject to the more stringent requirements of the proposed rules, whether the alteration of their discharge significantly improved or adversely affected groundwater. As proposed, the rule would so define new discharge, and it is not vague or ambiguous. The proof demonstrated, however, that the Department only proposed to define, as new dischargers, those existing installations whose altered discharge caused a significantly different negative impact on groundwater. The Department conceded this point, and offered no proof to demonstrate the reasonableness of classifying existing installations that improve their discharge as new discharges. Under the circumstances, proposed rule 17-3.021(20) is arbitrary and capricious. Proposed rule 17-3.021(35) defines "underground storage facility or underground transportation facility as follows: "Underground storage facility" or "underground transportation facility" shall mean that 10 percent or more of the facility is buried below the ground surface. This proposed rule is, however, only pertinent to proposed rule 17-4.245, which addresses the permitting and monitoring requirements for installations discharging to groundwater. Pertinent to this case, proposed rules 17-4.245(3)(c) and (d) establish construction requirements for the following facilities within the five year zone of protection: Underground storage facilities. An underground storage facility includes any enclosed structure, container, tank or other enclosed stationary devices used for storage or containment of pollutants as defined in Section 376.301(12), F.S. or any contaminant as defined in Sect ion 403.031(1), F.S. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to include septic tanks, enclosed transformers or other similarly enclosed underground facilities.... Underground facilities for transportation of wastewater or pollutants as defined in Section 376.301(12), F.S. or any contaminant as defined in Section 403.031(1), F.S. excluding natural and liquified petroleum gas. Underground facilities for transportation of waste effluent or pollutants or contaminants include piping, sewer lines, and ducts or other conveyances to transport pollutants as defined in Section 376.301(12), F.S., and contaminants as defined in Section 403.031(1), F.S.... Protestants contend that the proposed rules are contained in two separate chapters of the Florida Administrative Code with no bridge between them. Under such circumstances, they contend the rules fail to adequately define either facility in either chapter, and that the rules are therefore vague, arbitrary and capricious. Protestants' contention is not persuasive. Proposed rule 17-3.021(35) defines "underground storage facility" or "underground transportation facility" as meaning that 10 percent or more of the facility is buried below the ground surface. Proposed rules 17-4.245(3)(c) and (d) address what type of facility is included within the terms "underground storage facility" and "underground transportation facility." Notably, Rule 17-4.021, F.A.C., provides: Definitions contained in other chapters of the Department's rules may be utilized to clarify the meaning of terms used herein unless such terms are defined in Section 17-4.020, F.A.C., or transfer of such definition would defeat the purpose or alter the intended effect of the provisions of this chapter. Under the circumstances of this case, the rules are appropriately read together. So read, the construction requirements for "underground storage facilities" and "underground transportation facilities", as required by proposed rule 17-4.245(3)(c) and (d), are applicable if 10 percent or more of the containment device used for the storage or transport of pollutants is buried below the ground surface, and the proposed rules are not vague, arbitrary or capricious. Proposed rule 17-3.021(39) defines "Zones of Protection" as follows: "Zones of Protection" shall mean two concentric areas around a major public community drinking water supply well(s) or wellfield(s) drawing from a G-I aquifer whose boundaries are determined based on radii from the well or wellfields of 200 feet and five years groundwater travel time respectively. Protestants contend that the definition of "Zones of Protection" is vague, arbitrary and capricious because nowhere within the proposed rules is "G-I aquifer" defined. protestants' contention is not persuasive. Proposed rules 17-3.403(1) and (7) adequately explain what is meant by "G-I aquifer", and proposed rule 17-3.403(8) sets forth the metodology for calculating the zones of protection. The definition of "Zones of Protection", set forth in proposed rule 17-3.02(39) is not vague, arbitrary or capricious, because of any failure to define "G-I aquifer." Mapping Priorities When considering whether to reclassify an aquifer or aquifer segment as G-I, proposed rule 17-3.403(5)(e)2 requires that the aquifer or aquifer segment: Be specifically mapped and delineated by the Department on a detailed map of a scale which would clearly depict the applicable zones of protection. Maps will be grouped and submitted for reclassification generally on a regional basis. Mapping priorities shall follow the Commission directive of February 27, 1985. The remaining areas of the state will be mapped by the Department as time and resources allow. The mapping priority directive referred to in purposed Rule 17-3.403(5)(e)2a, was an oral directive of the ERC that Pinellas, Hillsborough, Pasco, Hernando, and Citrus Counties, referred to as the Middle-Gulf region, be mapped first. That directive has not been reduced to writing and, consequently, a copy thereof has never been available for inspection. Categories of G-I Aquifers and determination of zones and protection Proposed rules 17-3.403(7) and (8), respectively, set forth the eligibility criteria for reclassification as G-I aquifers and the methodology whereby the boundaries of the zones of protection are established. To this end, proposed rule 17- 3.403 (7) provides: Categories of G-I aquifers. For aquifers or aquifer segments to be eligible for potential reclassification as G-I aquifers one of the following criteria must be met: That the aquifer or aquifer segment under consideration be within the zones of protection of a major public community drinking water supply well(s) or wellfield(s) withdrawing water from unconfined aquifers or from leaky confined aquifers.... (b)(. reserved.) Proposed rule 17-3.403(8) provides: Determination of the boundaries of the zones of protection. (a) The boundaries of the zones of protection shall be based on radii from the wellhead or wellfield (if closely clustered, so that the five year zones of protection are overlapping) measured in 200 feet for the inner zone and five years for the outer zone. The radius of the outer zone shall be determined using the following formula: percent.x4n where Q = permitted average daily flow from the well (measured in cubic feet per day); T = five years (1825 days); 3.14 = mathematical constant pi; r = radius (feet); h distance from the top of the producing aquifer to the bottom of the hole (feet); n effective porosity. Protestants contend that the foregoing provisions of the proposed rules are vague, arbitrary and capricious because the wells that would be subject to and around which a zone of protection would be established cannot be identified or, if identifiable, do not comport with the Department's intent or interpretation. Protestant's concerns are not without merit. To be eligible for consideration as a G-I aquifer, proposed rule 17-3.403(7) requires that the aquifer segment be within the zones of protection of a "major public community drinking water supply well(s) or wellfield(s). Proposed rule 17- 3.021(17) provides that "major public community drinking water supply" shall mean: those community water systems as defined in Section 17-22.103(5), F.A.C., that are permitted by consumptive use permit to withdraw an average daily amount of 100,000 gallons or greater of groundwater. Community water system" is defined by Section 17-22.103(5) as: a public water system which serves at least IS service connections used by year- round residents or regularly serves at least 25 year-round residents. Facially then, the proposed G-I rules are applicable to "community water system" that hold a consumptive use permit to withdraw an average daily amount of 100,000 gallons or greater of groundwater", and which are withdrawing from unconfined or leaky confined aquifers. Notably, the rule does not ascribe the 100,000 gpd permitted rate of withdrawal to each well, but to a permit held by a community water system. Accordingly, under the literal reading of the proposed rules, each well covered by the consumptive use permit would be subject to a zone of protection regardless of its individually permitted rate, so long as it was withdrawing from an unconfined or leaky confined aquifer. While there may be legitimate reasons to designate zones of protection around wells, regardless of their individual permitted rate when the community water system holds a consumptive use permit to withdraw groundwater at a 100,000 gpd average, the Department advanced none. To the contrary, the Department contended that zones of protection were only to be established around a well that was permitted to withdraw an average daily amount of 100,000 gallons or greater. Under the circumstances, the provisions of proposed rules 17-3.403(7) and (8) are arbitrary and capricious. 6/ The "Vv" and "Tv" formulae Proposed rule 17-3.403(7)(a) prescribes the methodology where by vertical travel time will be calculated, and therefore whether a particular aquifer will be classified as confined or leaky confined. To this end, the proposed rule provides: ... Determination of vertical travel time for leaky confinement will be by application of the following formulae: Vv= Kv h/nl where: Vv= vertical velocity (feet/day). Kv= vertical hydraulic conductivities of the surficial aquifer and underlying confining bed materials (feet/day). h= head difference between water table in the surficial aquifer and the potentiometric surface of the producing aquifer (feet). n = effective porosities of the surficial aquifer and underlying confining bed materials. 1 = distance from the water table to the top of the producing aquifer (feet). Tv= 1/Vv 365 where: Tv= vertical travel time (years). 1 = same as above. Vv= same as above. The "Vv" formula and the "Tv" formula are valid formulae, and are commonly used by hydrogeologists to calculate the vertical velocity and vertical travel time of groundwater. As proposed, the formulae present a reasonable methodology for computing the vertical velocity and vertical travel time of groundwater if the well is producing from one aquifer. The formulae cannot, however, as hereafter discussed, be reasonably applied if tee well is producing from multiple aquifers or if another aquifer intervenes between the surf aquifer and the producing aquifer. While not the most prevalent occurrence in the state wells in the Middle-Gulf regions often do penetrate more than one aquifer and do produce water from more than one aquifer. The rule defines the "Kv" element of the "Vv" formula as the "vertical hydraulic conductivities of the surficial aquifer and underlying confining bed materials (feet/day)." This is a reasonable definition and will produce a scientifically valid result provided the well does not penetrate multiple aquifers. Should the well penetrate multiple aquifers, the values derived for vertical velocity ("Vv") and vertical travel time ("Tv") will not be accurate since the hydraulic conductivities of the intervening aquifers are not, by the rule definition, factored into the calculation of "Kv". Under such circumstances, whether an aquifer was classified as confined or leaky confined would not be determined by a valid "Kv" but, rather, by chance. Protestants also contend that the rule is vague, arbitrary and capricious because it does not specify the methodology by which "Kv" is to be calculated. There are, however, methodologies commonly accepted by hydrogeologists to derive a scientifically valid "Kv", whether the well penetrates one or more than one aquifer. The infirmity of the rule is not its failure to specify a methodology, but its to include data necessary to produce a meaningful result. The rule defines the "n" element of the Vv formula as "effective porosities of the surficial aquifer and underlying confining bed materials." This is a reasonable definition and will, though the application of commonly accepted methodologies, produce a scientifically valid result. 7/ The rule defines the element "Delta h" in the Vv formula as the "head difference between the water table in the surficial aquifer and the potentiometric surface of the producing aquifer (feet)", and defines the element "1" as the "distance from the water table to the top of the producing aquifer (feet)." These elements are utilized in the formula to calculate a gradient, and must be measured using the same points of reference to yield a meaningful result. To this end, the proof demonstrates that the definitions are reasonable since they utilize the same points of reference, and that when applied in accordance with accepted hydrogeologic practice will produce a scientifically valid gradient. (See Department exhibit 7). Protestants contend, however, that the definitions of "Delta h" and "1" are vague, arbitrary and capricious because they do not specify when the measurements should be made, do not define "producing aquifer", and do not define "top" of the producing aquifer. For the reasons that follow, Protestants' contentions are found to be without merit. While a water table is a dynamic surface subject to frequent, if not daily fluctuation, resulting from variations in rainfall and the demands of man, and while a potentiometric surface is likewise a dynamic elevation that changes with time and season, protestants failed to demonstrate that there was any particular date or dates that would be most appropriate to make such calculations. Rather, protestants contended that unless such measurements were taken contemporaneously, any derivation of "Delta h" and "1" would not be reliable. While such might be the case, the rule does not mandate a divergence from the accepted hydrogeologic practice of taking such measurements contemporaneously. While the rule does not define "producing aquifer," it is an accepted hydrogeologic term and not subject to confusion. The only confusion in this case was the introduction of the issue of multiple producing aquifers and protestants' contentions that this rendered the Vv formula vague, arbitrary and capricious since it did not factor in such a consideration. Protestants' contention does not, however render the term "producing aquifer" vague. The sole purpose of the Vv and Tv formulas are to determine whether the aquifer from which water is being produced is leaky confined. To establish this, the formulae are applied to calculate whether the vertical travel time is five years or less. If a well is withdrawing water from more than one aquifer it may be necessary to calculate Vv and Tv for each aquifer to discern which of those aquifers are within the 5 year vertical travel time threshold, and therefore subject to G-I reclassification. To this end the rule is not vague, and would adequately address the multiple producing aquifer scenario. While the rule doe not define "top" of the producing aquifer, this term is an accepted hydrogeologic term and is not subject to confusion. In application there may, however, be disagreements among hydrogeologists as to where this line should be established because geologic boundaries are fine gradations, and not sharp lines which would lend themselves to the designation of precise points of reference. This is not, however, a failure of the rule, but a peculiarity of nature, and is subject to scientific proof. Notably, protestants did not demonstrate that "top" of the producing aquifer could be defined with reference to a fixed point. Under the circumstances, "top" of the producing aquifer is a reasonable reference point. Zones of Protection Proposed rule 17-3.408 provides: Determination of the boundaries of the zones of protection shall be based on radii from the wellhead or wellfield (if closely clustered, so that the five year zones of protection are overlapping), measured in 200 feet for the inner zone and five years for the outer zone. The radius of the outer zone shall be determined using the following formula: QT 2 3.14 hn where Q = permitted average daily flow from the well (measured in cubic feet per day); T = five years (1825 days); 3.14 = mathematical constant pi; r = radius (feet); h distance from the top of the producing aquifer to the bottom of the hole (feet); n effective porosity. For the purpose of this calculation the following effective porosities for representative Florida aquifers will be used: Floridan .05 Sand and Gravel .2 Biscayne .15 Surficial .2 The Department shall use more site-specific values for "Q", "n", or "h" when available for designation of the zones of protection by the Commission. Proposed rule 17-3.403(8)(a) provides that the inner zone of protection shall be based on a radius from the wellhead or wellfilled, as appropriate, of 200 feet. While denoted as an arbitrary radius, the 200 foot radius was not derived without fact or reason. Rather, it was a result reached at the workshops after consideration of existing regulations that establish buffer zones of 200-500 feet between a public water supply and a pollution source. Conceptually, the 200 foot zone was adopted because it is so small and so close to the well that it essentially constituted a zone of protection of the well head by preventing contaminants from moving into the well opening directly or the annular space around the well casing. Accordingly, the 200 foot zone has a reasonable basis. Its actual delineation is, however, as flawed as that of the five year zone discussed infra. The "r" formula defines the outer zone of protection, and calculates it as a radius equal to the distance groundwater would flow in five years toward the well. The basis for the "r" formula is the formula used to calculate the volume of a cylinder. That formula, V = pi r2 h, yields a simple volumetric measurement without any consideration of velocity. By the introduction of the element "n" (effective porosity), the "r" formula introduces a velocity component which would, properly applied, produce a radius equal to the distance groundwater would flow in 5 years. 