The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) should grant the Petitioner's applications, filed under F.A.C. Rule 10D-6.045, for variances from the F.A.C. Rule 10D-6.046(1)(c) requirement that on-site treatment and disposal systems (OSTDS's) be placed no closer than 200 feet from public drinking water wells serving a facility with a sewage flow of more than 2,000 gallons per day (gpd).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Joseph DiGerlando, owns three lots (1, 2 and 26) in the San Remo subdivision in Hillsborough County, which was platted in 1977. There is a public water well located between lots 1, 2 and 26. The well serves the entire San Remo subdivision, a 55-lot residential development having a total sewage flow much greater than 2,000 gallons per day (gpd) (although the sewage flow from homes built on lots 1, 2 and 26 can be expected to total no more than approximately 1350 gpd.) There is no way for the Petitioner to construct an on-site sewage treatment disposal system (OSTDS) on each of the three lots so that no part of any OSTDS will be closer than 200 feet from the San Remo well, measured horizontally across the ground surface to the well head. Measuring horizontally across the ground surface to the well head: an OSTDS on lot 1 could be placed no farther than 156 feet from the well; an OSTDS on lot 2 could be placed no farther than 184 feet from the well; according to drawings in the Petitioners' application, an OSTDS on lot 26 could be placed no farther than approximately 185 feet from the well. (Although lot 26 is larger than the others, it is contiguous to a surface water body, and the required setback from the surface water body decreases the area available for siting an OSTDS on the lot. The evidence was not clear exactly how far an OSTDS on lot 26 would be from the San Remo well.) HRS concedes: (1) that requiring 200-foot setbacks from the San Remo well will place the Petitioner under a hardship that was not caused intentionally by his own actions; and (2) that no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of sewage on his lots 1, 2 and 26. (It is not clear how or why HRS determined that utilization of a joint OSTDS to serve all three lots through the imposition of cross-easements on the lots would not be a reasonable alternative to at least one or two of the variance applications.) The San Remo well, which is 400 feet deep, has a steel casing from the surface of the well to 100 feet below the ground surface. The steel casing prevents the entry of ground water into the well above the bottom of the casing. If the distances between the proposed OSTDS's and the San Remo well were measured diagonally, through the ground, from the proposed OSTDS's to the bottom of the steel casing of the well: the proposed OSTDS on lot 1 would be 185 feet from the well; the proposed OSTDS on lot 2 would be 209 feet from the well; and the proposed OSTDS on lot 26 would be even farther from the well. (The evidence was not clear exactly how much farther.) In fact, due to the draw-down effect of the well, the path groundwater would travel from the proposed OSTDS's to the bottom of the steel casing of the San Remo well would curve upward somewhat from, and be somewhat longer than, the diagonal line running directly between those two points. (The evidence is not clear exactly how much longer the curved path would be.) If the distances between the proposed OSTDS's and the San Remo well were measured first horizontally across the ground surface to the well head and then vertically down to the bottom of the steel casing of the well: the proposed OSTDS on lot 1 would be 253 feet from the well; the proposed OSTDS on lot 2 would be 281 feet from the well; and the proposed OSTDS on lot 26 would be even farther from the well. (Since the bottom of the OSTDS's will be three feet below the ground surface, the vertical component of the measurement is only 97 feet instead of the full 100 feet between the well head and the bottom of the casing.) When applying the HRS rules on distances required between OSTDS's and existing public water wells, HRS measures from the OSTDS horizontally across the ground surface to the well. The evidence was that HRS's method of measurement is consistent both with the methods used by the federal EPA and with the scientific data on which the technical advisory board based the distances in the HRS rules. The Petitioner's expert witness testified that there is a 17-foot thick layer of sand and clay between 53 and 70 feet below the ground surface in the vicinity of the San Remo well and that the sand and clay layer would prevent contamination from the OSTDS's from reaching the bottom of the steel casing of the well. (He also testified that is a white lime rock layer between 70 and 90 feet below the ground surface and inferred that the white lime rock layer would add some degree of protection.) The opinions of the Petitioner's expert are accepted. Petitioner's expert is a civil, sanitary and environmental engineer, not a geologist or hydrogeologist; however, his experience is in the area of wastewater treatment and disposal is extensive. Meanwhile, HRS presented no competent evidence whatsoever to contradict the Petitioner's expert. The Petitioner proposes to use Norweco Singulair Bio-Kinetic Waste Water Treatment Systems. These systems treat waste better than a standard septic tank system. Instead of the single septic tank, they have three distinct chambers: first, a retreatment chamber; second, an aeration chamber to reduce biological oxygen demand (BOD) and total dissolved solids (TDS); and, finally, a clarification or filter chamber that further reduces BOD and TDS. With the proposed systems, BOD and TDS will be reduced to approximately a fourth of the BOD and TDS levels that would enter the drainfield from a septic tank system. In addition, unlike in a septic tank system, the proposed systems utilize chlorine tablets in conjunction with the clarification chamber to kill bacteria and viruses. It is found that the evidence presented in this case, taken as a whole (and in particular in the absence of any competent evidence to contradict the credible opinions of the Petitioner's expert) was sufficient to prove that the proposed OSTDS's would not adversely affect the health of members of the public. Except for a fleeting reference in its Proposed Recommended Order, HRS has not taken the position that the Petitioner's proposed OSTDS's will significantly degrade the groundwater or surface waters. The reference in the Proposed Recommended Order would seem to reflect that HRS's concern about the impact of the Petitioner's proposed OSTDS's on groundwater quality is limited to its public health concerns.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) enter a final order granting the Petitioner's applications for variances, on the condition that the Petitioner utilizes the proposed Norweco Singulair Bio- Kinetic Waste Water Treatment Systems. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-6483 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted but conclusion of law, subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. 3.-6. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as to "significantly degrade the groundwater or surface waters"; HRS did not make this an issue, except with respect to public health concerns. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. However, accepted that HRS presented no evidence sufficient to support a finding on the issue. See Section 120.58(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1994). Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as to "relevant criteria"; not proven and as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted but conclusion of law, subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. 3.-7. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as contrary to facts found and as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (As found, HRS did not contend that the Petitioner's OSTDS's would "significantly degrade the groundwater or surface waters." HRS only raised this issue with respect to public health concerns.) 10.-12. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (These were hearsay statements that were not sufficient to support findings as to the matters asserted. See Section 120.58(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1994).) COPIES FURNISHED: Raymond R. Deckert, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 4000 W. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33614 Nelson D. Blank, Esquire Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin Frye, O'Neill & Mullis, P.A. 2700 Barnett Plaza 101 E. Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33601-1102 Robert L. Powell Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Kim Tucker, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Petitioner was responsible for maintaining a sanitary nuisance on his property by piping sewage onto the ground from the septic system and by ignoring the need to repair a failed septic system; and whether the Department of Health properly issued a citation to Petitioner for violation of Sections 386.041(1)(a) and (b).
Findings Of Fact In November, 1995, a Department of Health, Volusia County Health Department employee, Sherry Rodriguez, was performing a sanitary survey of the water system at 479 Maytown Road, Osteen, Florida, when she observed sewage on the ground. The property in questions consists of a large, two-story house which contains rental units. The house is provided water by a well on the property and sewage is handled by an onsite septic system. On November 6, 1995, Ms. Rodriguez issued a Notice of Violation for the sanitary nuisance which stated that the violation must be corrected by November 20, 1995. The septic system was not repaired by November 20, 1995. Ms. Rodriguez subsequently issued a Notice of Intended Action (NIA), giving Petitioner a deadline of December 5, 1995, to repair his system. When Ms. Rodriguez went to the property to serve the NIA, she observed PVC pipe on the ground, with one end at the septic tank and the other at the read of the property. Sewage was on the ground at the end of the pipe. Ms. Rodriguez took photographs of the pipe before she departed. Agency employee, Britt Williams, visited Petitioner's property on November 1, 1996, and observed sewage on the ground. Mr. Williams issued a follow-up NIA to Petitioner on January 30, 1997, which required Petitioner to repair the septic system by February 3, 1997. Petitioner did not obtain a repair permit to correct the violations, therefore, Mr. Williams issued a citation for the violations of sewage on the ground and having an improperly maintained septic system.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered affirming the civil penalty against Petitioner and requiring Petitioner to repair his septic system. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: John Gee 1245 Gee Whiz Lane Osteen, Florida 32764 Charlene J. Petersen, Esquire Department of Health 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Building 6 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Dr. James Howell, Secretary Department of Health Building 6, Room 306 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's request for variance should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns an undeveloped parcel of land in Palm Beach, County which is zoned industrial and on which he intends to construct a storage building to house and repair farm equipment. To provide sewage treatment at the site, Petitioner had designed an on site sewage disposal system and applied for a septic tank permit which was denied as was his variance request. The closest public sewage treatment plant to the property is over five miles from the site, and the closest private treatment is approximately three miles from the subject site. Petitioner has no easement to either site if capacity were available and if he chose to connect. However, the proof did not show capacity at either site. Although Petitioner does not intend to pollute the groundwater, the proof demonstrated that waste disposal into a septic tank from the maintenance and repair of farm equipment could result in the disposition of prohibited hazardous waste into the groundwater. Alternative methods of waste disposal are available which would properly dispose of the waste and, yet, protect the groundwater from contamination by hazardous waste. Such systems include certain aerobic treatment units and package plants. The monetary costs of these systems is greater than the septic tank proposal; however, the proof did not demonstrate that the cost was prohibitive or a hardship. Although the hardship, if any, caused by the denial of the variance was not caused by Petitioner, the proof failed to demonstrate lack of reasonable alternatives of waste disposal and the absence of adverse effect of the operation to the groundwater. Additionally, the proof failed to establish the ameliorating conditions of soil, water table or setback conditions although a survey of the property dated September 3, 1985, indicates that the subject parcel was not platted. Accordingly, the denial of the variance was proper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the variance. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of July 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of July 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Lee B. Sayler, Esquire 50 South U.S. Highway One Suite 303 Jupiter, Florida 33477 Peggy G. Miller, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 111 Georgia Avenue Third Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue for consideration in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to an on-site sewage disposal system ("OSDS") permit authorizing installation of an OSDS on property which Petitioner owns near the Suwanee River in Dixie County, Florida, in accordance with Section 8l.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an owner, by joint tenancy, of real property located in Dixie County, Florida, more particularly described as part of Government Lot 1, Section 4, Township 11 South, Range 13 East; closely proximate to the Suwanee River at a location generally known as "New Pine Landing". The surrounding property is characterized by homes and mobile home,;, which have OSDS's installed and operating. The subject property has no improvements constructed thereon, although the Petitioner intends the placement of a 12X60 foot mobile home, containing two bedrooms and one bathroom. There is no OSDS of any type installed on the property at the present time. The subject property is approximately 18.5 acres in size. It was purchased on January 17, 1990, but the property in question has never been platted. On March 20, 1990, the Petitioner made application for an OSDS permit for the aforesaid property, which was denied by the Respondent's letter of denial dated April 23, 1990. The Petitioner was not afforded the opportunity to pursue an informal variance application through the variance procedure set up by the statute and rules cited hereinbelow. Rather, the Respondent, in its denial letter, indicated that, because of the perceived effect of the Governor's Executive Order, discussed hereinbelow, no variances were being granted and the variance procedure would be "bypassed" in favor of affording the Petitioner a formal administrative hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings concerning the permit denial. The Petitioner testified generally concerning the character of the property in question and the general nature of the terrain and vegetation. The property is characterized by a wetland or swampy area at one end of the property and, in the area of the proposed installation site, the ground elevation is higher, with a benchmark elevation of 8.8 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"), as established by Herbert H. Raker, certified land surveyor, and depicted by Petitioner's Exhibit 2 in evidence. The Petitioner offered no testimony concerning the ground water levels, other than to say that at one point in time, he dug a three-foot-deep hole on the subject property near the septic tank installation site and observed no water in the hole. His testimony did not indicate at what season of the year the observation was made nor whether conditions were wet or dry at the time. The only concrete evidence concerning ground water level