8/ As proposed, however, the rule would establish a meaningless line around a well. Under the proposed rule, the Department would calculate "r" based on specified effective porosities ("n") for the Floridan, Biscayne, sand and gravel, and surficial aquifers absent site specific data. The Department is, however, under no requirement to generate site specific data, and currently is mapping the Middle-Gulf region based on the values established by the rule. Absent chance, the areas mapped will bear no relationship to groundwater travel time. The lithology of an aquifer and the surrounding layers is varied and diverse, and directly affects the direction and velocity of groundwater flow. By assuming "n", the "r" formula ignores the varied lithology, and produces a radius that would seldom, if ever, represent the actual rate at which groundwater moved toward any well. 9/ The zone thus circumscribed is an illusion since the groundwaters and contaminants within it may move at a rate significantly greater than or less than 5 years travel time. Notably, the Department has conducted no study or test to validate its proposed methodology. The element "Q" in the "r" formula is defined as the "permitted average daily flow from the well (measured in cubic feet per day)." Protestants contend that such definition is vague, arbitrary and capricious because the Department proposes to rely on consumptive use permits issued by the various water management districts to derive "Q", and such permits would not necessarily provide the requisite data. While the proof demonstrates that "Q" cannot always be derived by reference to a consumptive use permit, this does not render the definition of "Q" vague, arbitrary, or capricious. Rather, "Q" is a factual matter, and subject to a factual derivation through reference to consumptive use permits and other site specific data. The element "T" in the "r" formula is defined as "five years (1825) days." By its inclusion, the Department proposes to circumscribe the outer zone of protection at five years groundwater travel time. The concept of a zone of protection is premised on the theory that restrictions should be placed on discharges to groundwater within an area proximate to a public water supply for public health and safety concerns. The five year standard, which is found throughout the rules, was based on the theory that if a contaminant was introduced to groundwater a period of time should be allowed to discover the contamination and remove it or make provision for an alternate water supply before the contaminant reached the public water supply. The five years proposed by the rule was not, however, founded on fact or reason. During the workshops that under scored the proposed rule, the time factor was the subject of considerable discussion and ranged from less than two years to greater than ten years. Based on its own in-house search, the Department initially proposed a 10-year standard. That search revealed that it took 10 to 15 years between the time a contaminant was discovered and cleanup could commence, and between seven and eight years between the time a contaminant was introduced into groundwater and it discovery. Notwithstanding the results of its own in-house search, the Department, in the face of debate, elected to "compromise" and propose a five-year standard. Such standard was not the result of any study to assess its validity, and no data, reports or other research were utilized to derive it. In sum, the five- year standard was simply a "compromise", and was not supported by fact or reason. As previously noted, the lithology of an aquifer and the surrounding layers is varied and diverse, and directly affects the direction and velocity of groundwater flow. The effective porosity of those materials in the Floridan aquifer canvary from to .4 at various places. The rule proposes, however, to use an effective porosity for the Floridan aquifer of .05 to establish "r." The value ascribed to "n" is a critical value, as previously discussed in paragraph 65. It also has a profound impact on the aeral extent of the zone of protection. For example, assuming "Q" equals 3 million gallons and "h" equals 600 feet, an "n" of .02 would result in a radius of 4,406 feet or 1,400 acres, an "n" of .03 would result in a radius of 3,578 fee or 934 acres, an "n" of .05 would result in a radius of 2,787 feet or 560 acres, and an "n" of .2 would result in a radius of 1,393 feet or 140 acres. While an effective porosity of 05 for the Floridan aquifer may be a reasonable value at a particular site, it is not a value that can be reasonably ascribed to the Floridan in general. For this reason, and the reasons heretofore set forth, the rule's specification of an effective porosity of .05 for the Floridan aquifer is unreasonable. Proposed rule 17-3.403(8)(a), sets forth the manner in which the zones of protection will be drawn around a well or wellfield. That proposed rule provides: For well fields whose individual zones of protection overlap due to clustering, a single zone of protection will be calculated in the following manner: Using the permitted average daily withdrawal rate of the wells with overlapping zones of protection, the area on the surface overlying the aquifer equal to the sum of the areas of the five year zones of protection of the individual wells, shall be used to define the area which encircles the perimeter of the wellfield. In cases where a zone of protection of a single well protrudues beyond the calculated perimeter or when the configuration of the wellfield is irregular, the perimeter will be shaped to accommodate the configuration. The surface are encircling the perimeter of the wellfield shall not exceed the total surface area of the overlapping zones of protection for individual wells. In the case of unclustered wells within a wellfield, individual zones of protection around each well will be calculated. As previously discussed, the proposed G-I rules are facially applicable to "community water systems" that hold a " consumptive use permit to withdraw an average daily amount of 100,000 gallons or greater of groundwater," and which are withdrawing from unconfined or leaky confined aquifers. Under proposed rule 1773.403(8)(a), the five-year zone of protection would be drawn around each of these wells. If the wells are located so close to each other that the five year zones of protection are overlapping (clustered), those wells would be deemed a wellfield by rule definition and a five year zone of protection would be established around it. The proposed rule's description at how to determine and configure a zone of protection around a wellfield is however, vague and ambiguous. While the rule provides that when the configuration of the wellfield is "irregular", the perimeter will be shaped to accommodate the configuration", it sets forth no standard by which the perimeter will be established. Effectively, the rule vests unbridled discretion in the Department to establish the configuration of a wellfield. The Economic Impact Statements Pursuant to the mandate of Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes, the Department prepared economic impact statements for the proposed revisions to Chapters 17-3 and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. The economic impact statements were prepared by Dr. Elizabeth Field, the Department's chief economist, an expert in economics. Dr. Field developed the economic impact statements by examining the proposed rules and discussing their potential impact with Department staff. Additionally, Dr. Field attended the public workshops that were held concerning the proposed rules, and solicited input from those participants. The Florida Home Builders Association and the Florida Petroleum Council submitted data for her consideration, but none of the petitioners, although some were represented at such workshops, responded to her requests for information. The economic impact statements prepared by Dr. Field to address the proposed rules conclude that, apart from the cost to the Department for mapping, there are no direct costs or economic benefits occasioned by the rules. Dr. Field's conclusion was premised on the fact that the proposed rules only establish the eligibility criteria for reclassification of an aquifer to G-I and the standards for discharge to that aquifer. Under the proposed rules, further rulemaking would be required to actually designate a specific aquifer as G-I, and delineate a zone of protection. 10/ Pertinent to this case, proposed rule 17-3.403, provides: The intent of establishing G-I eligibility criteria is to determine which aquifer or aquifer segments qualify for potential reclassification to G-I aquifers. Adoption of these criteria does not imply nor does it designate aquifer or aquifer segments as G-I. Such designation can only be achieved through reclassification by the Commission after eligible segments have been mapped by the Department. (6)... the following procedure shall be used to designate Class G-I aquifers: Rulemaking procedures pursuant to Chapter 17-102, F.A.C., shall be followed; Fact-finding workshops shall be held in the affected area; All local, county, or municipal governments, water management districts, state legislators, regional water supply authorities, and regional planning councils whose districts or jurisdictions include all or part of a proposed G-I aquifer shall be notified in writing by the Department at least 60 days prior to the workshop; A prominent public notice shall be placed in an appropriate newspaper(s) of general circulation in the area of the proposed G-I aquifer at least 60 days prior to the workshop. The notice shall contain a geographic location map indicating the area of the zones of protection and a general description of the impact of reclassification on present and future discharges to groundwater. A notice of a G-I workshop shall be published in the Florida Administrative Weekly prior to the workshop(s). At least 180 days prior to the Commission meeting during which a particular zone of protection will be considered for reclassification, the Department will provide notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly and appropriate newspaper(s) of the intended date of the Commission meeting. The Commission may reclassify an aquifer or aquifer segment as a G-I aquifer within specified boundaries upon consideration of environmental, technological, water quality, institutional (including local land use comprehensive plans), public health, public interest, social and economic factors. When considering a reclassification an aquifer or aquifer segment shall: ....(Be within the zones of protection of a major public community drinking water supply well(s) or wellfield(s) withdrawing water from unconfined or from leaky confined aquifers.).... Be specifically mapped and delineated by the Department on a detailed map of a scale which would clearly depict the applicable zones or protection. Maps will be grouped and submitted for reclassification generally on a regional basis. Mapping priorities shall follow the Commission directive of February 27, 1985. The remaining areas of the state will be mapped by the Department as time and resources allow. (Emphasis added). While, if and when applied, the proposed rules would certainly have a direct economic impact as a consequence of a reclassification of an aquifer to G-I and the designation of a zone of protection, as well as the standards for discharge to that aquifer, such costs at this stage are not direct or are not quantifiable. When mapped and the zones of protection identified, a reasonable assessment of the economic cost or benefit of the proposal can be addressed. This is specifically reserved by the Commission whereby its decision to reclassify an aquifer as G-I will, pursuant to proposed rule 17-3.403(6) follow rule making procedures and be based on consideration of economic factors. This result obtains whether the affected party is a small business or some other entity. In reaching the conclusion that the economic costs or benefits of the proposed rules, apart from the cost of mapping, do not at this stage have a direct or quantifiable impact, I have not overlooked the "announcement effect" that is occasioned by the announcement of a governmental agency to regulate an activity. Such announcement certainly has a chilling effect on the community that may reasonably be impacted. The economic impact is, however, speculative or not quantifiable in the instant case. Further, the proof does not demonstrate any incorrectness or unfairness in the proposed adoption of the rules occasioned by the EIS prepared in this case.
The Issue Whether the Respondent should have his fire sprinkler contractor license disciplined for violations of the statutes and rules as alleged by the Petitioner’s Second Administrative Complaint, and Whether, if the Petitioner does not prove the allegations against the Respondent, the Respondent should recover his attorney’s fees and costs.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Insurance and State Fire Marshall is charged with the licensure and regulation of fire protection system contractors. Ralph Hamm is now and was at all times relative to this case a certified fire protection system contractor holding certificate number 437539000188. Ralph Hamm is the president of W.F.P. Company, Inc. (WFP). As the certified contractor, he is responsible for the work done by the company. The Petitioner may discipline his license for violation of the code and statutes; however, the Petitioner does not license and has no jurisdiction over the company. The Department of Correction (DOC) let bids to install fire sprinkler systems in several of its facilities. WFP won several of these bids. These bids called for the design and installation of the systems based upon drawings of the facilities provided by DOC. The drawings accompanying the bid for Tomoka Correctional Institution (Tomoka) were incorrect, showing a structure similar to the Marion Correctional Institution, a job on which WFP had been the successful bidder. Tomoka’s maintenance and construction superintendent upon seeing the drawings prior to the receipt of bids, advised DOC’s project manager of the discrepancy in the drawings. The project manager acknowledged the problem, but advised that the bid would be published. It was the superintendent’s understanding that the contractor that won the bid would be permitted to build the system to fit the actual structure, and thereafter the work memorialized in “as built” drawings. This process was misleading to a bidder who accepted the drawings as accurate knowing that the Department had several prototype building designs which it replicated at its institutions based upon the nature of the facilities and topography. WFP, which had already designed a system for an identical building, could anticipate reusing its previous design, saving design costs, and presenting a lower bid. WFP won the contract. The record reveals that during the course of construction at Tomoka additional changes were made to include sprinkling rooms not originally indicated as being protected, altering the height of the pipes, changing the nature of the sprinkler heads from standard to institutional, and from hanging down (pendent) to being upright. NFPA 13, 1991 Edition, (NFPA) was the standard for the installation of the Tomoka sprinkler system. The bid for the Tomoka job called for all labor, materials, supervision equipment, services equipment, design and installation to comply with NFPA 13. In October 1995, Mr. Victor Higgs, a fire safety inspector with the State Fire Marshall’s Office (SFMO) with experience in general fire safety inspections, inspected Dorm B and Dorm E on the Tomoka job at the request of WFP during construction. Following his inspection, Higgs wrote a report finding essentially the same conditions in both dorms. Higgs found that the sprinkler installation was not in accordance with the on-hand drawings which had been approved by the SFMO; that hydraulic requirements for the systems as installed had not been recalculated; that there were no test certificates for the hydrostatic pressure of the above ground or below ground piping; that there was no indication of the type of sprinkler head to be used in the halls; and that smoke barriers had not been re-established where the pipes penetrated walls between areas. Of the observations made by Higgs, only the failure to re-establish the smoke barriers constituted a life threatening hazard prior to the conclusion of the job. The other conditions may have indicated an incomplete system, but did not increase the threat of fire. His other findings related to and were the result of having to do large portions of the job by change order. Higgs notified Ralph Hamm of his findings in October 1995. Subsequently, a conflict arose between the SFMO and WFP about the metal clamps being used by WFP to hold the pipe up against the ceilings and walls of the job. The personnel of the SFM advised WFP that the clamps were not to NFPA standard. The NFPA lists a number of approved clamps which a contractor may use or the contractor may use a clamp that has been tested and shown to hold five times the weight of the pipe with water in it plus 250 pounds. WFP asserted that the clamps it was using met the latter standard, but the SFM personnel wanted evidence of the testing. WFP wrote several letters regarding the clamps, but did not provide evidence of testing until after the administrative complaint was filed. In the meantime, WFP had replaced all of the clamps with a clamp listed in the NFPA, a Grinnel 262 pipe clamp, prior to the final approval of the job by the SFM. The test of the clamp originally used was conducted in accord with the standards provided to WFP’s engineer by Underwriter’s Laboratories, and showed that the clamp originally used met the strength requirements of the NFPA. A video of the test conducted by Foy Hamm was made and reviewed which shows the clamp holding a weight exceeding the NFPA standard. A conflict appears in the deposition testimony of WFP’s engineer, Gary West, regarding whether the clamp tested was the one originally used or the Grinnel 262. Foy Hamm, who conducted the test, testified that the clamp tested was the clamp WFP had originally used, and was not a Grinnel 262. The video was reviewed, and the clamp appears to be identical to those introduced at hearing and identified as clamps originally used by WFP. The test establishes that the original clamps met the NFPA standard when they were installed. Mezzapella, a fire safety inspector from SFMO, testified about as-built drawings, and stated that they had not approved by the SFMO. According to Mezzapella, as-built drawings are prepared by a contractor, approved by the SFMO and delivered to an owner who maintains them as a historical record. Gary West also testified about the procedure for approving as-built drawings of a job and re-certification of the drawings after changes have been made. The as-builts are not approved by the SFMO. Upon completion of the construction phase of the job, the as-built drawings are reviewed by the engineer, who makes new calculations as necessary, recommendations as necessary, and certifies the plans. Another of the alleged violations committed by WFP was failing to provide for drains in sections of the pipe installed that were lower than rest of the pipe. This condition resulted from DOC’s request that the height of the pipe be raised in the halls to prevent inmates from grabbing the pipes and swinging on them. As a result, in other places, such as the dayroom where the pipe had to be run under a major structural element of the building, the lower run of pipe would trap water. The NFPA provides that if more than five gallons of water can be trapped in such a low area, a drain must be provided; however, a pendent head may serve as such a drain. Ralph Hamm, the Respondent, drained the water in the dayroom area that was trapped, and it contained less than five gallons.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order finding that the Respondent violated Section 633.539(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and fine the Respondent $1,000 for each of the three reported violations proven plus cost not to exceed $1,000. Further, that the Respondent be required to attend continuing education courses on the NFPA, and be placed on probation for one year from the date of the completion of said courses. And, further Respondent is not entitled to attorney's fees and costs. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Marc S. Nash, Esquire Department of Insurance 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0333 M. Lee Fagan, Esquire Suite 31 One San Joe Place Jacksonville, FL 32257 Bill Nelson, State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, LL-26 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern generally whether the Respondents named above are liable for the contamination and violations alleged in the Petitioner, Department of Environmental Regulation's (DER) Notice of Violation and Amended Notice of Violation, pursuant to the relevant provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules contained in Title 17, Florida Administrative Code, as relevant to this proceeding and treated herein.