at this installation site was that offered by the Respondent, which indicates that the ground water level at the time of the site evaluation was 42 inches below the surface of the property in question at the proposed installation site and, through observation of "mottling1, of the soil, indicating the presence of dampness, that the wet season water table is 12 inches below the surface of the property. Likewise, the Petitioner professed to have no knowledge of the ten-year flood elevation for the property. The Respondent's evidence, derived from materials submitted by the Petitioner in furtherance of the application, consisting of a report from the Suwanee River Water Management District, establishes that the ten-year flood elevation is 14 feet above MSL for Suwanee River Mile 29, which corresponds to the location of the subject property. The property is also located within the regulatory floodway administered by the Suwanee River Water Management District. Rule 10D-6.047, Florida Administrative Code, mandates that before a mounded system for on-site sewage disposal can be installed, a certification by a registered engineer would be necessary to determine that installation of such a mounded system would not raise the level of the "base flood". No such engineering testimony or evidence has been offered in this proceeding, however. The Petitioner further testified in a general sense that it would be a hardship not to be able to) install the OSDS on the property, given the money paid to purchase the property and the intent by the Petitioner to use it for a residence. The Petitioner has no use for the property without being able to use it for a residence. The Petitioner, however, did not offer any testimony or evidence concerning alternatives to installing the proposed OSDS, nor did the Petitioner establish that installation of such a system or an alternative system would pose no adverse health effects on the Petitioner or members of the general public nor that it would pose no degradation to the surface or ground waters involved for purposes of the Petitioner establishing entitlement to a permit or a variance It should be remembered, however, that the Petitioners were not accorded the opportunity to avail themselves of the variance procedure because of the Respondent's interpretation of the Governor's Executive Order 90-14, which it opines precludes it from granting any variances, or permits for OSDS within the ten-year flood elevation. This leads to its advising the Petitioner that to apply for a variance in this instance would be futile. The Governor's Executive Order, which incorporated the "Suwanee River Task Force" recommendation to preclude such system; beneath the ten-year flood elevation was entered on January 17 1990. The Respondent has, in effect, interpreted that Executive Order as precluding it from exercising its discretion to entertain and grant or deny variance applications.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for an OSDS permit without prejudice to the Petitioner applying for and seeking a variance from the statutory and rule requirements related to permitting, for the reasons found and concluded above; and without prejudice to pursuing an OSDS permit application at a later time should the Petitioner become able to demonstrate that alternative methods of treatment and disposal of the sewage effluent in question can feasibly be performed within the bounds of the standards enunciated in the above-cited statutes and rules concerning on- site sewage disposal permitting. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 20th day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3120 Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-9. Accepted. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: None filed. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esquire General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Mary Ann White and Inman White P.O. Box 756 Old Town, Florida 32680 Frances Childers, Esquire Assistant District Legal Counsel HRS District 3 Legal Office 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of Respondent's witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Sometime prior to May 7, 1980, Petitioner, Wyatt S. Odom, applied for a permit to construct an individual sewage disposal facility for a houseboat on Drs Lake in Orange Park, Clay County Florida. By letter dated May 7, 1980, Ronald E. Bray, Sanitarian Supervisor for the Clay County Health Department, advised Petitioner that his permit application to construct an individual sewage disposal facility for a houseboat was being denied since the area of Petitioner's property was approximately 26,250 square feet2 A survey of the subject property revealed that the area is 19,890 square feet, which is of course less than one-half acre. (Respondent's Exhibit 2) (0.60 acre) with three individual sewage disposal systems already existing on the property; the land was not suitable for the installation that would allow the proper and required drainfield absorption area and setback requirement could not be maintained due to the existence of buildings, waterlines, wells, a lake and existing sewage disposal facilities which, if permitted, would be in contravention of Chapters 10D-6.23(2) and 10D-6.24(2), (3), (4) and (6), Florida Administrative Code. Supervisor Bray and Sanitarian Thomas Haley, observed the subject property and the survey, and concluded that based on the size of Petitioner's property and the existing wells and septic tanks thereon, it was unsuitable for and could not satisfy the setback requirements and the required drainfield absorption area. (Testimony of Ronald E. Bray.) As stated, Petitioner did not appear at the hearing to contest the Respondent's denial of his permit application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's denial of Petitioner's request for a permit to construct an individual sewage disposal facility for a houseboat on Drs. Lake in Orange Park, Florida, be UPHELD. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of September, 1980. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Wyatt S. Odom P. O. Box 14735 Jacksonville, Florida 32210 Leo J. Stellwagen, Esquire Assistant District IV Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Post Office Box 2417F Jacksonville, Florida 32231 Alvin J. Taylor, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1321 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the August 30, 1988 application of Petitioner James R. Regan for a permit to operate a wastewater (sewage) treatment facility should be granted in that Petitioner has provided reasonable assurances that the operation of the facility will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution in contravention of Department of Environmental Regulation standards or rules.
Findings Of Fact The sewage treatment plant that is the focus of this proceeding is "Weakley Bayou, Inc.," a corporation. The real property upon which it is located is owned by the wife of James R. Regan. Despite corporate status, Weakley Bayou, Inc. has been operated at the option and control of James R. Regan since its inception in the early 1970's. The permit application here at issue was made in Mr. Regan's name, and he has been treated as if he were the corporation throughout all stages of the permit process. Mr. Regan brought the Petition for Formal Hearing in his own name. He was also accepted as the qualified representative for himself and the corporation. "Weakley Bayou, Inc." is an aerobic gravity flow wastewater treatment plant located in Escambia County. In 1988 James R. Regan applied for a renewal of the operating permit for the facility. The Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) issued an Intent to Deny on December 16, 1988, based on agency perceptions derived from observations, monitoring of Petitioner- generated reports, and grab samples, that the facility did not meet the requirements set down in Rule 17-6 F.A.C. Specifically, the Intent to Deny focused on the following problems: A reclaimed water sample taken on December 6, 1988 revealed the facility was exceeding BOD5 (Biological Oxygen Demand) and TSS (Total Suspended Solids) limits in violation of specific condition number 17 of Permit Number D017-71682. The BOD5 was 232.8 mg/l and TSS was 1,430 mg/l. The same sampling showed the facility was exceeding 200/100 ml for fecal coliform in violation of specific condition number 17 of permit number D017-71682 and Rule 17- 6.180(1)(b)4.d., Florida Administrative Code. The fecal coliform was 79,000/100 ml. Ground water monitoring samples show the levels of nitrates in excess of 10 mg/l in well #l on two out of last four quarterly samples, which is in violation of Rule 17- 6.040(4)(q) paragraph 4.2, Florida Administrative Code. During the inspection on December 6, 1988, the sludge blanket in the clarifier was overflowing the weirs, solids had accumulated in the chlorine contact chamber and percolation ponds in violation of Rule 17- 6.110(3) and 17-6.180(2) (e) , Florida Administrative Code. Auxiliary electrical power is not provided as required by Rule 17-6.040(4) (c) and 17-6.110(3), Florida Administrative Code. The applicant was notified March 14, 1988, that emergency power would be required. During the period (1984-1988) that Petitioner's sewage treatment plant has been permitted by DER, it has been periodically inspected and the Petitioner's self-generated reports have been monitored. From time to time after inspections, Petitioner has been notified of pollution and contaminant hazards or violations pursuant to agency standards, which hazards or violations required corrections in order to retain his permit. Among these hazards and violations have been noted large sewage spills, overflows, poor equipment condition, and substandard plant operation. In most instances, Petitioner cooperated with DER and at least attempted to adjust the plant's operation to conform to the notifications. However, as of December 15, 1988, DER notified Petitioner of the following problems with the plant: sludge blanket in the clarifier overflowing the weir, solids accumulation in the chlorine contact chamber, solids accumulation in both percolation ponds, no auxiliary power on the site, and high levels of nitrates (6.9 ppm) in Monitoring well -1. DER's test of an effluent grab sample tested BOD at 232.8 mg/L and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) at 1430 mg/L. That is, samples taken by DER during an inspection indicated excessive levels of TSS, BOD, and fecal coliform, in violation of Chapter 403 F.S. and Chapter 17-6 F.A.C. Mr. Regan admitted that for approximately four years, broken and unrepaired pipes and fittings at his plant had caused sewage spills or overflows of approximately eight thousand gallons of sewage sludge. He contended that the surface enrichment around Monitoring Well #1 was caused by a separation of a two-inch PVC skimmer line which was corrected in March 1988. Although Mr. Regan established that the leak in the pipe had been repaired, the evidence does not permit a finding that this enrichment was solely from that source, that it will dissipate over a reasonable time, or that it has not polluted the ground water. 1/ Thus, there is no reasonable assurance that fixing the leak, by itself, protects the environment. Over a period of time, Petitioner's own groundwater monitoring reports showed excessive nitrate levels and these have worsened since late 1988, according to witness Ray Bradburn. Petitioner contended that a grab sample is not as accurate as a composite sampling. Although DER witnesses concur in this contention of Petitioner with regard to grab samples generally, and although one DER witness suggested that part of the December 1988 grab sample reading by itself would not cause him to deny the permit, no credible evidence disputes the accuracy of the December 6, 1988 grab sample as a grab sample.2/ Petitioner admitted that it was and continues to be his conscious management decision to keep the plant's auxiliary gasoline powered engine locked away from the plant site so as to discourage theft and vandalism, and so as to discourage childish curiosity which might expose Petitioner to liability. He was reluctant to secure the engine on the premises as a hedge against emergency shutdowns of the plant. Mr. Regan, upon advice of outside engineers, has attempted to correct many of the cited errors and omissions. However, notwithstanding the DER's express disapproval of such a method, Mr. Regan has instructed his plant operators to curtail the input of air from the plant's blower to the sewage at night so as to create a "belching" effect designed to clear out certain wastes and thereby attempt denitrification in the clarifier. DER witnesses did not explain in any detail why Regan's belching procedure was unacceptable except that addition of an expensive denitrification unit was preferable and constituted a "reasonable assurance," whereas Mr. Regan's method had not been demonstrated to be successful in the past. Mr. Regan, who bears the burden of proof in these proceedings, did not demonstrate that his "belching" system was a reasonable assurance of denitrification or offer expert witnesses to support such a theory. This sewage treatment plant is subject to a Notice of Violation which became final on September 21, 1989. 3/
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order denying the pending permit application. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of January, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1990.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns a parcel of land in Palm Beach, County on which is housed Petitioner's paving and landscapping business and which is zoned for industrial use. Petitioner intends to install a manufactured building for use as an office. To provide sewage treatment for the bathroom of the office, Petitioner had a septic tank designed and applied for a septic tank permit which was denied as was its variance request. As a result of a complaint, Petitioner was inspected in August, 1988, by the Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resources Management and by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. Both inspections yielded citiations for soil contamination by oil and other hazardous waste. Petitioner represented that most of the infractions had been rectified by the date of the hearing in this matter and pledged full cooperation with the County and State rules. To oversee the operation of the business and assure that no further problems arose, Petitioner decided to establish its office on site. The closest sewage treatment plant is at full capacity and does not intend to provide service to the parcel in the near future. The adjoining properties are serviced by septic tanks. As such, the proof did not demonstrate that alternative methods of waste disposal were available to the site However, as part of its business operation, Petitioner does minor repair of its equipment on site and may include oil changes and other such services. Although Petitioner does not intend to pollute the groundwater and intends to use the proposed septic tank for office use only, the proof demonstrated that waste disposal into a septic tank from the maintenance and repair of its equipment could result in the disposition of prohibited hazardous waste into the groundwater. Further, the proof failed to demonstrate that the septic tank would be protected from use by those who handled the hazardous waste. Although the hardship, if any, caused by the denial of the variance was not caused by Petitioner and the proof failed to demonstrate reasonable alternatives of waste disposal, the potential for an adverse affect of the operation to the groundwater is great. Additionally, the proof failed to establish the ameliorating conditions of soil, water table or setback conditions or whether the property was platted prior to 1972. Accordingly, the denial of the variance was proper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the variance. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of July 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of July 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Hattie Parker 160 Toneypenna Drive Jupiter, Florida 33468 Peggy G. Miller, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 111 Georgia Avenue Third Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue presented for determination in this proceeding is whether the City of Bartow is entitled to a renewal of its operating permit to discharge into the Peace River effluent from its sewage treatment plant at the design capacity of 2.75 million gallons per day.