Findings Of Fact DER is an agency of the State of Florida charged, under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and related rules, with preventing and alleviating environmental contaminations, as pertinent hereto, including such issues involving ground waters of the State of Florida. The property in question in this proceeding is located at the northwest corner of Blount and Guillemard Streets in Pensacola, Florida. The legal description of that property and the state of the title of the property is as described in the Prehearing Stipulation filed by the parties at page two thereof. The Belleaus are the current owners of the real property at that location. Crown is the owner and operator of a commercial laundry and dry cleaning business situated on that property in the building(s) located thereon. Crown is a corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida and is a "person" within the meaning of Section 403.031(5), Florida Statutes. American Linen is a corporation authorized to conduct business in the State of Florida and is also a "person" within the meaning of that Statute. American Linen obtained the property by purchase by corporate warranty deed from Rentex (RCD) on April 23, 1979. It operated a commercial laundry at the property from that date until June 3, 1985, when it sold the laundry business to Crown and the real property upon which it operated to the Belleaus. In November of 1971, RCD, a Delaware corporation and a 100 percent-owned subsidiary of Rentex Services corporation (RSC), also a Delaware corporation, acquired the property. RCD owned and operated a commercial laundry and dry cleaning business on the property until April 23, 1979, on which date it sold the laundry business and property to American Linen. It actually operated a dry-cleaning service on the property during only 1974 and early 1975. Sketchley Delaware, Inc. (SDI), a Delaware corporation, purchased RSC, which then became a 100 percent- wholly-owned subsidiary of SDI in 1982. RCD, however, remained a 100 percent-wholly-owned subsidiary of RSC until 1983. In March of 1983, SDI merged with RSC, and the resulting corporation was named "Sketchley Services, Inc." RCD continued as a corporation, 100 percent-wholly-owned as a subsidiary of Sketchley. In October of 1983, RCD merged into Sketchley, and Sketchley survived. Respondent Sketchley has never held title to nor conducted any form of business on the property in question. On March 29, 1991, Sketchley was renamed "Jura Services, Inc." (Jura) and was converted to a close corporation under Delaware law. This controversy had its origins in May of 1986 when a representative of DER performed a routine sampling of tap water at the DER district office in Pensacola. Those samples were subjected to chemical analysis which revealed the presence of PCE, a widely-used solvent often associated with dry-cleaning operations. That tap water came from the public water supply for the City of Pensacola, supplied by a network of potable water wells. Upon learning of the PCE content in the water supply, DER began an investigation to attempt to locate its source. Analysis of a number of the Escambia County Utilities Authority (ECUA) wells (PW-6, PW- 8, PW-9, and east well) contained quantities of PCE in excess of the maximum contaminant levels for drinking water authorized by DER's rules. Those wells were taken out of service in June of 1986, subjected to carbon filtration which ultimately removed the PCE from the water supply for those wells, and the wells have since been put back in public service. A ground water investigation was undertaken by DER to determine the source of contamination in the upper portion of the sand and gravel aquifer and in the production zone of the deeper Floridian aquifer which supplies those wells. A total of 29 ground water monitoring wells (MW) were installed and sampled. An analysis of these was prepared (87-04 report). On February 7, 1987, DER and representatives of the utilities authority and Crown, the operator of the laundry facility, conducted an inspection and clean-out of the surge tank located in the floor of the Crown laundry building. A chemical analysis of three samples of liquid residue in the bottom of the tank revealed the presence of PCE in those sediments in concentrations of 1,952 parts per billion (PPB), 108.5 PPB, and 50 PPB. Additionally, one of the samples revealed trichloroethene at 34 PPB and 1, 2 dichloroethene at 52,800 PPB. Under certain conditions, these last two-named compounds are produced as bi-products of the breakdown of PCE. Based upon this inspection and the investigation of other potential sources, DER took the position that the surge tank at Crown had discharged waste water containing PCE into the adjacent soils and that PCE migrated into ground water produced by the ECUA's public water supply wells, PW-6, PW-8, PW-9, and "east well". Although not stipulating that the samples were representative or to the conclusions to be drawn from the analytical results of testing the samples, the parties stipulated that proper physical and technical procedures and methods were used in the collection, preservation and analysis of all of the samples and the laboratory results were consequently stipulated into evidence. Jura, American Linen, Crown, and the Belleaus had no actual knowledge that any PCE had been deposited in the surge tank between 1971 and the date in 1979, when American Linen bought the facility. A commercial laundry has been operated on the subject property since 1971. The laundry was operated by RCD at that time, and in the summer of 1974 and during at least part of 1975, a dry-cleaning operation, in addition to laundry, was conducted by RCD at the site. The dry-cleaning operation involved the use of PCE. This was the only period of time when dry-cleaning operations were conducted on the property until 1985 when Crown conducted a dry-cleaning operation. Crown's operation, however, made no use of PCE, but rather, Crown used "stoddered solvent" as its dry- cleaning fluid. During American Linen's ownership and operation of the laundry at the site, no dry-cleaning operations, whatever, were conducted. At no time during American Linen's ownership and operation of the laundry at the site nor during the Belleaus ownership, and Crown's operation, of the laundry facility was any PCE used or stored on the property. Since laundry operations commenced at the site, the waste wash water from the laundry was discharged to the surge tank located beneath the floor of the Crown building. That tank intercepts and stabilizes wash water prior to its discharge to the municipal sanitary sewer system. The surge tank also served as a component of the laundry operation as a thermal recovery system. Although the surge tank and the commercial laundry and dry-cleaning businesses which have been operated at the site constitutes an "installation" for purposes of Section 403.031(4), Florida Statutes, the tank has never been used for the intentional storage or disposal of any "hazardous substances", as defined in Section 403.703(31), Florida Statutes, by any of the Respondents. The tank has never been used for the intentional disposal of any hazardous substances by American Linen, Crown, the Belleaus, or Jura. During normal laundry operations, lint, sand and other sediment accumulated in the bottom of the surge tank over a period of time. When the accumulated quantity of sediment became too great so as to interfere with the operation, the liquid and the sediments were removed periodically by a vacuum truck and manual labor, using shovels, buckets, and a dumptruck. The surge tank was cleaned out several times over the pertinent years, including 1976, 1978, or 1979 (before American Linen's purchase), as well as in 1980-81, 1983, 1987, 1990 and 1991. It was possibly cleaned in 1972 or 1973, as well. In the 1976 clean-out, the surge tank was cleaned thoroughly enough that the workers reported searching for loose change on the concrete floor of the tank. DER must prove a violation of Section 403.161(1)(a) or (b), Florida Statutes, in order to establish liability for purposes of Section 403.141(1), Florida Statutes, and Section 403.121(2), Florida Statutes. DER has also sought, as of the time of hearing, to impose liability on the Respondents, pursuant to Section 403.727(4), Florida Statutes, which imposes strict liability on the owner and operator or former owner and operator of a facility at which a release to the environment of a hazardous substance has occurred. Section 403.161(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that it is prohibited for a person to cause pollution so as to harm or injure human health or welfare, animal, plant, or aquatic life, or property. In this proceeding, DER did not establish with competent, substantial evidence that the alleged pollution by PCE caused any harm or injury to human health or welfare, animal, plant, or aquatic life, or property. No risk assessment was conducted to determine the potential harm or actual harm. No testimony was presented with regard to the possible health effects or injurious impacts of PCE in the environment. There was no evidence shown to establish what amount of PCE in the environment or ground water might cause or potentially cause such harm to human health or any of the other injurious effects referenced in the above-cited Statute. DER has not adduced any evidence of a preponderant nature to show that any Respondent is thus liable for a violation of Section 403.161(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Section 403.161(1)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that it is a violation to fail to comply with any rule of DER. Section 403.161(1)(b), Florida Statutes, is implemented with regard to ground water through former Rule 17-4.245(2), Florida Administrative Code, now Rule 17- 28.700, Florida Administrative Code, which provides a cause of action for violation of ground water standards. In order to maintain a cause of action under that Rule, DER must prove that the Respondents violated either Rule 17-3.402(1), Florida Administrative Code (the "Free From" Rule), or Rule 17-3.404(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, which sets forth the ground water criteria alleged in the NOV and Amended NOV to have been violated. Concerning Rule 17-3.402(1), Florida Administrative Code, which establishes narrative, minimum health effects-based criteria applicable to ground water, DER has alleged that the Respondents failed to comply with this Rule, but introduced no evidence concerning any health effects of PCE in the ground water. DER produced no evidence whatever regarding the concentration, if any, of PCE, which may be carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, or toxic, or which would pose a serious danger to the public health, safety or welfare, or create a nuisance, or impair the reasonable and beneficial use of any adjacent ground water. Even assuming that some amount of PCE was released from the surge tank at some period of time, DER failed to present any evidence regarding the quantity of PCE which may have been released, and the concentration in the ground water which could have resulted from a release from the Crown property. It simply was not proven that the concentration shown in the wells, at which samples were taken, all resulted from any release, if any, which came from the Crown property. Thus, DER failed to adduce evidence which can demonstrate in a preponderant way a violation of the "Free From Rule" cited above or which would support its cause of action under Section 403.161(1)(b), Florida Statutes, with regard to alleged violation of this Rule. DER has also alleged that the Respondents violated Rule 17-3.404(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, cross- referencing and incorporating former Rule 17-22.104(1)(g), Florida Administrative Code, now Rule 17-550.310(2)(d), Florida Administrative Code, which sets forth the ground water standard, in the form of maximum contaminant level (MCL) for PCE. In order to demonstrate a violation of Rule 17-3.404(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, as to each Respondent, DER had to prove that the Respondents caused a release of PCE to the ground water, resulting in a concentration of PCE in the ground water greater than the MCL established by the Rule. Effective May 23, 1984, DER thus established 3 parts per billion as the MCL for PCE in drinking water and as the water quality standard for PCE applicable in Class G- II ground water, which is the classification of the ground water underlying the Crown property, and occurring at all of the supply wells and monitor wells involved in this proceeding. In order to demonstrate a violation of the MCL by release of PCE from the laundry property, DER had the burden of proving: (a) that PCE entered the surge tank; (b) that the surge tank, in fact, released it to the environment and to the ground water; (c) that the release of PCE occurred during the ownership and/or operation of the laundry by one or more of the Respondents; and (d) that the amount of PCE entering the ground water during ownership and/or operation of each Respondent caused the concentration of PCE in the ground water to exceed the MCL in effect at the time of each Respondent's ownership and/or operation. Proof of PCE in the Tank Rentex installed a dry-cleaning machine at the Crown facility during mid-1974. It was equipped with two PCE holding tanks with PCE being used as the cleaning solvent in the dry-cleaning process. There was a storage tank, four to five feet tall, which stored pure PCE. The other tank was an eight to ten foot tall "cooker" tank used to heat and reconstitute PCE used in the dry-cleaning process. The machine was located near the rear of the Crown building, close to the floor drains and the wash room. The dry-cleaning machine was dismantled and removed from the Crown facility to another dry-cleaning establishment in Baltimore sometime in late 1974 or the early part of 1975. The thrust of DER's case is that spills of PCE occurred from the dry-cleaning machine and its operation at the Crown facility which were allowed to enter the surge tank and thence leaked into the soil, the environment and the ground water. Indeed, several boil-overs of PCE occurred during the period of 1974 and early 1975, when the dry-cleaning operations were being conducted at the facility. Witnesses, Mathias and Hedrick, for DER, established that one spill of PCE in the amount of four to five gallons also occurred, along with several boil-overs from the laundry machine during that time period; however, the actual amount of PCE spilled or boiled over from the dry-cleaning machine and its operation was not established by DER. Mr. Mathias worked as a maintenance man at the facility during the relevant period when dry-cleaning operations were conducted by RCD. He established that there were several boil-overs of PCE from the cooker tank and that when PCE boiled over from the top of the machine, some quantity would be sprayed onto the floor which was then hosed off into the floor drains, which communicate with the surge tank. He was unable to quantify the amount of PCE spilled on the laundry floor or which reached the surge tank, however. He was not able to definitively establish how many boil-overs he witnessed nor their severity in terms of the amount of PCE which was resultingly spilled on the floor of the laundry. He did not witness any spills of PCE other than those occurring in conjunction with boil-over events. Mr. Hedrick was also a maintenance man at the facility during RCD's period of ownership and its dry- cleaning operations. He knew of one incident in mid-1974 in which four to five gallons of PCE were spilled directly onto the floor of the laundry due to a hose connecting the holding tank to the cooker tank being inadvertently disconnected. That PCE was washed with a hose into the floor drains and thence into the surge tank. Mr. Hedrick could recall only two boil-overs of PCE from the dry- cleaning machines. These incidents involved PCE spraying over the top of the cooker tank but did not involve the release of any significant amount of PCE onto the floor. Mr. Hedrick established that employees were careful in handling the chemical because it was very expensive and they were careful not to waste it. After boil-over events which he described, he observed the level of the PCE in the holding tank, which did not appear to drop much as a result of the boil-overs. He was also responsible for refilling PCE into the holding tank as necessary. His experience was that he was not required to add PCE to the machine as the mere result of a boil-over because the boiling PCE escaped from the top of the machine mostly as foam with very little actual volume of PCE being discharged during such a boil- over event. Mr. Hedrick's testimony is corroborated by that of Dr. Mercer, an expert in hydrogeology, dense, non-aqueous phase liquid behavior (DNAPL), and the fate and transport of chemicals in the subsurface environment, presented by Jura. Dr. Mercer established that in a boil-over event, the PCE escaping from the top of the machine is pure PCE, chemically, but it escapes in the form of a foam or mist very near the boiling point of approximately 250 Fahrenheit. Because it is very volatile, most of the PCE escaping from the machine in a boil-over event, due to its volatility enhanced by its high heat, dissipates into the atmosphere. Whatever PCE did not volatilize would spread in a thin film over the floor of the facility and, because it was still a warm fluid, would continue to volatilize into the atmosphere. The small amount which did not volatilize would be washed into the floor drains and correspondingly diluted prior to entry into the surge tank, where it would be further diluted by the large volume of warm water present in the tank which would enhance dissolution and dilution. Consequently, the boil-overs would have produced only dissolved PCE entering the tank in small quantities, most of which would be flushed from the tank into the city sanitary sewer system through the outfall line exiting from the wall of the surge tank. Thus, the testimony of these witnesses establishes that only one spill of four to five gallons of PCE occurred in 1974, most of which was washed into the floor drains and into the surge tank. It was not established that the boil- over events materially contributed to the volume of PCE entering the surge tank during the dry-cleaning operations conducted in 1974 and early 1975. No PCE was shown to have been deposited in the surge tank after dry-cleaning operations ceased in 1974 or at the latest in early 1975 during the RCD ownership and operation of the facility. It was not shown that PCE was released or discharged to the environment by any other means since that time at or on the property or facility. Release of PCE to the Environment DER has thus established that some four to five gallons of PCE from a spill entered the surge tank in 1974 and that some minor quantities from boil-overs entered the tank through wash down of the laundry floor. DER also has the burden to establish the next evidentiary link; that the PCE was released from the surge tank to the environment. The surge tank consists of a poured concrete floor with concrete-block walls with a plaster or cement covering on the outside of the tank. The concrete-block mortar joints and concrete with which the tank is constructed are porous materials, although the specific porosity has not been quantified. The extent of coverage, the integrity and continuity of the exterior cement or plaster layer over the outside of the tank, and for the life of the tank, is not established. The surge tank was constructed in 1969 in conjunction with the construction of the laundry building. It is 20 feet long by 10 feet deep by 9 feet wide. It is stipulated that the surge tank leaks wash water at some rate because of the porosity of the materials and because of cracks and fissures which have opened in its walls since its construction. Testing of the tank in 1971 revealed that it leaked, at that time, at the rate of 6.5 gallons per day. No evidence establishes what the leakage rate before 1991 might have been. There is no direct evidence of a release of PCE from the surge tank to the soil or ground water. Michael Clark testified in this regard, as a member of the Operations Response Team of DER. In his opinion, DNAPL or "separate phase" PCE (undissolved PCE) had escaped from the tank into the ground water; however, he testified that he performed no calculations to determine the quantity of PCE which would have had to enter the surge tank in order to create a release of separate phase PCE. Mr. Clark assumed in the gravamen of his testimony that the contents of a 55- gallon drum of PCE had been released to the surge tank in a spill, in performing his analysis of the potential for release of PCE from the surge tank. He admitted, however, that the release of 55 gallons of PCE had been only hypothetical and no evidence was presented in this case to establish that 55 gallons of PCE had been spilled or otherwise placed in the surge tank. Mr. Clark was neither offered nor qualified as an expert in hydrogeology or any other field of expertise which could establish that he had any expertise in the movement of chemicals in the environment or in ground water or soils, nor as to the chemical state of those chemicals while in the soils or ground water at any point in time. Mr. Clark's opinion that separate phase PCE was released to the soil and then the ground water from the surge tank and that it resulted in the contamination found in the public water supply wells at issue, as well as in the monitoring wells, is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Inasmuch as Mr. Clark's opinion testimony did not demonstrate, by preponderant evidence, that separate phase PCE was released to the environment from the tank and there being no direct evidence of such a release, then inferential evidence must be used to establish whether such a release occurred. PCE was shown to be present in the tank in 1974 based upon the above-described events. The presence of PCE has been detected in the ground water immediately downgradient of the Crown property, as well as in the public drinking water supply wells and the monitoring wells, downgradient of the Crown facility. That evidence, together with the evidence concerning the porous nature of the materials of which the tank is constructed and the tank's condition, which has deteriorated over time, is sufficient to support an inference that some undetermined quantity of dissolved PCE escaped from the surge tank over some undetermined points or periods of time. DER, however, did not adduce evidence which could establish an inference that a release of dissolved PCE or separate phase PCE from the tank would be sufficient to cause the violations of the MCL for PCE found at the monitoring points in the vicinity of the Crown property nor is the evidence sufficient to establish when the releases, if any, which may have contributed to a violation of the MCL for PCE at the monitoring or sampling points may have occurred. The lack of sufficient evidence to support such an inference is pointed out by the testimony of witnesses Mathias and