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: Petitioner owns and operates a sewage treatment plant located at 2505 East Wabash Avenue in Bartow, which discharges effluent into the Peace River. On April 13, 1977, petitioner applied to respondent for a renewal of its operating permit, with the plant designed to treat and discharge a maximum of 2.75 million gallons of wastewater per day. By letter dated May 11, 1977, respondent notified petitioner of its intent to enter a final order denying the permit application for the reason that petitioner's proposed discharge at design capacity (2.75 mgd) would reduce the quality of the Peace River below its established classification. The respondent was specifically concerned with the deleterious impact which operation of petitioner's plant at design flow would have upon the level of dissolved oxygen in the Peace River. The May 11, 1977, letter also set a wasteload allocation which would have to be met by petitioner's plant in order not to depress the water quality of the Peace River below established levels. The allocations were later revised to provide for secondary treatment with nitrification. As noted above, these allocations were challenged in a Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, proceeding. By final order entered on September 14, 1978, it was held that said wasteload allocations did not constitute a rule within the meaning of Chapter 120 and thus were not subject to an attack of invalidity on the ground that they were not adopted pursuant to the rulemaking requirements of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. The Peace River is classified as a Class III water body. This classification contains criteria designed to promote the use of the water for recreational purposes, including swimming, and for the maintenance of a well- balanced fish and wildlife population. Rule 17-3.09, Florida Administrative Code. In Class III waters, the concentration of dissolved oxygen is not to average less than 5 milligrams per liter (mg/l) in a 24 hour period and should never be less than 4 mg/l. Water quality problems exist in the Peace River even where no sewage treatment plants are discharging, and the River does not consistently meet the dissolved oxygen standards for Class III waters. At low flow conditions, the dissolved oxygen content in the River ranges from two to three mg/l up to six to seven mg/l. Sewage treatment plant effluent contains components known as total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5). When these components decay they use up free dissolved oxygen, thereby depressing dissolved oxygen levels. In order to maintain the desirable dissolved oxygen (DO) level, it is necessary to control the amount of oxygen demanding substances such as TKN and BOD5 entering the receiving waters. The limitation on the concentration of such effluent components which must be met to assure that water quality standards will not be depressed below the level set for a given classification are known as wasteload allocations. Wasteload allocations are calculated by the respondent for each sewage treatment plant and industrial discharger which discharge effluent into the surface waters of the state. They are determined by use of a mathematical computer model based upon the physical, biological and chemical characteristics of the receiving body of water. In this case, the water system modeled was a segment of the Peace River extending from approximately 1.4 miles above petitioner's discharge point to approximately 46 miles downstream. The respondent conducted two surveys during low flow conditions in November of 1976. During low flow conditions, tributary input is minimal and nonpoint contributions are almost negligible. Point source contributions such as sewage treatment plants and industrial dischargers have their greatest impact during low flow conditions. Based upon the model run by respondent, respondent predicted that the operation of petitioner's plant at design capacity (2.75 mgd) would have a significant deleterious impact upon dissolved oxygen during low flow conditions. Specifically, respondent found that petitioner's discharge causes a DO drop of one milligram per liter at a point less than five miles from the petitioner's point of discharge and a drop from 2 1/2 mg/l to zero from mile ten through fifteen. Much of the testimony presented by the petitioner at the hearing was directed to the reliability of the data used by respondent in its model. Petitioner presented evidence tending to illustrate that nonpoint sources in the River's tributaries are the cause of the depressed DO in the Peace River. However, as noted above, the respondent's model utilized low flow conditions wherein such sources are almost nonexistent. The evidence further tends to illustrate that several coefficient values utilized by the respondent in its model resulted in a less restrictive allocation for petitioner. Even on the date of the hearing, Respondent's witnesses were satisfied and confident that there were no technical inaccuracies in the model used to develop the wasteload allocations for petitioner's plant. Petitioner adduced no conclusive evidence that any of the data or assumptions made by the respondent were erroneous. The petitioner's plant presently discharges about 1.44 million gallons of wastewater per day. This meant that Bartow is presently operating at approximately 50 percent of its capacity. On a monthly average, petitioner's treatment level is well in excess of ninety percent. Five years from now, in 1983, petitioner projects that its flow will approximate 1.7 million gallons per day. It is predicted that petitioner will not reach its design capacity of 2.75 million gallons per day for twenty years. As, noted above, the respondent's model predicted dissolved oxygen violations based upon the design capacity of 2.75 mgd, for which the petitioner applied. The respondent ran no intermediate low alternatives to predict how close to design capacity the petitioner could come before a violation occurred. Nor did respondent find present DO violations directly attributable to petitioner's discharge. In order to meet the wasteload allocations calculated by the respondent, it will be necessary for petitioner to make capital expenditures approximating $1,676,400.00. This figure is for a discharge of about 1.9 mgd. Such an expenditure would result in an increase to consumers of about 50 percent per month. The least expensive means of disposing of effluent would be for petitioner to recycle it to area phosphate mining companies, and not to discharge into the Peace River at all.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is recommended that the application of the petitioner to discharge effluent into the Peace River at design capacity (2.75 million gallons per day) be denied. It is further recommended that petitioner submit to the respondent a revised application which clearly indicates the amount of discharge expected for the permit period, and that respondent review said application anew. Respectfully submitted and entered this 4th day of October, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William S. Blakeman Campbell, Dunlap, Coward and Blakeman Post Office Box 916 Lakeland, Florida 33802 Louis F. Hubener Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Jay W. Landers Secretary, Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue This case concerns a dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent on the question of whether a certain underground utility operated by the Petitioner, namely a sanitary sewer force main, unreasonably interfered with the construction of an additional lane on the west side of Pasadena Avenue, between Huffman Way and Matthews Road in the City of South Pasadena, Florida. See Section 338.19, Florida Statutes. If it is found that the utility unreasonably interfered with the road construction, then a decision must be reached on the propriety of the $21,604.45 charge which the Respondent has placed