Hedrick, testifying for DER, concerning the quantity of PCE which entered the tank and by the testimony of Jura's expert witness, Dr. James Mercer, regarding the behavior of PCE upon entering the tank and upon a release to the environment. The finding that the evidence is insufficient to support an inference that the tank released sufficient PCE to cause a violation of the MCL for PCE is further supported by the evidence that DER did not exclude, through its PCE source investigation, other potential sources of PCE contamination in the ground water, other than Crown, particularly in view of the evidence concerning the cone of influence of the "east well" and the location of the contamination in the PW-9 well, located upgradient from the Crown facility. Dr. Mercer testified concerning the behavior of separate phase PCE with regard to the spill of four to five gallons of pure PCE from the holding tank, as found above. He established that because PCE is very volatile, much of the spill would have volatilized into the atmosphere, although at a slower rate than the boiling temperature of PCE released during boil-over events, as described herein. The spilled PCE, which did not volatilize, would have been washed down with a hose, diluting it and dissolving it in water prior to its entry into the floor drains and the surge tank. In the floor drains and in the tank, some of the PCE would have been entrained or bound up in the lint present in those locations; and some of the PCE would have made its way to the surge tank. Because of prior dilution and dissolution, a relatively small amount of pure PCE would have entered the surge tank. The presence of warm water in the tank would have promoted more dissolution and dilution of the chemical, such that most of the four to five gallons of pure PCE spilled would have become mostly dissolved PCE upon entry into the tank. Some of that would have then been washed out into a sanitary sewer system through the outfall line. Since separate phase PCE is denser than water, any of it in that form entering the tank would sink to the bottom of the waste water in the tank, coming to rest on the layer of sand, lint and other sediments on the bottom of the tank. Dr. Mercer established that any separate phase PCE from the referenced spill would thus form a layer on top of accumulated sediments at the bottom of the tank, approximately .14 inches thick, assuming that it was evenly distributed over the bottom of the tank. In order for separate phase PCE to penetrate the pore spaces in the sediments, it would have to displace the waste water or wash water already occupying those pore spaces. If the layer, established by Dr. Mercer, was as thin as .14 inches thick, such a thin layer would not penetrate the pore spaces of the sediments because they would be filled already with wash water. That thin layer of separate phase PCE would not exert sufficient hydraulic pressure to displace that water because of the capillary pressure barrier formed between the water in the pore spaces and the separate phase PCE layer on top of the sediments. The capillary pressure effect is the pressure difference between two liquids, which creates a capillary pressure barrier, inhibiting the penetration of separate phase PCE into the pore spaces of the sediments. Dr. Mercer testified that a thickness of 4.7 inches of separate phase PCE, resting on top of the sediments, would be necessary to overcome the capillary pressure barrier between the wash water and the pore spaces of the saturated sediments and the separate phase PCE layer lying on top of those sediments. Therefore, most of the separate phase PCE would remain as a layer on top of the sediments. Dr. Mercer opined that if separate phase PCE does not reach the sediments in the bottom of the tank in sufficient volume to maintain the movement of the chemical through that porous medium, the separate phase PCE, which does settle to the top of the sediments, will tend to dissolve over time, partially into the wash water above the layer of PCE at the bottom of the tank and partially into the water occupying the pore spaces within the layer of sediments in the bottom of the tank. Any separate phase PCE, which dissolves into the overlying wash water, will become extremely diluted. Eventually, most of that dissolved PCE would be discharged through the tank's outfall to the public sanitary sewer system. Any separate phase PCE, which is able to overcome the capillary pressure barrier and move into the pore spaces of the sediments, by displacing wash water within those spaces, would become trapped within those pore spaces, because of an effect known as "residual saturation". When a separate phase liquid moving through a porous medium is not of sufficient volume to maintain its movement, it tends to physically break apart into globules of separate phase liquid within those pore spaces. As more globules form within the spaces, the movement of the separate phase liquid decreases until at some point the flow stops. When the flow stops, the globules of separate phase liquid become trapped within the spaces. The point at which a sufficient percentage of pore spaces are filled with globules of separate phase liquid is called "residual saturation". Because of the effect of residual saturation on any separate phase PCE at the bottom of the tank, Dr. Mercer concluded that separate phase PCE within the pore spaces of the sediments would be unable to flow and would effectually be trapped in the sediments in the bottom of the tank until those sediments were removed, either through dissolution into the wash water in the tank as flushing occurs through use of the tank over time or when the sediments were removed during clean-outs of the tank. Therefore, little, if any, separate phase PCE could have been released from the tank to the environment. Dr. Mercer's testimony was unrefuted and thus demonstrates that most PCE entering the tank would dissolve into the wash water already present, flow through the outfall to the sewer system, or become dissolved in the free water and water occupying the pore spaces in the sediments at the bottom of the tank. The evidence supports the finding that little, if any, PCE would be released to the soil surrounding or underlying the tank as a result of the spill of four or five gallons of PCE from the dry-cleaning machine. No evidence was presented to establish the quantity of PCE which could have escaped from the tank as a result of the spill of four or five gallons of PCE into the tank nor was any evidence presented which would establish during what period of time the release to the environment may have occurred. Charles Ferst testified as an expert in environmental engineering concerning the amount of PCE which may be released from the tank over time. Mr. Ferst testified that the leakage rate of the surge tank likely increased over time until reaching the current rate established in the evidence of 6.5 gallons per day, as determined by the 1991 test. Although the surge tank leaked at earlier periods, Mr. Ferst could not determine when the tank started leaking and could not calculate the leakage rate at any period of time prior to 1991 nor could any other witness. Based upon standard construction practices and the materials used in the tank at the time of its construction in 1969, Mr. Ferst opined that the tank leaked more after 1980 than in earlier years. Using that assumption and the fact that the sediments in the bottom of the tank were cleaned out several times between 1974 and 1991, he calculated the maximum amount of PCE which could have escaped from the tank after 1980. Mr. Ferst's calculations, however, are based upon a number of unsupported assumptions. Although he establishes that the tank leaked more in later years than in earlier years, his calculations and assumptions do little to establish how much PCE may have been released during any particular period of time; and little weight can be given to his conclusions regarding the specific amounts of PCE allegedly released at particular periods of time. DER did not present any evidence concerning the amount of PCE which could have escaped from the tank, even assuming that the tank leaked since 1974, when it was shown that some PCE had been placed in the tank. DER failed to prove that any amount of PCE which may have leaked out of the tank was sufficient to cause a violation of the MCL for PCE, and it did not inferentially demonstrate that any PCE which may have leaked out of the tank caused a violation of the MCL, because it simply failed to show that the violation levels found in the various wells where samples were drawn, solely resulted from contamination emanating from the Crown tank. DER failed to adduce evidence sufficient to carry its burden of proving a violation of the ground water standard for PCE caused by a release of PCE from the Crown property. Source of Contamination DER must prove that a release of PCE from the tank caused or contributed to the PCE contamination found in the public water supply wells and the monitoring wells. Dr. Mercer testified that if it is assumed that the tank is a source of contamination and the PCE concentration data collected by DER is used, the travel time of PCE from the surge tank to one of the monitoring wells, MW-3, where the highest concentrations were found, would indicate a release occurring many years prior to 1969, the year in which the Crown building and surge tank were constructed. Dr. Mercer therefore concluded that the surge tank at the Crown facility was likely not the sole or even the primary source of PCE contamination found by DER. In attempting to determine the source of the PCE discovered in the subject water supply wells, DER conducted soil sampling in suspected areas of contamination. This soil sampling revealed only two significant areas of PCE contamination in soils, neither of which was near the Crown property. DER then also selected monitoring well locations based upon ease of accessibility in order to determine the source of the contamination quickly. The monitoring wells were placed in the deep, intermediate, and shallow zones of the aquifer system underlying downtown Pensacola. Near the Crown facility, however, the intermediate zone was not present; instead, there was a shallow zone separated from the deep zone by a confining unit of relatively-impervious material. DER demonstrated that the shallow, intermediate and deep aquifer systems within the downtown Pensacola area are contaminated with PCE and PCE-derived breakdown compounds at widely-varying concentrations. DER did not prove, however, that one or more discreet plumes of PCE contamination exist. Mr. Clark, testifying for DER, attempted to calculate the travel time of contaminants found in MW-3 based upon their being released to the ground water from the Crown facility. Although Mr. Clark indicated this to be, in his belief, between 1970 and 1980, he admitted that he only estimated the travel time of ground water, as opposed to PCE, from the Crown property. Moreover, he averaged high hydraulic conductivity values for monitoring wells quite distant from the Crown property, near PW-9, and ignored data from closer, more relevant wells. Dr. Mercer, however, testified that the method used by DER to calculate travel time, which relies on conductivity values too far away from the suspected source and wells of concern, and averages only those high-conductivity values, while ignoring more pertinent values, provides a less accurate result. Hydraulic conductivity values are used to calculate ground water velocities, which can then be used to calculate travel times over a certain distance. Dr. Mercer testified that using the hydraulic conductivity values obtained from monitoring wells in close proximity to an assumed source and which reveal the presence of PCE in significant concentrations, which DER did not do, produces a much slower ground water velocity than that calculated by DER because the hydraulic conductivity values used are much lower. Averaging the hydraulic conductivity values obtained from monitoring wells which indicated significant concentrations of PCE in close proximity to the Crown facility to calculate travel time for PCE produced an estimate of 37 years for PCE released from the surge tank to reach MW-3. Thus, the PCE would have had to have been released prior to 1969 when the surge tank and the laundry facility were built (or from a different location). Because of this, it was not definitively shown that the PCE found in MW-3 came from the surge tank at the Crown facility. Dr. Mercer's testimony, because of his higher level of training, expertise and experience in hydrogeology and the fate and transport of chemicals in ground water, is accepted over that of Mr. Clark. Mr. Ross Mitchell testified regarding DER's search, which he conducted for facilities within the downtown Pensacola area which used or could have been the sources of a release of PCE. That investigation apparently concentrated on dry-cleaning establishments because DER opined that PCE was commonly used in such operations. Mr. Mitchell described his source investigation as "quick and dirty". He indicated that he did not follow up with every lead that he developed and that he established a "ball park" area within which to conduct his investigation. In fact, his investigation concentrated on a specific geographic area, in which other DER personnel had told him high concentrations of PCE had been found in ground water. As part of his investigation, he relied upon verbal representations by owners and operators regarding whether their facilities had ever used PCE. He made no effort to confirm those representations, other than cross-checking, in some instances, whether a given facility had been identified by a PCE supplier as a facility to which it had supplied PCE. However, he did not obtain customer lists from suppliers of PCE and was only able to get fragmentary information from the suppliers. Mr. Mitchell made no effort to verify whether PCE had ever been used at many of the facilities he had identified. He simply looked for readily- available evidence. That investigation was completed before DER became aware that PCE had been used at the Crown facility. Once that knowledge was obtained, Mr. Mitchell assumed that it would be the source of the PCE contamination found. He did not follow up regarding any of the other facilities which were on his list of suspect locations. He acknowledged at hearing that several of the suspect facilities, other than Crown, had not actually been eliminated as potential sources and acknowledged that he had not considered possible sources, other than dry-cleaning establishments, such as refuse dumpsters at facilities which had been identified as using or having used PCE. He did no environmental sampling around dumpsters at such facilities to detect spillage and did not investigate any records of any of the facilities he had investigated to determine whether they had purchased or used PCE. Mr. Mitchell located four dry cleaners, all upgradient of the PCE contaminated drinking water wells operated by ECUA. Among the dry cleaners suspected as potential sources of the contamination, only the Crown facility was located hydraulically downgradient of PW-9. In order for the contamination to travel from the Crown surge tank to PW-9, the pumping regimen employed by ECUA's supply wells would have to reverse the direction of ground water flow or hydraulic gradient. Dr. Mercer's calculations demonstrated that the pumping regimen employed by ECUA could not have reversed the gradient so as to pull contaminants from the Crown facility upgradient to be captured by PW-9. Dr. Mercer and Mr. Clark both agreed that the "east well" pumps continuously throughout the year. PW- 9 does not pump continuously. When the "east well" is pumping, it will capture anything that would be in the subsurface in the vicinity of the Crown facility; and its capture zone would extend upgradient as far as PW-9. Mr. Clark admitted that he had no calculations to support his conclusion that ECUA's pumping of PW-9 could have reversed the gradient in the subsurface to draw contaminants from the Crown facility to PW-9. Accordingly, it is concluded that DER did not adduce sufficient evidence to prove that the Crown facility could be the source of contamination in PW-9. The source investigation conducted by DER was inadequate to definitively determine whether the Crown facility was the source of PCE contamination or not. DER did not collect adequate soil and ground water samples throughout the area of known contaminations so as to pinpoint a specific source or sources for the contamination. No soil samples were collected from the immediate area around potential sources identified in close proximity to PW-9, for instance, such as the other four dry-cleaning establishments. Instead, once DER found PCE in MW-3 in high concentrations, it apparently focused all of its efforts on the Crown facility, assuming it to be the source of contamination. There are other upgradient PCE users (TCE), identified in Exhibit 6 which have not been ruled out as sources by competent evidence and that exhibit also shows that there may be three older dry cleaning sites in the downtown area with underground solvent tanks, which the record does not prove to have been investigated and ruled out as sources. Since Crown was shown not to be the source of PCE contamination at PW-9, there could be sources of PCE contamination other than Crown which better account for conditions observed in the ground water in downtown Pensacola. DER simply failed in its investigation to adequately rule out other potential sources of contamination within the cone of influence of the public water supply wells, PW-6, PW-8, the "east well", and PW-9. It is as likely as not, for example, that PCE emanating from whatever source or sources contaminated PW-9 (potentially four different dry-cleaning establishments) was also drawn hydraulically downgradient and into the "east well" and other wells. The record reflects that the "east well", for instance, when it is pumping, has a capture zone which extends as far as and including PW-9. DER failed to adequately investigate that potential explanation, as well as other potential sources of the contamination, including the stormwater pond, and thereby failed to prove that contamination emanating from the Crown facility, more likely than not, caused the contamination observed in the ECUA wells, or at least all of it, to the extent of its violating the MCL for PCE in the sites sampled. DER also seeks to impose liability on the Respondents pursuant to Section 403.727(4), Florida Statutes, which imposes strict liability on the current or former owner or operator at the time of disposal of any hazardous substance, as to a facility at which a release of hazardous substances has occurred. PCE is a hazardous substance, as that term is used in Section 403.727, Florida Statutes. However, Section 403.727, Florida Statutes, did not become effective until 1980; and PCE was not listed as a hazardous substance until 1984. DER has failed to prove in what quantity or during what period of time PCE may have been released from the surge tank at the Crown facility. It has established that PCE was only placed in the surge tank during 1974 and 1975 and not since, well before the effective date of this statutory provision and the listing of PCE as a hazardous substance. It has produced evidence from which it is inferred that a certain amount of dissolved PCE in laundry waste water leaked from the tank. It has not been established when the leakage started nor in what quantities PCE dissolved into the wash or waste water may have leaked into the surrounding soil, nor what rate (continuously increasing, decreasing, or static) the leakage occurred. Thus, the most that may be inferred is that leakage of dissolved PCE in an unknown concentration occurred sometime after 1974, but it has not been proven that PCE, as a hazardous substance, has been released into the environment during a specific period of time when each of the Respondents owned and/or operated the Crown facility. Thus, DER has failed to adduce evidence sufficient to carry its burden of proving a release of a hazardous substance, subjecting any of the Respondents to liability under Section 403.727, Florida Statutes. In any event, the Respondents were not on notice of the need to defend against a charge under that statutory section since the NOV and the Amended NOV did not inform them that such would be the basis of any purported liability alleged by DER. DER contended, for the first time at hearing, that the Respondents are liable for violation of the hazardous waste disposal rules. DER alleged at hearing that PCE, as a waste, is a listed hazardous waste, either as a spent solvent or a discarded commercial chemical. No such allegations were included in the NOV or the Amended NOV. However, Dr. Mercer established that any PCE which may have been released into the environment from the surge tank was in dissolved form and not as separate phase PCE. Dissolved PCE has not been shown to be a hazardous waste. Therefore, there is no evidence of record to support a finding that improper disposal of hazardous waste occurred at any point or points in time relevant to his proceeding. Moreover, Mr. Clark testified that he conducted a hazardous waste inspection of the Crown facility in 1982. Mr. Clark determined at that time that there was no hazardous waste being generated in the building or being stored in the building. DER has failed to demonstrate that any hazardous waste was generated or stored on the Crown property or disposed of into the surge tank at anytime by any of the Respondents. Finally, no evidence has been presented in this case that any of the Respondents had actual or constructive knowledge of the presence of PCE in the surge tank or of whether or not any release to the surge tank had occurred between 1971 and 1979 or any knowledge of any use or discharge of PCE to the surge tank prior to the commencement of DER's investigation in this action. Only RCD may be presumed to have had knowledge of the spillage of PCE which was discharged to the surge tank in 1974 and 1975, which entity was Jura's predecessor, ultimately merged into the corporation now known as Jura Services, Inc. Additionally, DER seeks in this proceeding only to be reimbursed for the costs of the investigation and tracing of the source of contamination and not for any natural resources damages nor any adjudication of the extent of liability for such damages, except insofar as the Order for Corrective Action which DER seeks to have imposed in this case reserves DER the opportunity to seek a determination after completion of corrective action of the extent to which the Respondents may be liable for natural resources damage, if any.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that DER enter a Final Order dismissing the Amended NOV against all Respondents. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of November, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings Hearings P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 5th day of November, 1992. 5985 APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 88-3077 & 88- Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-16. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the preponderant evidence of record and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted but not dispositive. Rejected as contrary to the preponderant weight of the Hearing testimony and evidence and subordinate to the Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected for the same reason. Accepted but not in itself dispositive of the material findings issues and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 23-27. Accepted but not in themselves materially dispositive. 28-30. Accepted but not in themselves materially dispositive. 31-34. Accepted. 35-40. Accepted but not in themselves materially dispositive. 41-50. Accepted but not in themselves materially dispositive. 51. Accepted but not in itself dispositive and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 52-53. Accepted. Accepted as to the DER intent in placement of the wells. Accepted but not materially dispositive standing alone. Accepted. Accepted to the extent that Crown Laundry has been shown source by circumstantial evidence to be inferentially a of the contamination found in the various wells mentioned but not the sole source nor the source actually causing this made on violation of appropriate standards and otherwise proposed finding of fact is subordinate to those this subject matter by the Hearing Officer. Rejected as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted as to the levels of chemical depicted in this the proposed finding of fact but not as to the material import of the proposed finding of fact concerning tank being the cause of the excession of the MCL standards. Accepted but not itself dispositive of material issues presented. 61-62. Accepted. Accepted except that the presence of these chemicals in excession of the MCL inside the tank does not constitute a violation of any pertinent legal authority. Accepted. Accepted to the extent that the walls of the tank are a continuing source of PCE. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted in terms of the amount spent but rejected otherwise as being, in effect, a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law and not a proposed finding of fact. Rejected as constituting a recitation of a portion of the fact pleadings at issue and not as a proposed finding of which is materially dispositive of any issue. Rejected as not constituting a material proposed finding of fact but rather a recitation or discussion of the remedies sought by the Petitioner. Rejected as immaterial in this proceeding. Accepted but not dispositive. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law and not a proposed finding of fact. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Respondent, American Linen Supply Company's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-21. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted but not as probative that leakage could have raised the level of PCE in the monitoring and production well samples above the maximum contaminant level. Accepted. Accepted but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted but not itself dispositive. 27-28. Accepted. Respondents, Belleaus and Crown Laundry and Dry Cleaners, Inc.'s Proposed Findings of Fact 1-21. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and to some extent, as speculative. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted but not itself dispositive of material issues. Accepted. Respondent, Jura Services, Inc.'s Proposed Findings of Fact 1-63. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 66-68. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Jack Chisolm, Esq. Richard Windsor, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 William D. Preston, Esq. Thomas M. DeRose, Esq. HOPPING, BOYD, ET AL. 123 S. Calhoun Street P.O. Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas P. Healy, Jr., Esq. MAYER, BROWN & PLATT 190 South LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60603 John W. Wilcox, Esq. Derek B. Spilman, Esq. RUDNICK & WOLFE 101 East Kennedy Blvd. Suite 2000 Tampa, Florida 33602 Jeffrey C. Bassett, Esq. BARRON, REDDING, ET AL. Box 2467 Panama City, Florida 32401
The Issue Whether, on January 14, 1997, the Department of Health (Department or DOH), approved an alternative drainfield system for Plastic Tubing Industries, Inc. (PTI), consisting of a 9- pipe system on an equivalency of one linear foot of PTI's system to two square feet of mineral aggregate or one linear foot of PTI's system to three square feet of mineral aggregate.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Plastic Tubing Industries, Inc. (PTI), formerly Plastic Tubing, Inc., was originally formed in Florida in 1974. PTI manufactures plastic drain pipe and the fittings that accompany such pipe. Many of its products and processes are patented. In conjunction with its business, PTI has developed several alternative drainfield systems that utilize plastic tubing or corrugated pipe in lieu of a standard subsurface system made with mineral aggregate for septic tank drainfields. An alternative drainfield system substitutes pipe, or other materials, for aggregate (gravel or rock) used in traditional systems. Before installation in the State of Florida, PTI was required to obtain approval for its alternative drainfield system from the Department. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 10D-6.049, effective January 3, 1995, amended November 19, 1997, and February 3, 1999; and replaced with Fla. Admin. Code R. 64E- 6.009. The Department was, at all times relevant to this administrative proceeding, the state agency authorized to approve the use of alternative systems (to standard subsurface systems) in the State of Florida. Approvals of alternative systems were based on the Department's analysis of, in part, plans prepared by an engineer registered in the State of Florida and submitted by applicants. See Rule 10D-6.049.1 Septic Tanks and Drainfields "Alternative system" means "any approved onsite sewage treatment and disposal system used in lieu of, including modifications to, a standard subsurface system." Rule 10D- 6.042(3). "Standard subsurface drain field system" means "an onsite sewage system and disposal system drain field consisting of a distribution box or header pipe in a drain trench or absorption bed with all portions of the drain field side walls installed below the elevation of undisturbed native soil (see Figure 3)." Rule 10D-6.042(45). The primary purpose of any on-site septic tank system, and ultimately, the septic tank drainfield, is the storage and dispersal of wastewater until the soil can accept it. In other words, a drainfield is a transmission device that takes water and other liquids from a septic tank to the ground. Liquids leave the septic tank into the drainfield which is designed to store the liquid before letting it flow into the ground or soil. Mineral aggregate provides a conducive medium to spread and temporarily store the effluent. Storage capacity refers to the amount of effluent coming out of a septic tank that will be stored in the aggregate or aggregate alternative, here the pipes, until the ground will accept the effluent. Filtrative surface area refers to the openings (in the pipe or aggregate) that allow the water/effluent to leave the storage area and enter the soil. In the case of mineral aggregate, the openings between the aggregate provide an exit for the water/effluent into the soil. With respect to PTI's pipe product, the water leaves the holes in the pipes and travels through voids created from the ridges and valleys of the pipes and enters the soil. An alternative system is evaluated by how the alternative system compares in function (storage capacity and filtrative surface area) to mineral aggregate. In November 1998, the Department defined "reduction" for the first time to mean any change in the actual bottom area size of the drainfield or a change in the footprint of a drainfield. For example, if a product system is 33-inches wide, it would have a reduction because it is less than 36 inches wide. Prior to November 1998, reduction referred to a reduction in linear feet, rather than total trench area or footprint. Thus, if 80 feet of an alternative product could function as well as a 100-foot trench of aggregate, a reduction of 20 feet would occur. PTI did not ask for a reduction in drainfield linear footage, and in particular, regarding the 9-pipe system. The Approval Process On or about April 21, 1995, PTI submitted a letter to the Department which apparently requested approval "to utilize both the 9-pipe and 13-pipe configurations in lieu of mineral aggregate material in septic tank drainfield systems." (Petitioner Exhibit 2.) This letter is not part of the final hearing record, but is reflected in the Department's May 24, 1995 letter from Paul Booher, P.E., to Fred Atchley, on behalf of PTI.2 (The quoted language is from the May 24, 1995 letter.) In the May 24, 1995, letter, the Department requested PTI to provide additional information to assist the Department in its evaluation of PTI's request. In part, the Department stated that there are three mechanisms that affect the performance of the infiltrative surface, i.e., chemical, biological, and physical, and that "[b]iological, and perhaps other physical (soil size) considerations, affect the performance of drainfield systems." By letter dated July 7, 1995, PTI's engineer, John E. Garlanger, Ph.D., P.E., a principal with Ardaman & Associates, Inc., provided PTI, to the attention of Mr. Atchley, a letter/report which responded to the Department letter of May 24, 1995. Dr. Garlanger stated in part: "As requested, Ardaman & Associates, Inc. has prepared cross-sectional drawings showing the dimensions associated with the installation of a 9- pipe and 13-pipe Rockless Drain Field System (PTI System) in both mound trench and subsurface trench drain field system." In addition to the letter/report, Dr. Garlanger provided a drawing labeled "Installation Guidelines Multi-Pipe Rockless Drain Field System Plastic Tubing Industries, Inc.," File No. 95-104. (Joint Exhibit 1.) The July 7, 1995, drawing depicts the 9-pipe system and 13-pipe system. The 9-pipe system consists of nine four- inch diameter corrugated polyethylene pipes. Four pipes are placed on top of five pipes and one of the four pipes is a distribution pipe. The nine pipes are bundled together, are 8.63 inches in height and 23.25 inches in width, and depicted within a two-foot wide trench. Note 4 of 6 on the drawing indicated that the "ACTUAL WIDTH OF BOTH 9-PIPE AND 13-PIPE SYSTEMS AFTER PLACEMENT IN THE TRENCH IS GREATER THAN SHOWN BY UP TO 10 % DUE TO SPREADING OF THE PIPES WITHIN THE BUNDLES." (The same drawing also illustrates the 13-pipe system with six pipes placed on top of seven pipes and bundled. The 13-pipe system is 8.63 inches in height and 32.375 inches in width and depicted within a three-foot wide trench. Note 4 is also referenced. (Joint Exhibit 1.)) Dr. Garlanger provided six notes to the July 7, 1995 drawing, as follows: 1.) STORAGE VOLUME BENEATH BOTTOM OF 0.75- INCH DIAMETER PERFORATIONS IN DISTRIBUTION PIPE FOR 9-PIPE SYSTEM IS GREATER THAN 1180 in3/ft (5.1 gal/ft) [1190 in3/ft (5.2 gal/ft)] AND FOR 13-PIPE SYSTEM IS GREATER THAN 1690 in3/ft (7.3 gal/ft) [1710 in3/ft (7.4 gal/ft)]. THIS COMPARES WITH A STORAGE VOLUME OF 660 in3/ft (2.8 gal/FT) FOR CONVENTIONAL 2-FOOT WIDE AGGREGATE-FILLED TRENCH AND 1000 in3/ft (4.3 gal/ft) FOR A CONVENTIONAL 3-FOOT WIDE AGGREGATE-FILLED TRENCH. 2.) TOTAL AVAILABLE STORAGE VOLUME WITHIN 9-PIPE SYSTEM IS 1985 in3/ft (8.6 gal/ft) [2070 in3/ft (8.9 gal/ft)] AND WITHIN 13-PIPE SYSTEM IS 2910 in3/ft (12.6 gal/ft) [2980 in3/ft (12.9 gal/ft)]. THIS COMPARES WITH A TOTAL STORAGE VOLUME OF 1185 in3/ft (5.13 gal/ft) [1200 in3/ft (5.2 gal/ft)] FOR 2-FOOT WIDE, 12-INCH DEEP AGGREGATE SYSTEM AND 1790 in3/ft (7.75 gal/ft) [1800 in3/ft (7.8 gal/ft)] FOR A 3-FOOT WIDE, 12-INCH DEEP AGGREGATE SYSTEM. 3.) THE BOTTOM AREA AVAILABLE FOR FILTRATION IS GREATER THAN 160 in2/ft FOR THE 9-PIPE SYSTEM AND GREATER THAN 220 in2/ft FOR THE 13-PIPE SYSTEM. COMPARABLE BOTTOM AREAS FOR AGGREGATE SYSTEMS ARE 100 in2/ft FOR A 2- FOOT TRENCH AND 150 in2/ft FOR A 3-FOOT TRENCH. 4.) ACTUAL WIDTH OF BOTH 9-PIPE AND 13-PIPE SYSTEMS AFTER PLACEMENT IN THE TRENCH IS GREATER THAN SHOWN BY UP TO 10% DUE TO SPREADING OF THE PIPES WITHIN THE BUNDLES. 5.) PERFORATIONS [IN DISTRIBUTION PIPE] ARE SPACED 4" ON CENTER. PERFORATION AREA IS 2.65 in2/LINEAL FOOT. 6.) EITHER OF THE UPPER PIPES IN THE DISTRIBUTION PIPE BUNDLE MAY BE USED FOR THE DISTRIBUTION PIPE. THE LOWER PIPE SHALL NOT BE USED FOR THE DISTRIBUTION PIPE. [THE DISTRIBUTION PIPE SHALL BE MARKED WITH A REFERENCE LINE TO ORIENT THE PERFORATIONS. THE DISTRIBUTION PIPE SHALL BE COUPLED BETWEEN EACH BUNDLE TO PROVIDE A CONTINUOUS LENGTH OF PIPE.] (The language appearing in brackets appears in the revised drawing, Joint Exhibit 2, submitted by PTI with Dr. Garlanger's December 8, 1996, letter, DOH Exhibit 4.) In his July 7, 1995 letter to PTI, Dr. Garlanger, in responding to Mr. Booher's letter of May 24, 1995, stated in part: Explain how the pipe bundles fulfill the requirement for a 12-inch deep drain field? Paragraph 10D-6.056(3)(e) requires the mineral aggregate material have a total depth of at least 12 inches and that the distribution pipe have a minimum of six inches of aggregate under the pipe. The purpose of the aggregate is to provide a highly conductive medium to spread and temporarily store the wastewater above the infiltrative surface between loading cycles. Twelve inches of mineral aggregate in a 2- foot wide trench can store approximately 5.25 gallons of wastewater per foot. Deducting the dead storage below the perforations in the distribution pipe, the total available storage in a conventional 2- foot wide trench drain is 5.13 gallons per foot and in a conventional 3-foot wide trench is 7.75 gallons per foot. The height of the 9-pipe and 13-pipe systems is 8.360 inches. The distance from the bottom of the trench to the bottom of the perforations in the distribution pipe is 4.836 inches. The total available water storage in a 9-pipe system after deducting the dead storage is 8.60 gallons per foot and in a 13-pipe system after making the same deduction is 12.58 gallons per foot. In both cases, the total available storage is greater for the PTI system. [See Note 2 above.] Note that the total available water storage capacity below the bottom of the perforations in the distribution pipe is also greater for the PTI System than for the aggregate system: 5.1 gal/ft for the 9-pipe system compared to 2.8 gal/ft for a conventional 2-foot wide trench and 7.3 gal/ft for the 13-pipe system compared to 4.3 gal/ft for the conventional 3-foot wide trench. [See Note 1 above.] Because the thickness of aggregate below the pipe is less than the minimum requirement of 6 inches, we are concerned about the distribution of the effluent over the infiltrative surface, especially since the sidewalls are such an integral part of the operation of the system. The hydraulic conductivity of both the aggregate system and the bundled pipe system is several orders of magnitude higher than that of the in situ sand that underlies the drain field. In both cases, but certainly for the PTI System, water flowing out of the perforations in the distribution pipe can spread out evenly across the infiltrative surface. The depth to which the water rises above the infiltrative surface depends primarily on the inflow rate and the hydraulic conductivity of the organic mat that forms on the bottom of the trench. Because of the differences in porosity between the two systems, the water increases in depth faster in the aggregate system than in the PIT System. However, the ultimate depth of water for a given inflow rate will be roughly the same for both systems, i.e., when inflow equals outflow. The only difference between the two systems is in the volume of water that is stored in the trench during each loading period; the PTI System stores more. There should be no significant difference in the effect of the sidewalls on the infiltrative capacity of the two systems. The effect of increasing sidewall seepage on the overall hydraulic performance of a drain field system is not large. For a 2-foot wide trench, increasing the sidewall seepage by raising the water depth from 5 to 6 inches increases the peak infiltration rate by less than 7 percent. The corresponding increase for a 3-foot wide trench is less than 5 percent. State the area per lineal foot of bundle that constitutes the infiltrative surface. The surface area at the bottom of the trench that is available for filtration of suspended solids in the effluent is greater than 160 in2/lineal foot for the 9-pipe system and greater than 220 in2/lineal foot for the 13-pipe system. This compares with 100 in2/lineal foot for a 2-foot wide aggregate-filled trench and 150 in2/lineal foot for a 3-foot wide aggregate-filled trench. [See Note 3 above.] (The underlined portions are inquiries made by Mr. Booher. The language in brackets refers to the "Notes" mentioned above.) DOH Exhibit 3 is a copy of Dr. Garlanger's July 7, 1995, letter, which also contains Mr. Booher's comments of August 14, 1995. It is noted that Dr. Garlanger discusses the calculations which appear in Notes 1, 2, and 3, in that portion of Dr. Garlanger's letter/report recited above. Mr. Booher also made notations on the July 7, 1995, drawing, with respect to, among other things, the Notes. Material here, beside Note 3, Mr. Booher wrote "Gravel Shadow? @ .35% open." (Joint Exhibit 1.) Mr. Booher also noted on Dr. Garlanger's July 7, 1995, letter/report "disagree" and other notations with respect to Dr. Garlanger's explanation under the subject discussed in Note 3 above, and under the heading "State the area per lineal foot of bundle that constitutes the infiltrative surface." (Emphasis in original.) (See Finding of Fact 16, p. 13.) On October 15, 1996, Mr. Booher requested additional information from Mr. Atchley, as follows: Per our conference call yesterday please provide the following for approval of the rockless pipe drainfield: A written request. Drawings showing the distribution and void pipe locations. Indicate the pipe bundle configurations. If you intend to use the notes on drawing 95-104 titled "Installation guidelines-Multi-pipe rockless drainfield system" please fully include and explain the calculations, including drawings with the areas calculated shown by shading. Explain comparison calculations. For example, gravel percent voids used, effective gravel depth, percent assumed for gravel shadowing and how determined, percent used for pipe shadowing and how determined. If the distribution pipes are of different material than the void pipe please so indicate. Reference