against the Petitioner for the removal of the underground utility at the instigation of the Respondent. See Section 338.20, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner in this action, City of South Pasadena, is a municipal corporation located in Pinellas County, Florida. The Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Transportation, is a governmental department within the State of Florida, which has, among other functions, the construction and maintenance of roadways within the State. This dispute arises between the parties based upon the Department of Transportation's decision to construct an additional lane on the west side of Pasadena Avenue, between Huffman Way and Matthews Road in the City of South Pasadena, Florida, and the associated removal of an underground utility which was owned and operated by the City of South Pasadena. The underground utility was a sanitary sewer force main. In the absence of the removal of this utility by efforts of the Petitioner, the Respondent had those utilities removed at a cost of $21,604.45, of which $14,666.95 was acknowledged by the City as representing a reasonable cost of removing the utilities in question, should removal be found to be necessary. The remaining $6,937.50 is contested by the City as being an unreasonable cost of removal, even if it is determined that it was necessary to remove the utilities in the first instance. The facts reveal that as early as 1975, the Department of Transportation was desirous of knowing of the existence and whereabouts of underground utilities in the City of South Pasadena along Pasadena Avenue from Corey Causeway to the south to Park Street in the north. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 26, dated October 18, 1975, is a letter from the district utility engineer of the Respondent addressed to an official in the City of South Pasadena indicating possible improvements from Corey Causeway to Park Street along Pasadena Avenue and requesting information about the possible necessity to relocate or adjust utilities in the area of the proposed highway construction. Again, on July 1, 1977, in anticipation of the improvements to Pasadena Avenue in the aforementioned area, subject to funding, the Respondent requested the City to identify its utilities which might require relocation or readjustment in view of possible highway construction. A copy of correspondence addressed from the district utility engineer of the Respondent to a City official which deals with this subject matter may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 3, admitted into evidence. The private consulting engineers and architects employed by the City responded to this request by correspondence of August 22, 1977, a copy of which may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence, and it had attached certain drawings indicating the location of utilities; however, those drawings did not depict the subject sanitary sewer force main between Huffman Way and Matthews Road. The drawings may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. The sanitary sewer force main had been placed there sometime in the period of the years 1971 and 1972, and was to be found anywhere from ten (10) inches to three (3) feet underground. Both the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 18 and the Respondent's Exhibit No. 4 demonstrate that the sewer force main was within the "right-of-way" granted to the State of Florida, Department of Transportation. The two exhibits spoken to are site plans depicting the "right- of-way" limits. Although the parties entered into a relocation agreement for utilities along Pasadena Avenue above the disputed area (see Petitioner's Exhibit No. 17, admitted into evidence), they did not have an agreement to relocate the utility in dispute. By September 5, 1978, the Respondent had decided to undertake project No. 15590-3609 which was to construct a third lane from Huffman Way to Matthews Road along Pasadena Avenue, as a traffic aid. This is evidenced by Petitioner's Exhibit No. 14, correspondence carrying the date September 5, 1980, from the resident engineer of the Department of Transportation to the district design engineer in the Department. Final plans on the overall Pasadena Avenue work referred to the construction of the third lane premised upon available construction funds, as shown in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 19, admitted into evidence. On October 24, 1978, Pinellas County, Florida, in the person of the Board of County Commissioners, by resolution, authorized the utilization of secondary gas tax funds to extend the Pasadena Avenue project to accomplish the lane construction. A copy of this resolution may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15 admitted into evidence. This item's expansion of the lane was advertised for bid on March 28, 1979, and on September 15, 1980, construction was commenced. As stated before, at the time the construction began, there was no written agreement between the parties to remove the sanitary sewer force main and indeed the Department of Transportation was without knowledge of the existence of that utility, although employees of the Department of Transportation and their private contractor for the project had encountered a "valve box" associated with the sanitary sewer system prior to the commencement of construction and had concluded that the possibility existed that the "valve box" apparatus might be removed without hindering the road construction. There is some dispute between the parties on the question of the point in time at which the officials within the City of South Pasadena learned of the installation of the third lane. The Department of Transportation claims that a preconstruction conference dealing with the overall work to be done on Pasadena Avenue made mention of the disputed item as early as May 8, 1979, and that officials for the City were in attendance. Again at a meeting in March, 1980, the Department urges that the project at issue was discussed. The officials for the City dispute this, and after considering the testimony of both parties, it can not be concluded that the City specifically knew of the construction in March of 1980. Nonetheless, in late September, 1980, the City clearly became aware of the project and the Department of Transportation learned of the unpermitted sanitary sewer force main within the "right-of-way" between Huffman Way and Matthews Road in the third lane expansion of Pasadena Avenue. Sometime around September 23, 1980, the construction company's underdrain crew came in contact with the sanitary sewer line, and the line was found to be an interference with the road construction. At that point, the contractor removed the work crews and did not return until November 7, 1980, at a time when they worked through November 17, 1980, achieving job items that did not conflict with the sanitary sewer line. This work could have been achieved at anytime after September 23, 1980. The Department of Transportation gave the contractor the premission to remove the underground utility line on December 5, 1980, and in between December 10, 1980, and December 17, 1980, the utility line was removed. On December 22, 1980, the contractor resumed the construction of the roadway known as the south bound extension between Huffman Way and Matthews Road. Around September 25, 1980, the City of South Pasadena was made aware of the conflict between the road construction and the sewer main, and the fact that the road construction could not be completed without the removal of that line. Having discovered the conflict between the main and the road construction and the fact of the road construction between Huffman Way and Matthews Road, the City Council held a meeting on September 29, 1980, at which time discussion was held on the removal of the subject sanitary sewer force main and the cost to be incurred by the City. An excerpt of the minutes of that meeting may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, admitted into evidence, a copy. On September 30, 1980, the Mayor of the City of South Pasadena, by correspondence, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence, transmitted copies of resolutions Nos. 174 and 175 of