the applicable ASTM standard for all materials. Below item 6, the following handwritten note (by Mr. Booher) appears: "Fred-Don't get optomistic [sic]-we are attempting to define 'gravel equivalent.'" (Joint Exhibit 5.) In response to Mr. Booher's October 15, 1996, request for additional information, on December 8, 1996, Dr. Garlanger provided a two-page letter, and Attachment 1 to Mr. Atchley. Attachment 1 provided "Calculations for Storage Volumes and Infiltration Areas for Multi-Pipe Rockless System and Conventional Gravel Drain." Material here, Attachment 1 contained a summary of Dr. Garlanger's conclusions (and the actual calculations) comparing PTI's multi-pipe system, 9-pipe and 13-pipe, to 24 and 36-inch wide gravel-filled trenches, regarding three parameters: storage volume below holes in the distribution pipe; filtration area; and total storage volume in the system. The specific calculations and illustrations are provided, including "area and volume calculations," in Attachment 1 on pages 1-10. (DOH Exhibit 4 and Joint Exhibit 4.) Dr. Garlanger also provided comparison calculations responding to item 4 in Mr. Booher's October 15, 1996 letter (see Finding of Fact 18) as follows: Explain comparison calculations. For example, gravel percent voids used, effective gravel depth, percent assumed for gravel shadowing and how determined. The comparison calculations are presented in Attachment 1. The gravel porosity was calculated based on a typical dry density for loosely placed FDOT No. 57 stone of 110 pcf and a specific gravity for limestone of 2.8, resulting in a calculated porosity of approximately 35 percent. For a conventional gravel-filled trench, the area available for filtration was calculated as the total area of the gravel times porosity, i.e., the percent assumed for gravel shadowing was 100-35=65 percent. For the multi- pipe rockless drain, the contact between the bottom of each pipe and the ground surface was taken as 2 inches per lineal inch of pipe which provides sufficient bearing area to support the overburden pressure. Computation of equivalent storage in the gravel assumed a minimum of 6 inches of No. 57 stone beneath the invert of the pipe and a distance of 0.83 inches from the invert of the pipe to the bottom of the drain holes. (Emphasis added.) (Mr. Booher's request is underlined before Dr. Garlanger's response.) Dr. Garlanger also provided a drawing labeled "Installation Guidelines Multi-Pipe Rockless Drain Field System Plastic Tubing Industries, Inc.," File No. 95-104. This drawing reflects general revisions of October 11, 1995, and December 6, 1996, to the original drawing dated July 7, 1995, which accompanied Dr. Garlanger's July 7, 1995, letter to Mr. Atchley. See Findings of Fact 14-15. Six "Notes" were presented in the December 6, 1996, drawing revisions, with some changes made to Notes 1, 2, 5, and 6 which do not appear to be material. See Finding of Fact 15. No changes are made to Notes 3 and 4. Material here, Note 3 pertains to "the bottom area available for filtration" and Dr. Garlanger's calculations showing the 9-pipe system comparing more favorably (equal to or greater) to a 24 and 36-inch (two and three feet wide, respectively) wide aggregate (gravel) trench without any changes in response to Mr. Booher's August 14, 1995, comments and October 15, 1996, request for additional "comparison calculation" and explanation regarding "gravel shadowing." (Notes 1-3 are derived from the calculations appearing in Attachment 1, pages 1-9.) Dr. Garlanger's submissions indicated that one linear foot of the 9-pipe system is equal to or greater than three square feet of gravel. Also, the representation that the 9-pipe system fits within a 24-inch trench does not relate to equivalency. See Finding of Fact 36. Dr. Garlanger's December 8, 1996, letter, with Attachment 1, and the revised drawing, were forwarded to Mr. Booher with a cover letter from Mr. Atchley, dated December 11, 1996. Mr. Atchley stated in his letter: Enclosed are the drawings and calculations you requested. The "numbers" add up favorably. I look forward to your response and anticipated approval based on this information. Please notice the difference in volume (total capacity), porosity and filtrative surface area. Based on these calculations we could justify a reduction of up to 40%. However, we do not wish to apply for any reduction at this time. We do ask that the bed installation constraint be removed from our acceptance letter. There seems to be more and more bed type installations even though the FAC 10D-6 clearly states that a trench system is the preferred method. Consequently, we will be requiring that certified installers of our systems employ a method of back filling that will insure against collapse of any part of the system. This method would also have to provide within reason, a guaranty against operating any equipment onto the drain field area until sufficient cover has been established. After 10 to 12 inches of cover has been established we ask them to mark the bed area with stakes and flagging to serve as a warning to other sub-contractors such as the sod installers and the finished grade tractor operator. If there are any questions please call me at (407) 298-5121. (On January 13, 1997, Mr. Atchley also sent Mr. Booher a similar letter, but also included some additional data regarding 1996 sales, including but not limited to average system size per square foot, the number of active installers, installations per month.) On January 14, 1997, Mr. Booher issued the following approval letter to Mr. Atchley: Dear Mr. Atchley: We have reviewed the engineering drawings dated 07/07/95 with revision 2 dated 12/06/96 and data prepared and sealed by Ardaman & Associates dated December 8, 1996, and received in this office on December 16, 1996. Your request for alternative drainfield system approval letters dated December 11, 1996, and January 13, 1997, have also been reviewed. The PTI nine pipe bundle and PTI thirteen pipe bundle Multi-Pipe Rockless Drainfield Systems are hereby approved for use in the State of Florida. We have concerns about the total effective sidewall contact surface area, especially when systems are installed with no fall. We also have concerns regarding the structural integrity of the pipe bundle systems when used in large bed applications. Nevertheless, approval is granted based on the design and recommendations submitted by your professional engineer for which he is solely responsible; the comparative data versus a standard drainfield system; and the satisfactory performance in Florida of similar PTI Multi-Pipe Rockless Drainfield System installations. Except as herein noted, all systems shall be installed in accordance with sections 381.0065-381.0067 Florida Statutes, and all rules in Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code (FAC). All installations shall be sized and installed meeting all rules in Rule 10D-6, FAC and shall also meet the following conditions: All licensed septic tank contractors who are going to install these systems shall be field instructed by certified employees of PTI on the proper installation and backfilling requirements of the systems prior to installation. Prior to the first installation in each county, contact the local Health Department to provide hands on training for the county health department staff. Both the 9 and 13 pipe bundle systems can be installed in subsurface, filled, or mound trench or bed systems. In bed systems the maximum centerline to centerline spacing of the distribution pipe shall be 36 inches. The distribution piping may be used to house low pressure distribution networks. A copy of the applicable limited warranty shall be provided to each homeowner/builder. Department approval of any alternative system application or any other type system does not guarantee or imply that any individual system installation will perform satisfactorily for a specific period of time. The individual system design engineer or the registered septic tank contractor if an engineer didn't design the system is primarily responsible for determining the best system design to meet specific wastewater treatment and disposal needs and to address the specific property site conditions and limitations. If you have any questions please call us at (904) 488-4070. (Emphasis added.) This letter was accompanied by a facsimile sheet which indicated, in part, that the Department intended to "notify the 67 counties within the week." On January 29, 1997, Mr. Booher authored an Interoffice Memorandum which was issued from John Heber, Chief, On-Site Sewage Program, Mr. Booher's supervisor at the time, to the County Health Department Director/Administrator. (Joint Exhibit 11.) This Interoffice Memorandum provided in part: The PTI 9 pipe and 13 pipe "Multi- Purpose Rockless Drainfield Systems" have both been given alternative systems approval for use in Florida. The systems are to be installed in accordance with drawing file number 95- 104 dated 07/07/95, revision 2 dated 12/06/96, copy attached. Except as hereby noted, systems shall be installed in accordance with sections 381.0065 - 381.0067, Florida Statutes, and all rules in Chapter 10D- 6, Florida Administrative Code (FAC). The following conditions apply: The 9 pipe system shall be rated at 1 linear foot equals 2 square feet of drainfield area. The 13 pipe system shall be rated at 1 linear foot equals 3 square feet of drainfield area. The 9 pipe and 13 pipe bundle systems may be installed in subsurface, filled or mounded trench or bed applications. Dosing will be acceptable when used to overcome a gravity situation. Pressurized systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code. Please be reminded that certain pressurized dosing systems must be designed by engineers registered in the State of Florida. For designs requiring the use of smaller diameter pipe (either screw joint or glue joint), the 9 pipe and 13 pipe systems distribution pipe shall house the pressurized pipe system. All licensed septic tank contactors who are going to install these systems shall be field instructed by certified employees of PTI on the proper installation and backfilling requirements of the systems prior to installation. Prior to the first installation in each county, contact the local Health Department to provide hands on training for the county health department staff. A copy of the applicable limited warranty shall be provided to each homeowner/builder. Department approval of any alternative system application or an other type system does not guarantee or imply that any individual system installation will perform satisfactorily for a specific period of time. The individual system design engineer (or the registered septic tank contractor if an engineer does not design the system) is primarily responsible for determining the best system design to meet specific wastewater treatment and disposal needs and to address the specific property site conditions and limitations. If you have any questions, please call me or Paul Booher, P.E., at (904) 488-4070, or SC 278-4070. (Emphasis in original.) On March 13, 1998, the Department issued a document entitled "Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems Alternative Drainfield Products." This document describes several product names including PTI's product as follows: "PTI 'NPRDS' 9 ea.- 2-tier 13 ea.-2-tier." The engineer of record is listed as Ardaman and Associates, and the type of permit issued is referred to as "Alternative Status" along the same line as "PTI 'MPRDS"" and "No reduction in area" along the line "9 ea.-2 tier." Mr. Everson may have seen this chart prior to seeing the November 27, 2000, chart mentioned below. But, the mention of no reduction would have been consistent with his understanding that reduction referred to a reduction in linear feet and PTI did not request a reduction in linear feet. On November 27, 2000, an employee of the Department prepared a similar chart which included a description of product names and included the same PTI product. However, under the heading "Type of Permit Issued and Sizing Criteria," the following language appears: PRODUCT NAME DESCRIPTION SUBMISSION DATE APPROVAL DATE CPHU NOTIFICATION DATE ENGINEER OF RECORD TYPE OF PERMIT ISSUED and SIZING CRITERIA *** *** *** *** *** *** PTI "MPRDS" 9 ea.-2 tier 12/06/96 12/14/96 01/15/97 Ardaman and Associates 1 linear foot of product = 2 sq ft of mineral aggregate 13 ea.-2 tier 1 linear foot of product = 3 sq ft of mineral aggregate On February 26, 2001, the Department issued a similar chart which contained the same information regarding PTI as the November 27, 2000, chart, which appears above. All of the charts were designed to provide guidance to the local health departments regarding the alternative drainfield systems approved in the State of Florida and the ratings, e.g., equivalency, assigned to each. See Findings of Fact 26-28. The November 27, 2000, and February 26, 2001, charts described PTI's 9-pipe system approved by the Department on a one-to-two square foot equivalency to mineral aggregate. In late 2000, while working with a Department representative on an industry presentation, Mr. Everson, vice president of PTI, discovered the November 27, 2000, chart mentioned above. Mr. Everson believed this representation to be incorrect and reported it to Michael Maroschak, the president of PTI. Discussions transpired between representatives of PTI and the Department. Ultimately, the Department implicitly decided that the Department had approved PTI's 9-pipe system, consistent with these charts. On March 18, 2003, the Department advised PTI in writing that it "stands by its previous decisions on the matter." PTI then filed its Petition challenging this agency action. Resolution of the Controversy PTI has developed various pipe configurations to serve as alternative drainfield systems. PTI requested the Department to approve its 9-pipe and 13-pipe bundle Multi-Pipe Rockless Drainfield Systems in or around April of 1995. The 9-pipe system is the subject of this proceeding. As early as May 1995, the Department understood that PTI requested approval to utilize both PTI's 9-pipe and 13-pipe configurations in lieu of mineral aggregate material in septic tank drainfield systems. Over the course of over a year and a half, in support of its approval request and in response to questions posed by the Department, PTI, by and through Dr. Garlanger, PTI's registered Professional Engineer, submitted an engineering drawing (signed and sealed), as revised, and specific specifications and calculations to indicate that one linear foot of the 9-pipe system compared favorably, on paper, with a conventional three-foot wide, 12-inch deep (three square feet) aggregate system. The Department raised questions regarding PTI's proposal to which PTI, and specifically Dr. Garlanger, responded. During the approval process, the Department raised issues related to "gravel shadowing" and Dr. Garlanger's calculations regarding the "bottom area available for filtration." See, e.g., (DOH Exhibit 3, p. 2; Joint Exhibit 1.) Dr. Garlanger responded to these inquiries. See, e.g., (DOH Exhibits 3 and 4; Joint Exhibits 1 and 2.) Dr. Garlanger has been a registered Professional Engineer in the State of Florida since 1974 and has served as vice-president for Ardaman & Associates and chief engineer since 1975. He was accepted as an expert in the areas of hydrology, hydro-geology, and geotechnical engineering. Dr. Garlanger prepared and signed and sealed the engineering drawings and all comparative data submitted by PTI with its approval request. Dr. Garlanger's engineering drawings, including the "Notes" as revised, and calculations indicated favorable (equal to or greater than) comparisons of one linear foot of PTI's 9- pipe system with two and three square feet of aggregate (gravel). The fact that the 9-pipe system fits within a 24-inch or two-foot wide trench does not affect its equivalency to three square feet of aggregate (gravel) with respect to the three parameters in Notes 1-3 and in the calculations referred to in Attachment 1. See Finding of Fact 22. During the final hearing, the Department, consistent with written comments made during the approval process, suggested that the "gravel shadowing" or "a shadowing technique" that occurs with alternative systems to compare their infiltrative surface area (bottom area available for filtration) to aggregate, has never been used by the Department "as an evaluator." Mr. Booher3 explained that this technique "reduces the size of the actual area, the length times the width of the drain field [sic], by a cross sectional area of interrupting gravel, saying the actual absorption area is reduced as a result of the gravel that is sitting on the infiltrative surface and reduces the total area, absorptive area, to about one-third of the actual total area. And that's what [he] disagree[s] with." Mr. Booher also stated that he would not approve a 9- pipe system at a three square-foot equivalent because of biological loading. He explained his position in some detail. In the May 24, 1995, letter to PTI, the Department stated that it was "interested in verifying that the drainfield environment will support aerobic treatment over the long term." This question expressed the Department's concern regarding "biological loading and problems that can develop. Dr. Garlanger responded to this inquiry and his explanation was accepted by Mr. Booher "because everyone claims it." See (DOH Exhibit 3; Petitioner Exhibit 2, p. 3.) The Department also contended that it did not approve PTI's request because PTI did not ask for a "reduction." Mr. Booher explained during the final hearing that Dr. Garlanger's drawings (Joint Exhibits 1 and 2) referred to "the 9-inch pipe and the 24-inch trench and the 13-inch pipe and the 36-inch trench because that note 4 says that if you put them in accordance with this document, then you will be a full 24-inch, 9-inch, 24-inch equivalent and 36-inch, 13-pipe equivalent" and that he "needed to restrict [his] review to no reduction in area." Mr. Booher also commented on Note 3, for which he disagreed during the approval process. It did not matter to Mr. Booher that Dr. Garlanger used "the shadow masking technique because [PTI] was not asking for any reduction." He considered Note 3 as "just more information, as opposed to an evaluation for determination of the sizing." In other words, according to Mr. Booher, the Department's approval letter of January 14, 1997, did not address the idea of using the 9-pipe system in a 36-inch trench" because PTI "asked for no reduction." 4 The Department's position is also based, in part, on Mr. Atchley's cover letters of December 11, 1996, and January 13, 1997, in which Mr. Atchley, referring to Dr. Garlanger's drawings and calculations, that "[b]ased on these calculations we could justify a reduction of up to 40%. However, we do not wish to apply for any reduction at this time." The weight of the evidence indicates that the reference to the "40%" pertains to the 13-pipe system, which would have been a large reduction, and not the 9-pipe system. The 9-pipe system qualified for only a minimal reduction which was not requested. Also, PTI did not request a reduction in linear feet. There is a conflict in the evidence regarding what PTI requested. Mr. Atchley opines that PTI did not request approval of the 9-pipe system such that one linear foot of product is equivalent to three square feet of aggregate. Mr. Booher agrees and also opines that the Department did not approve this configuration. Mr. Everson takes the opposite view as does Dr. Garlanger. The conflict is resolved in PTI's favor. While Mr. Booher's comments appearing of record, regarding PTI's request for approval and the Department's approval, and which were explained more fully during the final hearing, are credible, the fact remains that the Department granted approval "based on the design and recommendations submitted by [PTI's] professional engineer for which he is solely responsible; the comparative data versus a standard drainfield system; and the satisfactory performance in Florida of similar PTI Multi-Pipe Rockless Drainfield System installations." (Joint Exhibit 6.) The Department did not take exception in its approval letter, as it did during the final hearing, to PTI's submissions by Dr. Garlanger, PTI's professional engineer.5 Dr. Garlanger's submissions and his explanation of his submissions are credible. The weight of the evidence indicates that PTI requested approval for and the Department approved PTI's 9-pipe system on an equivalency of one linear foot of product to three square feet of mineral aggregate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order concluding that Plastic Tubing Industries, Inc.'s 9-pipe bundle Multi-Pipe Rockless Drainfield System, such that one linear foot of PTI's 9-pipe system is equivalent to three square feet of mineral aggregate, is approved for use in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 2003.
The Issue Whether Petitioner should take disciplinary action against Respondents for the reasons alleged in the Administrative Complaint?
Findings Of Fact On behalf of his brother, Mr. Howell Parish, who lives in Orange Park, Florida, Mr. James A. Parish contracted with Respondents to restore efficient of operation the septic tank system at 5469 Soundside Drive in Santa Rosa County, premises owned by Howell Parish. Respondents agreed to make the restoration by providing a fiberglass approved tank with a fiberglass lid, install a new drain field and haul in dirt to build up a low area of the existing drain field. Respondents undertook repair activities but without a permit. Respondents did not obtain an inspection of their work after they had finished. On June 10, 1992, after the repairs were supposed to have been done, James Parish paid Respondent Harmon for the job with a personal check in the amount of $1,498.48. On the same date, Respondent Harmon signed a receipt for payment. The receipt shows as work performed, "Demucking and Installing one 1050 Gal Tank & 200 Sq.' Drain Field." Ms. Jo Ann Parish, spouse of Howell Parish, reimbursed James Parish for the work done on Soundside Drive. Shortly thereafter, the septic tank "caved in and the waste was boiling to the surface." (Tr. 16.) Howell Parish met with Larry W. Thomas, Environmental Health Supervisor for the Santa Rosa County Health Department, to discuss the situation. Following the meeting, Mr. Parish called Respondent Harmon and told that him that the problem needed to be straightened out and that he should contact Mr. Thomas promptly because his license could be in danger. Respondent promised to correct the problem and to reimburse Mr. Parish for the job but he did neither. He did not contact Mr. Thomas either. Mr. Thomas, on behalf of the County, investigated the site of the septic tank repair. He found that Respondents had installed a broken fiber glass tank when fiberglass tanks are not allowed at all in Santa Rosa County because of their structural inadequacy. In addition to the tank being cracked, it had a cracked lid. Another hole in the tank that should have been covered with a lid was covered with a piece of plywood. The plywood was kept in place by dirt fill. The drain field did not meet the minimum standards required by the County. Most significantly, it was installed beneath the water table. There was a laundry discharge pipe which was not connected to the tank as required. The site of the septic tank repair by Respondents was a sanitary nuisance. The broken condition of the tank allowed raw sewage to overflow. The drain field was emptying raw sewage directly into ground water. The laundry discharge was discharging into the ground rather than being hooked up to the septic tank. Mr. Parish was forced to hire another septic tank service to restore the system to good working order. The work, performed by Bettis Septic Tank Service, was billed to Mr. Parish at a cost of $6400.00.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED, that Respondents' certificates of registration be revoked and that the Department impose on Respondents a fine of $2000.00. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of October, 1994 in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank C. Bozeman, III Asst. District Legal Counsel D H R S 160 Governmental Center Pensacola, FL 32501 Kenneth P. Walsh Attorney at Law P. O. Box 1208 Shalimar, FL 32505-0420 Robert L. Powell, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Kim Tucker General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 DAVID M. MALONEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October, 1994.
The Issue The issue is whether Palm Beach County's application for a permit to construct a domestic wastewater collection/transmission system in Palm Beach County should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Parties The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and is the permittee in this matter. The County Water Utilities Department currently serves approximately 425,000 persons, making it the largest utility provider in Palm Beach County and the third largest in the State of Florida. ITID is an independent water control special district created by special act of the legislature in 1957 and whose boundaries lie within the County. Portions of the transmission line to be constructed by the County will cross easements and roads, and pass under canals, owned by ITID. Petitioners Joseph Acqualotta, Michael D'Ordine, Ann Hawkins, and Lisa Lander all live in areas in close proximity to the proposed transmission line. Lander lives adjacent to the proposed route of the line along 40th Street North, while Acqualotta, D'Ordine, and Hawkins live adjacent to the proposed route along 140th Avenue North. Acqualotta, Hawkins (but not D'Ordine, who resides with Hawkins), and Lander own the property where they reside. Petitioners Troy and Tracey Lee (Case No. 05-2979), Lisa Gabler (Case No. 05- 2980), and Anthony and Veronica Daly (Case No. 05-2982) did not appear at the final hearing. The Department is an agency of the State of Florida authorized to administer the provisions of Part I of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and is the state agency charged with the responsibility of issuing domestic wastewater collection/ transmission permits under Section 403.087, Florida Statutes (2004).1 Background On December 15, 2004, the County filed its application with the Department for an individual permit to construct a domestic wastewater collection/transmission system (Transmission Line). The Transmission Line is one element of the County's Northern Region Utilities Improvement Project (Project) and will be approximately 41,050 feet long and comprised of approximately 32,350 linear feet of 20-inch force main and 18,700 linear feet of 30-inch force main (or nearly ten miles in length). A primary purpose of the Project is to provide water and wastewater service to the Village, a 1,900 acre parcel located in the unincorporated part of the County several miles west of the Florida Turnpike, south of State Road 710, and north of the Villages of Wellington and Royal Palm Beach. The Village will be the home of the Scripps Project and Campus. The Transmission Line will run from the southeastern corner of the Village south to Northlake Boulevard, then east to 140th Avenue North, then south along that roadway to 40th Street North, where it turns east until it interconnects with existing facilities. The wastewater will be collected in a regional pump station on the Scripps Project site, where it will be pumped through the Transmission Line to the East Central Plant, which will be the primary treatment facility. The East Central Plant is owned and operated by the City of West Palm Beach (City), but the County owns between forty and forty-five percent of the treatment capacity. Because the wastewater system is interconnected, the wastewater could also be treated at the County's Southern Regional Plant. Ultimately, the flow from the Scripps Project will be one or two million gallons per day. The Transmission Line is the only way that wastewater can be handled at the Scripps Project. A preliminary analysis by the Department and the South Florida Water Management District determined that on-site treatment was not feasible because of the environmentally sensitive nature of the area. The Scripps Project will include residential units, commercial entities, and institutional uses, such as medical clinics. Besides serving these customers, the Transmission Line will also serve other customers in the area. The County has already signed agreements with the Beeline Community Development District (which lies a few miles northwest of the Village) and the Village of Royal Palm Beach (which lies several miles south-southeast of the Village). At the time of the hearing, the County anticipated that it would also sign an agreement with Seacoast Utility Authority (whose service area is located just southeast of the Village) to transport wastewater through the Transmission Line. All of the treatment facilities have sufficient existing capacity to treat the estimated amount of domestic wastewater that will be generated by the Scripps Project and the other users that will discharge to the Line. The County commenced construction of the Transmission Line in May 2005 when the Department issued the Permit. On August 2, 2005, the County published the Department's Notice to issue the Permit, and once the Petitions were filed, the County stopped construction pending the outcome of this hearing. Approximately seventy percent of the Transmission Line is now completed. The Permit does not allow the Transmission Line to be used until it is pressure tested and certified complete. Upon completion, the County must receive an Approval to Place a Domestic Wastewater Collection/Transmission System into Operation from the Department. Such approval is given only after the County has given reasonable assurance that adequate transmission, treatment, and disposal is available in accordance with Department standards. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-604.700. On August 15, 2005, Petitions challenging the issuance of the Permit were filed by ITID and the individual Petitioners. ITID contends that the Transmission Line will convey not only domestic wastewater, but also industrial waste; that the County did not comply with all applicable technical standards and criteria required under the Department's rules; that the Project will be located on ITID's right-of-way, on which the County has no right to occupy; that the Project will be located within seventy-five feet from private drinking wells and does not provide an equivalent level of reliability and public health protection; and that the pipe material and pressure design is inappropriate for the Transmission Line's requirements. The individual Petitioners (who filed identical Petitions) are mainly concerned about the location of the Transmission Line in relation to their private drinking wells and property, the possibility of the pipe bursting or leaking once it becomes operational, and the restoration of their property to its original condition after construction is completed. As to the property claims by all Petitioners, the County plans to place the Transmission Line in property that it either owns or has an easement, in property that it is in the process of condemning, or in a public right of way. While the County acknowledges that it has already placed, and intends to place other portions of, the Transmission Line in easements that ITID says it has the exclusive right to use and for which a permit from ITID is required, the County alleges that it also has the right to use those easements without an ITID permit. The dispute between the County and ITID is the subject of a circuit court proceeding in Palm Beach County, and neither the Department nor DOAH has the authority to decide property interests. Petitioners' Objections Domestic wastewater and pretreatment The wastewater that will be generated by the Scripps Project is considered domestic wastewater; it will not include industrial wastewater. Waste that is industrial or non- domestic must be pretreated to protect the wastewater plant, collection system, and the health of system workers and the general public. The Department administers a pretreatment program through which it requires a public wastewater utility to police the entities that discharge to their wastewater plants. A central part of the pretreatment program is the local ordinance that gives legal authority to the utility to permit, inspect, and take enforcement action against industrial users who are part of the pretreatment program. The utility files an annual report with an industrial user survey, and the Department periodically inspects and audits local pretreatment programs to ensure they are being operated as intended. The system is not failsafe but is designed to ensure that potentially harmful wastes are rendered harmless before discharge. For example, the utility has the authority to immediately shut water off if a harmful discharge is occurring. Both the County and the City have pretreatment programs approved by the Department. The City has an ordinance that allows it to enforce the pretreatment standards for all entities that discharge to its wastewater system. The County Water Utilities Department has a written pretreatment manual, and the County has zoning restrictions on the discharge of harmful material to the wastewater system. It has also entered into an interlocal agreement under which it agrees to enforce the City ordinance. The County provides wastewater treatment to industrial, educational, and medical facilities, and it has never experienced a discharge from any of these facilities that has caused adverse health or environmental impacts. The County pretreatment program for the Southern Regional Facility was approved in 1997. The City pretreatment program for the East Central Regional Facility was approved in 1980. The Scripps Project must apply for a permit from the County and provide a baseline monitoring report, data on its flow, and information on the flow frequency and raw materials. Medical waste from the Scripps Project will be pretreated to render it safe before it is discharged into the Transmission Line. Transmission Line Design The Transmission Line was designed in accordance with the technical standards and criteria for wastewater transmission lines in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 604.300(5). That rule incorporates by reference a set of standards commonly known as the Ten State Standards, which contain several of the standards used in the design of this project. These standards are recommended, but are not mandatory, and a professional engineer should exercise his or her professional judgment in applying them in any particular case. The Transmission Line also meets the design standards promulgated by the America Water Works Association (AWWA). Specifically, the County used the AWWA C-905 design standard for sizing the polyvinyl chloride, or PVC, pipe used in the project. The County has received written certification from the manufacturer that the PVC pipe meets the standards in AWWA C-905. The Transmission Line is designed with stub-outs, which will allow for future connections without an interruption of service, and inline isolation valves, which allow the line to be shut down for maintenance. The Use of PVC Pipe There is no standard regulating the selection of PVC pipe material in the Department's rules. Instead, the Department relies on the certification of the applicant and the engineer's seal that the force main will be constructed to accepted engineering standards. The only specification applicable to the Transmission Line is the Ten State Standard, adopted and incorporated by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-604.300(5)(g). That document contains a general requirement that the material selected have a pressure rating sufficient to handle anticipated pressures in wastewater transmission lines. The Transmission Line will be constructed with PVC piping with a thickness of Dimension Ratio (DR) 32.5, which is the ratio of the outside diameter of the pipe to its thickness. Higher ratios mean thinner-walled pipes. This is not the first time the County has used 32.5 PVC piping for one of its projects, and other local governments in the State have used 32.5 or thinner pipe. The County is typically conservative in requiring thicker-walled pipe, because most transmission lines are built by developers, and the County is unable to design the entire line or control or inspect its installation. The specifications for wastewater transmission lines built in the County call for the use of DR 25 pipe. On this project, however, the County determined that thicker- walled pipe would have been an over-design of the system because the County controls the pump stations and oversees the installation; therefore, the Director of the Water Utilities Department has waived that requirement. The County considers the use of DR 32.5 PVC to be conservative. Although this pipe will be thinner than what is typically used in the County, it satisfies the Department's requirements. The Department has permitted many miles of similar PVC force mains in South Florida, and none have failed. PVC has benefits over other transmission line material, such as ductile iron. For example, PVC is more corrosion resistant. Wastewater generates hydrogen sulfide as it decomposes, which can form highly corrosive sulfuric acid. Some of the older transmission lines in the County that were made of ductile iron have corroded. PVC also has a superior ability to absorb surges, such as cyclical surges, than ductile iron. It is easier to install, and its interior flow characteristics are smoother than ductile iron or pre-stressed concrete pipe. Mr. Farabee, a professional engineer who testified on behalf of ITID, recommended a DR 14 pipe, which is thicker- walled than the DR 32.5 pipe used by the County. While he opined that the DR 32.5 pipe was too thin for the project, he could not definitively state that it would not pass the 150 per square inch (psi) pressure test. He also opined that the pipe is undersized because it will be unable to withstand the surge pressures during cleaning. The witness further testified that the pipe would be subject to much higher pressures than 150 psi, and therefore it was impossible to know whether the pipe would fail. In his opinion, this means the Department did not have reasonable assurance for the project. The County consulted with the Unibell PVC Pipe Association (Unibell) in the planning of this project. Unibell is a trade association that provides technical support for PVC pipe manufacturers. Robert Walker, a registered professional engineer and Unibell's executive director who testified on behalf of the County, disagreed with Mr. Farabee's conclusions concerning the adequacy of the PVC pipe in this project. The AWWA C-905 standard uses a safety factor of two, which means the pipes are tested at pressures that are at least twice their stated design strength. Mr. Walker explained the different standards that apply to PVC pipe. DR 32.5 pipe, which is used in this project, has a minimum interior pressure rating of 125 pounds per square psi. Each pipe section is tested before it is shipped at 250 psi, and the minimum burst pressure for the material is in excess of 400 psi. The pipe also meets a 1000- hour test at 270 psi. In light of these standards and testing, the pipe will pass the two-hour 150 psi test required by the Department. Mr. Farabee expressed some concern that the PVC pipe would be more prone to breakage than ductile iron or thicker PVC. However, the PVC pipe standards provide that the pipe can be flattened at sixty percent without splitting, cracking, or breaking. At shallow depths on dirt roads, ovalation, which occurs when PVC is flattened through pressure, will initially occur, but over time the soil around the pipe will become compacted and result in re-rounding of the pipe. The joints are three times stiffer than the body of the pipe, which will protect the joint from excessive ovalation and leaking, and the use of mechanical restrained joints will further strengthen the joints. There has been no joint leakage in Florida due to deflection of the joints. Finally, there have been no failures of PVC pipe caused by three-feet of fill, which is the depth to which the Transmission Line pipe will be buried. To further protect the pipe, the County optimized its pumping system to avoid cyclical surges by using variable frequency drive pumps that gradually increase and decrease speed rather than just turning on or off. In addition, the pump stations are fed by two power lines that come from different directions and emergency generators, which should lessen the chances of harmful surging. Testing the Installation The anticipated pressures in the Transmission Line will likely be about 50 psi. After installation, the Line will be pressure tested at 150 psi for two hours, which is sufficient to provide the Department with reasonable assurance that the Line will hold pressure and will not leak. Also, the County contract inspectors are on the construction site daily. If problems with the installation arise later, the County has committed to promptly fix the problem, even if it means digging up the line. During the hearing, ITID asserted that the Uniform Policies and Procedure Manual standards, which the County has adopted for use by developers when constructing wastewater transmission lines, should be applied to the County as well. This standard, which requires pressure testing to 200 psi for PVC pipes larger than 24 inches, has not been adopted by the Department and is not an applicable Department permitting standard. Even if it did apply, the Transmission Line would meet this criterion because it is designed to withstand 270 psi for at least 1,000 hours. Mr. Farabee believed that the entire Transmission Line would be pressure tested