the City of South Pasadena, copies of which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 4 and 5, respectively, and through these resolutions voiced the opposition of the City of South Pasadena to the road widening. On October 1, 1980, the consulting engineer for the City of South Pasadena wrote to the Department of Transportation indicating his opinion that the extension under construction was "an unnecessary extension of the present project." A copy of that correspondence may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. There followed correspondence from the Deputy District Engineer for operations of the Department of Transportation by a letter dated October 10, 1980, addressed to the Mayor of the City of South Pasadena. That correspondence acknowledges the receipt of Resolutions Nos. 174 and 175, and states the Department of Transportation's intention to proceed with the construction. A meeting was held between the City and the Department of Transportation on October 14, 1980, at which meeting the City indicated that they did not intend to pay the cost of relocating the sewer force main. On October 22, 1980, the Deputy District Engineer for the Department of Transportation, by correspondence with attachments, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10, admitted into evidence, wrote to the Mayor of the City and referred to the attached Sections 338.17 through 338.20, Florida Statutes, on the subject of the responsibility of the utility owner to relocated or adjust utilities that conflict with road improvements within a public "right- of-way." That correspondence asked that the City adjust, at the earliest date possible, the utilities in conflict to allow the conclusion of the construction. The correspondence closed by indicating the availability of officials within the Department of Transportation to meet with City officials to clarify the adjustments to be made. On October 31, 1980, the Petitioner was informed by registered letter that it was directed to remove, relocate or adjust the subject utility and granted twenty (20) days to request a hearing on the question of that disposition of the utility, and by doing so alluding to the opportunity for hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings. Finally, the correspondence noted that failure to request a hearing would promote action by the Department of transportation. By correspondence dated October 31, 1980, a copy of which is admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9, the Mayor of the City of South Pasadena wrote the Department of Transportation and stated that the City of South Pasadena would not take any action to remove the force main, for reason that there was no budgetary provision for that expense in the City's 1980-81 budget. This lead to the removal of the underground utilities by the contractor employed by the Department of Transportation to construct the road improvements. The underground utility was an unreasonable interference found in the "right-of-way" at the location where the additional lane was being constructed between Huffman Way and Matthews Road on Pasadena Avenue and the necessity to remove it was not discovered until the project was underway, and in that respect, its removal was coincidental and not incidental to the construction. It having been determined that it was necessary to remove the utility, there remains in contest the $6,937.50 charge for removal. These removal charges are reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7, a copy of the statement of charges drawn by the contractor and forwarded to the Department of Transportation. On the second page of that document, which was admitted into evidence, are found Items 2, 3 and 4. Item 2 is a charge in the amount of $4,000.00 entered by the contractor due to the necessity to stop the paving operation when they encountered the sanitary line, and to remove the asphalt crew and, in turn, bring the asphalt crew back to conclude the work. Item 3, constitutes a charge of $937.50 for the rental of barricades from September 23, 1990, to November 6, 1980, and from November 17, 1980, to December 18, 1980. Item 4 speaks of setback charges caused by "long delay and waiting for the City of S. Pasadena and the DOT to resolve the force main matter-2 months field office expense and job overhead $1,000.00" and indicates cost of $2,000.00. Other than this summary explanation of the charge found in the document, no other indication was given as to the meaning of Item No. 4 and consequently, its true meaning is not understood.
Recommendation Based upon a full consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached herein and in keeping with the terms and conditions of Sections 338.19 and 338.20, Florida Statutes, it is RECOMMENDED: That the charges as set out in the Conclusions of Law section of this Recommended Order, which have been allowed, be upheld as an assessment against the City of South Pasadena, Florida, occasioned by the necessity to remove a sanitary sewer force main along Pasadena Avenue between Huffman Way and Matthews Road. 3/ DONE and ENTERED this 31st of March, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1981.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the Civil/Sanitary Engineer Examination on April 15, 1988. He received a failing grade with an original score of 41 raw points. Since that time, he has been awarded an additional 3 raw points and has a score of 44 raw points. A passing grade is 48 raw points and is, therefore, 4 raw points from passage. Petitioner contests the score given him on three of the problems on the examination. They are problems 120, 122, and 421. He did not have the test booklet he used at the examination available to him at the hearing. Though he recognizes that the grader who assessed his scores was not allowed to look at his test booklet during the scoring process, many of his calculations for problems 120 and 122 were made in it. Problem 120 requires the examinee to compute 6 stations and the coordinates of the 6 points of the two involved curves on a railroad spur line. Petitioner computed the six points to what he considers an acceptable tolerance and had also started to compute the coordinates as required by Requirement (b). His solution page for Requirement (a) of this problem reflects only the six points, of which 5 are marked incorrectly, and bears the grader comment, "show computations." The second page, relating to Requirement (b), on which the first 3 calculations are marked as incorrect, reflects only cursory calculations and bears the grader comment, "Incomplete." Petitioner was awarded a score of "4" for his solution to problem 120. According to the National Council of Engineering Examiners Standard Scoring Plan Outline, the guideline relating to "4", "BORDERLINE UNQUALIFIED", reads: Applicant has failed to demonstrate adequate knowledge in one or more categories. For example, approach may be correct but the solution is unreasonable. Significant constraints may have been overlooked. Solution is unacceptable but marginally so. The scorer's remarks concerning Petitioner's solution state: A solution which fails to demonstrate an adequate understanding of horizontal curve geometry as a result of logic errors, math errors, and failure to complete several parts. According to Petitioner, he used the Civil Engineering Reference Manual in his calculations. He also contends that Requirement (a) is far more important to the problem than is Requirement (b). Once the former is achieved, it is easy to achieve the latter. Admittedly, Petitioner did not complete Requirement (b) and, therefore, does not expect credit for it. However, he contends that having completed Requirement (a) correctly, he should have been awarded more than 40% credit. Petitioner also contends that the use of the term, "Not To Scale" in the test problem was deliberately deceptive which was not necessary to test engineers at this level of achievement. In this case, Petitioner contends the lack of availability of the examination test booklet in which he did many of his calculations hinders him in demonstrating the correctness of his solution. These computations, he contends, would show his computations in Requirement (a) were "close