after the construction was complete, which would require digging up sections of the pipe to install bulkheads. However, this assessment of the County's testing program is incorrect. Leisha Pica, Deputy Director of the Water Utilities Department, developed the schedule for the project, helped develop the phasing of the work and budget, and oversaw the technical aspects. She stated that the County has successfully tested approximately fifty percent of the line that was already installed at 150 psi for two hours and not a single section of the line failed the test. Compaction The County has stringent backfilling and compaction requirements, which are sufficient to ensure the pipe will be properly installed and that there will be adequate compaction of the fill material. The County plans and specifications provide that compaction must be to ninety-five percent of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards for non-paved surfaces and one hundred percent of AASHTO standards for paved surfaces. Even ITID's expert agreed that the compaction specifications are sufficient. Mr. Farabee contended, however, that even though the standards are stringent, the County cannot properly test the installation for compliance with the standards. Mr. Farabee believed that testing of the backfill would be done after all of the construction was complete. In that case, he did not see how the testing could be done without digging many holes to check for the density of the backfill. These assumptions, however, are incorrect. The evidence shows that a total of two hundred sixty-four compaction tests have already been done on the portion of the Transmission Line that was completed. No part of the installation failed the tests. The County has an inspector who observes the installation and pressure tests. The compaction was tested at every driveway and major roadway, as well as every five hundred feet along the route. While Lander and D'Ordine pointed out at hearing that no compaction tests have been performed on the dirt roads which run adjacent to their property and on which construction has taken place, the Department requires that, before the work is certified as complete, non-paved roads must be compacted in accordance with AASHTO standards in order to assure that there is adequate compaction of the fill material. The Sufficiency of the Application When an application for an individual transmission/ collection line permit is filed with the Department, the applicant certifies that the design of the pipeline complies with the Department's standards. However, not all of the details of the construction will be included in the permit application. The Department relies on the design engineer to certify that the materials used are appropriate. The application form is also signed and sealed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida. All plans submitted by the County, including the original, modifications, and final version, were certified by professional engineers registered in the State of Florida. After receiving the application, the Department requested additional information before issuing the permit, and the County provided all requested information. The original construction plans that were submitted with the application were changed in response to the Department's requests for additional information. The Permit issued by the Department indicates the Transmission Line would be constructed with ductile iron pipe, but this was a typographical error. ITID maintains that all of the technical specifications for the project must be included in the application, and because no separate engineering report was prepared by the County with the application, the County did not meet that standard. While the County did not submit an engineering report, it did submit sufficient data to provide reasonable assurance that the project will comply will all applicable rules of the Department. As a part of its application package, the County submitted construction plans, which contain the specifications required by the Department. Also, the general notes included in the construction drawings specify the use of restrained joints where appropriate, the selection of pipe material, the pressure testing of the Transmission Line, and other engineering requirements. In addition, the plans contain numerous other conditions, which are also specifications sufficient to fulfill the Department's requirements. Finally, further explanation and clarification of the technical aspects of the application was given by the County at the final hearing. At the same time, the Department engineer who oversaw the permitting of this project, testified that a detailed engineering report was not necessary. This engineer has extensive experience in permitting transmission lines for the Department and has worked on over five hundred permits for wastewater transmission and collection systems. The undersigned has accepted his testimony that in a relatively straightforward permit such as this, the application and attachments themselves can function as a sufficient engineering evaluation. This is especially true here since the County is seeking only approval of a pipeline project, which would not authorize the receipt of wastewater flow unless other wastewater facilities are permitted. Impacts on Public and Private Drinking Water Wells As part of the design of the Transmission Line, the County located public and private drinking water wells in the area of the line. County personnel walked the route of the Transmission Line and looked for private wells and researched the site plans for all of the properties along the route. No public wells were found within one-hundred feet of the Transmission Line route, but they did find seventeen private wells that are within seventy-five feet of the line. None of the Petitioners have private wells that are within seventy- five feet of the line. While Petitioners D'Ordine and Hawkins initially contended that the well on Hawkins' property was within seventy-five feet of the Transmission Line, at hearing Mr. D'Ordine admitted that he "misread the plans and referred to the wrong property." In order to protect the private drinking water wells, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-604.400(1)(b) requires that the County provide an extra level of protection for the wells that are within seventy-five feet of the Transmission Line. The County will provide that extra level of protection by installing restrained joints that will restrain the joints between the pipe sections. The restrained joints are epoxy-coated mechanical devices that reduce the tendency for the pipes to separate under pressure. The County has used these restrained joints on its potable water and wastewater lines in other areas of the County and has never experienced problems with the devices. The restrained joints will provide reliable protection of the private wells within seventy-five feet of the Transmission Line. The Department is unaware of any instances where restrained joints have failed in South Florida. If more wells are discovered that are within seventy-five feet of the Transmission Line, then the County will excavate the Line and install restrained joints. Minimum Separation Distances The County has complied with all applicable pipe separation requirements in the installation of the Transmission Line. More specifically, it is not closer than six feet horizontally from any water main and does not intersect or cross any reclaimed water lines. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-555.314(1)(a). It will be at least twelve inches below any water main or culvert that it crosses. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-555.314(2)(a). Finally, it will be a minimum of twelve inches below any culverts that it crosses. (However, the Department has no separation requirement for culverts crossed by the Transmission Line.) h. The M-Canal Crossing The Transmission Line must cross the M-canal, which runs in an east-west direction approximately midway between 40th Street North and Northlake Boulevard. The original design called for the Transmission Line to cross above the water, but the City and the Department suggested that it be located below the canal to eliminate the chance that the pipe could leak wastewater into the canal. In response to that suggestion, the County redesigned the crossing so that a 24- inch high density polyethylene pipe in a 48-inch casing will be installed fifteen feet below the design bottom of the canal. The polyethylene is fusion-welded, which eliminates joints, and is isolated with a valve on either side of the canal. Appropriate warning signs will be installed. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-604.400(2)(k)2.-5. The depth of the subaqueous line and the use of the slip line, or casing, exceeds the Department's minimum standards. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-604.400(2)(k)1. i. Flushing Protocol Section 48.1 of the Ten State Standard recommends that wastewater transmission lines maintain a velocity of two feet per second. When the Transmission Line becomes operational, it will not have sufficient flow to flush (or clean) accumulated solids from the lines at the recommended two feet per second velocities. (Sufficient flow will not occur until other customers connect to the Transmission Line during the first one to three years of operation.) Accumulated solids produce gases and odors that could create a problem at the treatment plant and might leak out of the manhole covers. To address this potential problem, Specific Condition 9 of the Permit requires the County to flush the lines periodically. Pursuant to that Condition, the County plans to flush the Transmission Line with additional water which will raise the velocity to three or four feet per second, so that the accumulated solids will be flushed. The water will be supplied by large portable tanks that will be temporarily set up at several locations along the Line. During the purging of the Line, sewage will collect in the pump stations until the purge is finished. There is sufficient capacity in the pump stations to contain the wastewater. In addition, the County will use a cleansing tool known as a pig, which is like a foam bullet that scrapes the sides of the pipe as it is pushed through the line. This protocol will be sufficient to keep the Line clean. ITID asserts that the County's plan for flushing is inadequate, because it does not provide enough water for long enough to flush both the 20-inch and 30-inch lines. Mr. Farabee calculated that the County would need almost twice the proposed volume, or almost six million gallons, to adequately flush the lines. ITID's analysis of the flushing protocol is flawed, however, because it assumes a constant flow in all segments of the pipe, which is not practical. In order to maintain the flushing velocity of three feet per second, the County will introduce water into the Transmission Line at three separate locations, resulting in a more constant flow velocity throughout the Transmission Line. In this way, it can maintain the proper velocity as the lines transition from a 20-inch to 30-inch to 36-inch pipe. The County has flushed other lines in the past using this protocol and has had no problems. This flushing protocol would only be in effect from one to three years. The County estimates that the necessary volumes to maintain a two-feet-per-second velocity in the 20- inch line would be reached in about one year. The 30-inch line should have sufficient flows sometime in 2008. These estimates are based on the signed agreements the County has with other utilities in the area to take their flows into the Transmission Line. Because of these safeguards, the Transmission Line will not accumulate solids that will cause undesirable impacts while flow is less than two feet per second. Other Requirements The construction and operation of the Transmission Line will not result in the release or disposal of sewage or residuals without providing proper treatment. It will not violate the odor prohibition in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-600.400(2)(a). It will not result in a cross- connection as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 550.200. The construction or operation of the Transmission Line will not result in the introduction of stormwater into the Line, and its operation will not result in the acceptance of non-domestic wastewater that has not been properly pretreated. If constructed and permitted, the Transmission Line will be operated so as to provide uninterrupted service and will be maintained so as to function as intended. The record drawings will be available at the Department's district office and to the County operation and maintenance personnel. Finally, concerns by the individual Petitioners that the County may not restore their property to its original condition after construction is completed are beyond the scope of this proceeding. At the hearing, however, the Deputy Director of the Water Utilities Department represented that the County would cooperate with the individual property owners to assure that these concerns are fully addressed. Reasonable Assurance The County has provided the Department with reasonable assurance, based on plans, test results, installation of equipment, and other information that the construction and installation of the Transmission Line will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution in contravention of the Department's standards.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying all Petitions and issuing Permit No. 0048923-017-DWC. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 18th day of October, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a well-drilling contractor, holding WWC License #7015. Ridge Properties, Inc., which is the developer of Sundance Ridge, hired Respondent to construct private water wells on lots as they were developed in preparation for the construction of residences. On December 5, 1991, Respondent prepared a completion report for a well that he constructed at lot 64 of Sundance Ridge. The report indicates that Respondent installed well casing to a depth of 63 feet, which was two feet into "hard brown rock," as described on the report. The report discloses that the static water table was encountered 78 feet below the top of the well casing. As indicated in the report, Respondent sent no cuttings to Petitioner for this well-drilling job. On April 24, 1992, Respondent prepared a completion report for a well that he constructed at lot 51 of Sundance Ridge. The report indicates that Respondent installed well casing to a depth of 67 feet, which was 12 feet into "bedrock," as described on the report. The report discloses that the static water level was encountered 76 feet below the top of the well casing. As indicated in the report, Respondent sent no cuttings to Petitioner for this well-drilling job. There is no completion report for the well that Respondent constructed at lot 62 of Sundance Ridge. However, based on information from the well tag, Respondent constructed this well on December 5, 1991, and its casing depth does not reach the static water level. There is no completion report for another well on Marshal Road that Respondent constructed for Shamrock Construction. However, Petitioner admits that Respondent has corrected any problems that may have existed regarding this well. The three wells that Respondent drilled for Ridge Properties, Inc. produced water with a substantial amount of particulate matter. The presence of particulate matter, which was largely sand, was attributable to the fact that Respondent failed to drive the well casings below the static water level in these three wells. Contrary to his claims, Respondent did not encounter chert in drilling these three wells or driving the casings for them. Chert is a dense consolidated mass of rock, often silica. It is more typically found in Alachua and Marion Counties than it is in the Sorrento area of Lake County, which is the location of these three wells. Respondent never repaired the three wells in question. Repair would have required driving the casing deeper until it extends below the static water table. Respondent never obtained a variance for driving the casings to a depth shallower than the depth of the static water level. On April 1, 1993, Petitioner issued warning notices for the three Sundance Ridge wells, plus the Shamrock Construction well. When Respondent failed to make the necessary repairs within the time allowed by the warning notices, Petitioner issued a Notice of Violation on August 13, 1993. The Notice of Violation alleges that the casings do not extend to or below the static water level in the four wells and that Respondent has received four warning notices over the "recommended repetitive total." The Notice of Violation seeks an administrative penalty of $2000, costs and attorneys' fees of $186.40, and correction of the violations within 30 days of entry of a final order and filing of completion reports within 15 additional days. Paragraph 15 of the Notice of Violation explains: This Notice of Violation (NOV) will become a Final Order of [Petitioner] and may be used in further disciplinary actions against your water well contractor's license if you do not comply with it, or do not timely request a hearing pursuant to Section 373.333, F.S., and Rule 17-531.400, F.A.C., as explained in this Notice of Rights. The Notice of Violation warns: [Petitioner] is not barred by the issuance of this NOV from maintaining an independent action in circuit court with respect to the alleged violations. Ten days after issuing the Notice of Violation, Petitioner issued a Technical Staff Report, which states that Respondent's water well contractor's license had been placed on six months' probation in 1991 and again in 1992. After Respondent completed repairs, the probationary status was removed in October 1992. The Technical Staff Report states that, since October 1992, Petitioner has cited Respondent for six additional violations of Chapter 40C-3. Two violations were reportedly "resolved." According to the report, Respondent "has attempted to correct the violations at the other four sites, but has been unable to drive the well casing any deeper.. The Technical Staff Report acknowledges that a Notice of Violation was mailed Respondent on August 13, 1993, due to noncompliance with the four warning notices. The Technical Staff Report mentions that Respondent has been issued 23 citations for violations of Chapter 40C-3, including 13 for not extending the casing to or below the static water level. The Technical Staff Report recommends that Respondent be placed on six months' suspension, during which time Respondent shall correct the deficient wells. If repaired by the end of the six months' suspension, then Respondent's license would be placed on six months' probation. During the term of probation, Respondent would be required to notify Petitioner's staff 48 hours in advance of beginning construction of any well so that staff could be present to ensure that the wells were lawfully constructed. The Technical Staff Report, which was mailed to Respondent on or about August 23, 1993, gives him an opportunity to request a formal hearing. On September 10, 1993, Respondent demanded a hearing by letter, which Petitioner received September 13. The demand references a "request for a formal hearing on notice of violation and order for corrective action," which is a reference to the Notice of Violation. The demand states that Respondent received notice of Petitioner's action by certified letter on "August 13, 1993." The demand adds: [Petitioner's] determination in the above matter can destroy [Respondent's] ability to earn a living in his profession, cause [Respondent] to lose his current employment, cause to continue extensive physical and emotional stress exerted on the above [Respondent] by [Petitioner], and cause the unjust ruination of his reputation in the community that he resides. Treating the demand for hearing as applicable to the Notice of Violation, but not the Technical Staff Report, Petitioner referred only the Notice of Violation to the Division of Administrative Hearings and immediately proceeded to suspend Respondent's license, based on his failure to file a separate demand for a hearing on the Technical Staff Report.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order suspending Respondent's license commencing from the effective date of the suspension imposed pursuant to the Technical Staff Report and ending six months thereafter, without regard to whether Respondent has repaired the three Sundance Ridge wells or ever repairs them. ENTERED on April 20, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on April 20, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry Dean Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 Attorney Clare E. Gray St. Johns River Water Management District P.O. Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 C. L. Hicks 1935 CR 470 W. Okahumpka, FL 34762