enough" to be graded correctly and without these computations, the scorer would not know if he did them or merely copied the answers. He would not, also, have any way of knowing if Petitioner has knowledge of horizontal curve geometry. Mr. Lippert, a licensed registered engineer testifying on behalf of Petitioner, believed that the answers to the problems to be more important than the computations. In a practical application he may be correct. However, in the instant case Petitioner is a candidate for certification as a Professional Engineer and was being examined on his qualifications for that status. In such a situation, it is not at all unreasonable to expect the candidate to demonstrate his method of arriving at his solution to demonstrate his understanding of the concept sufficiently to indicate his answer was neither copied nor a fluke. Since the candidate is seeking a higher degree of recognition, a requirement that he demonstrate a higher degree of professional skill is not unreasonable. Under the fact situation demonstrated here, the award of a "4" as a grade for Petitioner's solution to this problem is appropriate. In Problem 122, the candidate was required to use and show equations for his calculations of (a), the average maximum and minimum sanitary wastewater flows expected, in gallons per day, for the total complex in issue; (b), the theoretical full flow capacity and velocity with no surcharge; and (c), depth and velocity of flow for the estimated maximum flow rate. The candidate was instructed to conclude, if possible, that the sewer is not overloaded. The problem deals with a troublesome wastewater disposal system for a retirement community of 490 units with a population of 1,475. Here, Petitioner was awarded an a score of "8" and feels he should have received more. As to (a), Petitioner cited in his answer the reference manual he was using, a manual used by many engineers and one accepted in the profession, yet the grader apparently felt that the use of only the title was insufficient. He wanted the author's name, publisher, date of publication, and other salient information. Petitioner felt this was unnecessary in light of the well known status of the book. In (b), the problem calls for 10" UCP pipe. All pipe, depending upon the material from which constructed, has a different diameter. Petitioner's solution was marked at least partially incorrect because he assumed the interior diameter of the pipe as .83' when the problem stated the interior diameter was 10". Petitioner contends that even with that unnecessary calculation based on an incorrect assumption, his solution of 2.295 feet/second velocity was sufficiently close to the grader's solution of 2.35 feet/second to be marked correct. Similarly, Petitioner contends his velocity in (c) was within a "tolerable" margin and that his conclusions is "OK". While the grader considered his method in this section as "OK", he marked the calculation almost entirely wrong. This may be related to the formula used by Petitioner in (b) which, he admits, is wrong. He contends he must have brought the wrong number over from his calculations which he accomplished in his test booklet. This booklet is not now available, but, in any case, would not have been seen by the scorer. Petitioner also claims that the gallons per capita per day figure of 100 is the standard "everyone uses" to calculate problems involving sewage. Here, because he was taking an examination, he used a figure of 112.5 gallons per day, a compromise between 100 and 125, which he took from the reference manual without citing page number from which taken. Consequently, he contends the grader's comment that his figure is too high is in error but even if it was too high, he ran the calculations correctly and should be given full credit. It is his position that in a case like this, error on this high side, which would give greater capacity, is better than being short. Being correct would be even better, and Petitioner's solutions was not correct. In the scoring plan outline for this problem, an "8" is described as: QUALIFIED; All categories satisfied, errors attributable to misread tables or calculating devices. Errors would be corrected by routine checking, Results reasonable though not correct. and a "9" is described as: QUALIFIED: All categories satisfied, correct solutions but excessively conservative in choice of working values; or presentation lacking in completeness of equations, diagrams, orderly steps in solution, etc. The scorer's comments were: CQ. Fundamentals are correct. Solutions are basically correct and complete but contain math, unit, or tolerance errors making answers unacceptable; or the record is different, or in combination. Here, Petitioner contends that his ultimate solution, only .05 feet/second off in velocity is so close that the error is insignificant. It is close but the difference between an "8" and a "9" lies in the correctness of the ultimate solutions. "Close" is not "correct" and Petitioner's errors are not attributable to misread equations or devices but to his own improper assumptions. Because his calculations were done in a test booklet which is not now available it cannot be determined where the error originates which caused (c) to be marked as it was. Under the circumstances shown here, the score of "8" awarded is not inappropriate. Problem 421 calls for the candidate to find the required volume in cubic feet of on site storage so that post development flows on the parcel of land in question do not exceed the pre-development flows to the existing stream for the 25 year frequency rainfall. Petitioner determined the pre and post development numbers correctly but did the retention area in the old fashioned way resulting in his solution equating to 1/2 of the correct solution. The grader indicated that Petitioner's "procedures [sic] [were] in error here." Petitioner has a one page solution to the problem and got credit for his answer of "4.22" to the first stage of the problem as well as his answer to the second part. He admits, however, that his third step was wrong and that threw the problem answer off. He contends, however, that he was undergraded when awarded a "4" and while he admits to not deserving a "6", feels he should have received a "5". Grades for this problem were awarded on a 2-4-6-8-10 point scale. A "5" was not an authorized score. The scoring plan for this problem describes a "4" as: BORDERLINE UNQUALIFIED; Applicant has failed to demonstrate adequate knowledge in one or more categories. For example, approach may be correct but the solution is unreasonable. Significant constraints may have been overlooked. Solution is unacceptable but marginally so. A grade of "6" is described as: MINIMALLY QUALIFIED: All categories satisfied at a minimally adequate level. Here the scorer indicated: Pre and post calculation OK. An attempt at detention calculation made but no significant progress toward conclusion. Fails to demonstrate knowledge necessary to calculate detention as existing. Detention calculations fail to demonstrate knowledge of hydrograph [sic] nature of storage calculations. Only one data point obtained. The comments of the grader on the Petitioner's answer sheet clearly indicate that the answer given was incorrect and that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate adequate knowledge of the procedures in issue. Since there is no provision made to award any grade between "4" and "6", and since Petitioner's answer clearly, and by his own admission, does not qualify for a "6", the awarded score of "4" is appropriate. Based on the above, it is found that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the scores given him on the problems in issue were incorrect, unsupported, or inappropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered affirming the score awarded to Petitioner on questions 120, 122, and 421, respectively, of the Civil/Sanitary Engineer Examination administered to him on April 15, 1988. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of April, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard A. Smally Longboat Key, Incorporated 501 Bay Isles Road Longboat Key, Florida 33548 H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
